Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
my $0.02
Women in Chicago dress better than women in Boston.
Men in Boston dress Better than men in Chicago.
Women in NYC blow both Chicago's and Boston's doors off on fashion.
Wear 1 Billion X more dresses in the summer. Same as N. Jersey.
Men in NYC dress stockbroker, or a little, say metrosexual. Jersey they dress normal.
If you want high fashion and people who flash their wealth, you're better off in NYC or LA than Boston.
Boston is great for families, for people who work in certain professional industries (biotech, high tech, medicine, higher ed, mutual funds, etc.), and for access to a variety of nature + nearby cities. It also offers a more balanced pace of life than a global city or a rural community. You can live in a walk-able neighborhood with decent public transit, a dense inner core, historic architecture, and access to good jobs; and, in this same neighborhood, you can go to a nearby park and enjoy complete privacy (good luck having that on a nice day in Central Park).
Based on your dissatisfaction with Chicago, that you described, I do not think Boston will give you what you are looking for. NYC might be a better fit. NYC is the nation's center for fashion, television, marketing, advertising, finance, and numerous other industries. If you are looking for go-getter types who work over 80 hours a week, the Big Apple has entire communities of these sorts of people. There are also models and super wealthy people running around Manhattan wearing clothes that came straight off a fashion week runway.
Another idea is LA. I've only been there once, but it definitely had some of what you seem to want. Venice Beach had people wearing styles I have never encountered anywhere else. Also, I remember pulling over at a house in Beverly Hills----to get oriented with the map directions----and looking through the house's gate and security patrol at a line of 8 convertible Ferraris, each a different color. There were lots of supercars on the streets of LA.
Boston, NYC, and LA are all much more expensive than Chicago.
Another idea is to stay in Chicago and use some of the money you will save from having a lower CoL to do trips abroad. O'Hare gives you direct flights to pretty much anywhere on Earth. Italy and France, specifically, have cultures that strongly value fashion ---- especially Milan, Rome, and Paris. From what I hear, Tokyo is also a major center for fashion.
Yup or Socioeconomic Status, how I refer to it, but same idea.
Metro Boston has a huge concentration of highly educated people who create intellectual property. They’re highly compensated. It’s a mini version of the Bay Area and creates the same crazed housing costs. The gentrification of former working class towns is quite remarkable. There aren’t many places left that aren’t at least 50% college educated adults and 60%+ and 6 figure household income is pretty typical in what used to be working class towns. With all the college educated parents, the schools rival the blue chip suburbs that have always had good schools.
I don’t have any sense that this has happened in Chicago. I think it’s the fundamental difference.
Metro Boston has a huge concentration of highly educated people who create intellectual property. They’re highly compensated. It’s a mini version of the Bay Area and creates the same crazed housing costs. The gentrification of former working class towns is quite remarkable. There aren’t many places left that aren’t at least 50% college educated adults and 60%+ and 6 figure household income is pretty typical in what used to be working class towns. With all the college educated parents, the schools rival the blue chip suburbs that have always had good schools.
I don’t have any sense that this has happened in Chicago. I think it’s the fundamental difference.
It is. But idk how great Boston is for sub 30 year olds. Chicago wins that demographic handidly
Chicago was great in my early 20s, especially Streeterville area. There's nothing like that in Boston to that scale. Great dating scene and very affordable for my meager income then. Met my wife in Chicago. Fortunate that we didn't buy in Chicago as it would have appreciated very little. Moved to Boston afterwards. Boston feels like a small town in comparison and much more socioeconomically stratified and expensive. Glad I wasn't dating in Boston. Both cities close down earlier than one would expect and can't touch Manhattan.
It is. But idk how great Boston is for sub 30 year olds. Chicago wins that demographic handidly
Who cares? Sub-30 in Boston is a transient college student. The 30-year-olds who live in the desirable parts of Boston are 6 figure white collar professionals. It’s been like that since I was that demographic in the 1980s.
Who cares? Sub-30 in Boston is a transient college student. The 30-year-olds who live in the desirable parts of Boston are 6 figure white collar professionals. It’s been like that since I was that demographic in the 1980s.
Sub 24 is a transient college student. Boston doesn't attract the 23-29 cohort the way Chicago or New York does. You can throw around the “intellectual property” or “blue chip” terminology all you want. But for someone under 30, no 35, Boston doesn’t simply attract to the scale the others do. Especially in a world where remote work is taking off. A lot of the young(er) people who move, will likely move for amenities and may stay in these cities for a longer period of time.
