Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What city is overall more urban?
Boston 34 32.08%
Chicago 72 67.92%
Voters: 106. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-11-2022, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Pacific Northwest
2,991 posts, read 3,420,434 times
Reputation: 4944

Advertisements

No contest. Of course Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-18-2022, 07:26 PM
 
Location: City of North Las Vegas, NV
12,600 posts, read 9,387,320 times
Reputation: 3487
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
So on an absolute basis, Chicago. A 50sq mile Chicago peaks out at like 1,025,000-1,075,000.

While a 50 sq mile Boston (similarly optimized, throwing out Logan, Harbor Islands, West Roxbury, Chestnut Hill or Chelsea, Everett, Somerville etc) would probably top out near 850,000-875,000. You’d have more heavy rail mileage in mini-Chicago, a better bus network, etc.

On a pound for pound basis, Boston has better transit ridership, (although the CTA is managed miles better) it’s generally more inhospitable to cars, more pedestrian oriented, etc. but is much smaller so you have more urban neighborhoods in Chicago in a raw numbers basis.
True, which in this case I will pick Chicago
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2022, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Medfid
6,807 posts, read 6,038,878 times
Reputation: 5252
Boston could only win this qualitatively/subjectively.

I don’t think there’s any numerically-backed definition of urbanity that wouldn’t put Chicago comfortably ahead, so it got my vote. Still, I think those numbers aren’t always as far apart as one might think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2022, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Bergen County, New Jersey
12,161 posts, read 8,002,089 times
Reputation: 10134
How is this poll so close. I really thought it would be Chicago, without a doubt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2022, 07:28 AM
 
5,016 posts, read 3,916,343 times
Reputation: 4528
DT Chicago is the clear answer. It doesn't get more urban in NA, with the exception of Manhattan.

Now, it may surprise people how quiet and residential Chicago gets even on the North Side. So, I suppose if you were focused on neighborhood, Chicago has far more that are far less urban. Many neighborhoods, even north, are almost exclusively SFH homes.

Sauganash: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9951...7i16384!8i8192

Albany Park: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9729...7i13312!8i6656

Norwood Park: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9884...7i13312!8i6656

Edison Park: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0143...7i16384!8i8192

To be fair, you can find SFH areas in select Southwest Boston neighborhoods. It's just not as prevalent.

West Roxbury: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2789...7i16384!8i8192

Roslindale: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2943...7i16384!8i8192

Charlestown: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3758...7i16384!8i8192

Jamaica Plain: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3158...7i16384!8i8192
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2022, 08:01 PM
 
Location: Gurnee IL.
694 posts, read 2,016,288 times
Reputation: 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by NearFantastica View Post
I'd have to go with Boston being more urban since it's a part of the Northeast megalopolis. Chicago is also very urban but once you're outside of the city and suburbs it becomes midwest farm land real quick, whereas outside of Boston it's continuously urban all the way down to DC.
Really? I just left Boston today and as soon as I go 14 miles or so on any direction, it’s all trees and forests. Hardly urban to me. You go 14 miles outside of downtown Chicago and you see smack dab in more urban dense areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2022, 02:43 AM
 
13 posts, read 8,459 times
Reputation: 25
obviously chicago
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2022, 05:03 AM
 
24,559 posts, read 18,248,333 times
Reputation: 40260
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakecountylifer View Post
Really? I just left Boston today and as soon as I go 14 miles or so on any direction, it’s all trees and forests. Hardly urban to me. You go 14 miles outside of downtown Chicago and you see smack dab in more urban dense areas.
In most directions, 14 miles from Boston is dense suburban. There isn’t much green space inside Route 128. Blue Hills Reservation. The blue chip Boston inner suburbs are fortress zoned for single family homes to keep the poors out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2022, 06:07 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,851 posts, read 5,868,455 times
Reputation: 11467
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakecountylifer View Post
Really? I just left Boston today and as soon as I go 14 miles or so on any direction, it’s all trees and forests. Hardly urban to me. You go 14 miles outside of downtown Chicago and you see smack dab in more urban dense areas.
Hugh??? This is true in certain directions, but if you go 14 miles south of downtown Chicago (which will include the South Side, a huge portion of the city), you will not be in urban dense areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2022, 08:02 AM
 
5,016 posts, read 3,916,343 times
Reputation: 4528
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakecountylifer View Post
Really? I just left Boston today and as soon as I go 14 miles or so on any direction, it’s all trees and forests. Hardly urban to me. You go 14 miles outside of downtown Chicago and you see smack dab in more urban dense areas.
Being that you're from Gurnee... You get more Gurnee's, closer to the city, for sure. 495 is filled with smaller towns, country roads, large lots.

But most anything inside of 95 (the radius you pointed to) is dense suburban or urban.

But to your point, legacy suburbs, especially affluent ones, have zoning laws that do not allow for heavy infill. It has been, and will continue to be that way. You'll never see an Arlington Heights, or a dense village like that, 30 miles outside of Boston. Right, wrong, or indifferent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top