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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.