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.
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.
There are actually quite a few metrics you could point to:
- Boston has a higher population density within city limits (14k ppsm vs 12k ppsm). The gap increases if you add Cambridge and Somerville.
- Boston has a higher walk score, with a particularly notable edge in the highest scores (95+ and 99+) where it beats Chicago even in absolute numbers (though you could bicker with the methodology). The gap increases if you add Cambridge and Somerville.
- Boston has higher rail ridership on a per capita basis, and much higher per mile of rail. Rail ridership is usually positively correlated with foot traffic.
Of course Chicago will win on most metrics in absolute/raw numbers being a much bigger city, but on a per capita basis Boston more than holds its own. The main difference, as you point out, is qualitative though. Boston is probably the most European looking and feeling big city in the country — tight streets, rowhomes, no grid, and lots of mixed use. Whereas Chicago is the prototypical product of the American urban model — huge skyscrapers quickly giving way to detached townhouses on a rigid grid with plenty of vestiges of its industrial and rail heritage. Boston feels tighter and more intimate. Chicago feels grander and more spread out. Which one is more urban is in the eyes of the beholder.
There are actually quite a few metrics you could point to:
- Boston has a higher population density within city limits (14k ppsm vs 12k ppsm). The gap increases if you add Cambridge and Somerville.
- Boston has a higher walk score, with a particularly notable edge in the highest scores (95+ and 99+) where it beats Chicago even in absolute numbers (though you could bicker with the methodology). The gap increases if you add Cambridge and Somerville.
- Boston has higher rail ridership on a per capita basis, and much higher per mile of rail. Rail ridership is usually positively correlated with foot traffic.
Of course Chicago will win on most metrics in absolute/raw numbers being a much bigger city, but on a per capita basis Boston more than holds its own. The main difference, as you point out, is qualitative though. Boston is probably the most European looking and feeling big city in the country — tight streets, rowhomes, no grid, and lots of mixed use. Whereas Chicago is the prototypical product of the American urban model — huge skyscrapers quickly giving way to detached townhouses on a rigid grid with plenty of vestiges of its industrial and rail heritage. Boston feels tighter and more intimate. Chicago feels grander and more spread out. Which one is more urban is in the eyes of the beholder.
-Spread Boston out over the area of Chicago and you will have a population density of about 6,000 ppsm.
-Boston has higher walk scores 99+... but again, spread out Boston over the area of Chicago. Those average walk scores will tread far lower than Chicago.
-Again, Chicago is more consistently spread out. Boston goes from equally as dense in the core and drops off to mansion suburbia wicked fast.
-Spread Boston out over the area of Chicago and you will have a population density of about 6,000 ppsm.
-Boston has higher walk scores 99+... but again, spread out Boston over the area of Chicago. Those average walk scores will tread far lower than Chicago.
-Again, Chicago is more consistently spread out. Boston goes from equally as dense in the core and drops off to mansion suburbia wicked fast.
I am comparing the city of Boston to the city of Chicago. I thought that's what the thread was about. I am not comparing the Boston region or the Boston MSA or any equivalent this or equivalent that to Chicago. So we are talking about apples and oranges.
This "let's spread city A over an equivalent area of city B" argument that is so popular on CD doesn't withstand close scrutiny in most cases. Imagine if we were comparing Barcelona to LA and I said that Barcelona is more urban. A no brainer, right? What if someone were to respond: "well yeah but if you expand Barcelona over the entire area of LA metro you would end up with 90% farmland and forests where LA has dense suburbia throughout, therefore LA is more urban" -- would that make sense to you?
The OP asks "what city is overall more urban". I guess if you want to argue that "city" doesnt actually mean the city, but has a different (or ambiguous) meaning, go for it. To me that's just muddying the waters.
I am comparing the city of Boston to the city of Chicago. I thought that's what the thread was about. I am not comparing the Boston region or the Boston MSA or any equivalent this or equivalent that to Chicago. So we are talking about apples and oranges.
This "let's spread city A over an equivalent area of city B" argument that is so popular on CD doesn't withstand close scrutiny in most cases. Imagine if we were comparing Barcelona to LA and I said that Barcelona is more urban. A no brainer, right? What if someone were to respond: "well yeah but if you expand Barcelona over the entire area of LA metro you would end up with 90% farmland and forests where LA has dense suburbia throughout, therefore LA is more urban" -- would that make sense to you?
The OP asks "what city is overall more urban". I guess if you want to argue that "city" doesnt actually mean the city, but has a different (or ambiguous) meaning, go for it. To me that's just muddying the waters.
Boston may have walkability of 99+ in its downtown areas. Staying in the city limits (Which for cities like Boston is an incomplete way to measure urbanity when its only 36sqmi when you take out Logan Airport and Franklin Park), Boston falls off faster. Chicago stays consistently more walkable.
Boston may have walkability of 99+ in its downtown areas. Staying in the city limits (Which for cities like Boston is an incomplete way to measure urbanity when its only 36sqmi when you take out Logan Airport and Franklin Park), Boston falls off faster. Chicago stays consistently more walkable.
Of course it falls off faster, it's a much smaller city. However in terms of which one is "consistently more walkable" on a pound-for-pound basis the numbers are what they are. Boston is both more dense, on average, and according to walkscore is overall more walkable. Again people can argue with the walkscore methodology but that's a different matter.
Single family homes aren’t always un-urban, are they? Wouldn’t new urbanism architects approve of Chicago’s bungalow belt? Because those houses are very close together with commercial streets that have apartments above storefronts, I think the bungalow belt is still pretty urban, so I voted for Chicago
Boston may have walkability of 99+ in its downtown areas. Staying in the city limits (Which for cities like Boston is an incomplete way to measure urbanity when its only 36sqmi when you take out Logan Airport and Franklin Park), Boston falls off faster. Chicago stays consistently more walkable.
All of Boston is really walkable imo. Unless you’re in like Georgetown/Dedham Border.
Boston without a doubt. You can build all the skyscrapers in the world and have as large of a population as you want to but if your population density doesn't match then you cannot be considered more urban in my opinion. Population density often equates to human interaction which creates a sense of closeness, intimacy, knowledge of man that City people understand
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.