And its more than just post-30 year old amenities. Its, nightclubs, things to do, a good bar scene, a fun environment, an interesting food scene. A lot of these are things people older than 30 want. Last time I went to the club, more than half of the people were >35.
Last edited by masssachoicetts; 01-20-2022 at 09:04 AM..
Chicago was great in my early 20s, especially Streeterville area. There's nothing like that in Boston to that scale. Great dating scene and very affordable for my meager income then. Met my wife in Chicago. Fortunate that we didn't buy in Chicago as it would have appreciated very little. Moved to Boston afterwards. Boston feels like a small town in comparison and much more socioeconomically stratified and expensive. Glad I wasn't dating in Boston. Both cities close down earlier than one would expect and can't touch Manhattan.
Streeterville would be most comparable to Seaport, though Seaport is a more substantial part of Bostons core than Streeterville is to Chicago. The reality is, it's very hard to compare apples to apples neighborhoods. Seaport is actually more like West Loop than it is Streeterville.
Boston is certainly a heck of a lot smaller than Chicago. What I would say, though, is that most of Boston is fairly safe and is in demand by the broader population now. It continues to gentrify at an incredible clip. Chicago is more of a 50/50 split, where nearly half of the city is not frequently traveled or is particularly in demand. In that way, when you look at the urban footprint in demand - Boston/Cambridge/Somerville in particular - the size discrepancy isn't quite are vast as you'd think if you looked at populations. But I digress.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Having spent most of my life in / around either city, Chicago is so much more "dynamic". It has many different neighborhoods and subcultures. Great food, great drink. It has the brownstone neighborhoods, the bungalows, the high rise apartments as far as the eye can see. It stays open later. It has a more substantial arts scene with great music and variety. It is the hot spot for an entire region of the country. It's a hub city in every way.
Boston is more romantic. It's more coffee culture. Highly intellectual city. It's the mecca of conservative progressivism. It's a tech machine. It's increasingly innovative. It's growth is remarkable compared to most legacy, Northern cities. It balances old and new with the best of them. And it sits in a beautiful area of the country, on the Atlantic Ocean. And for all of those reasons, size included, it's grossly expensive. It's not an easy or appealing city to live in if you don't have the means to do so.
Other than the highly subjective preference for the look and feel of Boston, I don't see where it really competes with Chicago. And I love Boston.
Sub 24 is a transient college student. Boston doesn't attract the 23-29 cohort the way Chicago or New York does. You can throw around the “intellectual property” or “blue chip” terminology all you want. But for someone under 30, no 35, Boston doesn’t simply attract to the scale the others do. Especially in a world where remote work is taking off. A lot of the young(er) people who move, will likely move for amenities and may stay in these cities for a longer period of time.
And its more than just post-30 year old amenities. Its, nightclubs, things to do, a good bar scene, a fun environment, an interesting food scene. A lot of these are things people older than 30 want. Last time I went to the club, more than half of the people were >35.
Boston does have a pretty good brewery scene as well as some great restaurants. It’s not as fun as other comparably sized cities, but at the same time when 20-something friends visit there’s still stuff to do.
Sub 24 is a transient college student. Boston doesn't attract the 23-29 cohort the way Chicago or New York does. You can throw around the “intellectual property” or “blue chip” terminology all you want. But for someone under 30, no 35, Boston doesn’t simply attract to the scale the others do. Especially in a world where remote work is taking off. A lot of the young(er) people who move, will likely move for amenities and may stay in these cities for a longer period of time.
And its more than just post-30 year old amenities. Its, nightclubs, things to do, a good bar scene, a fun environment, an interesting food scene. A lot of these are things people older than 30 want. Last time I went to the club, more than half of the people were >35.
Statistically speaking, I believe you are incorrect. I do think millenials live and work in Boston (Camberville) as much as they do in nearly any other Northern city, Chicago included.
But it certainly doesn't feel that way. Less Seaport/Southie, Boston and Camberville don't have large neighborhoods that specifically serve that population. 23-35 year olds live scattered across the entirety of the city, from Brighton, to Charlestown, to Central Square, to Union Square, to JP, to the North End, to Dorchester.
You just don't have large pockets with that specific demographic like you do in Chicago's Old Town, West Loop, Wicker Park, Lincoln Park. Bars and restaurants, fitness centers, grocery stores filled to the brim with that age group exclusively. There are very very clear delineations of which areas serve which demographic, down to individual parts of neighborhoods.
I really don't know why there is such an obvious discrepancy to the eye. I don't know why Chicago's most popular neighborhoods feel so much more tailored for that age group.. I think it has a lot to do with the high rise living options and the way the bars and restaurants are very clearly centered in those neighborhoods to serve that demographic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
