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.
Chicago is just so much more overwhelming and grander than Boston. It's almost like comparing Philly to Baltimore. It's really not a fair comparison.
Boston (and greater Boston) does actually have a higher tranist ridership/capita than Chicago and Chicagoland, as well as a significantly higher walk-commute share.
So there is a qualitative argument for Boston
But I Think the overall size of Chicago means there are just more really urban neighborhoods might outweigh the qualitative edge
No. Boston has the 5th - 7th biggest core. Large town is like a Brattleboro or Bangor or Lambertville. Not a alpha city.
Chicago is just #2.
Boston is pretty densely populated, and has a large population, but a lot of its historical preservation gives me the impression of being in a smaller town (yes I know it has some skyscrapers but the presence of those areas aren't as strong as they are in NYC, Chicago, or even Philadelphia).
Boston is pretty densely populated, and has a large population, but a lot of its historical preservation gives me the impression of being in a smaller town (yes I know it has some skyscrapers but the presence of those areas aren't as strong as they are in NYC, Chicago, or even Philadelphia).
Pretty densely populated? Thee are not 2 major cities more densely populated…
I’m also quite sure there are more skyscrapers in Boston than Philly despite being half the size…
Boston is pretty densely populated, and has a large population, but a lot of its historical preservation gives me the impression of being in a smaller town (yes I know it has some skyscrapers but the presence of those areas aren't as strong as they are in NYC, Chicago, or even Philadelphia).
Boston has more high rises and skyscrapers than Philadelphia…. By a good margin
Chicago's size and scale puts it in a league just below New York and above any of the others. It's urban fabric and infrastructure also set it apart from other large cities (i.e. Los Angeles) that may have the density but lack the consistent urban form and transportation infrastructure to compete with Chicago.
Better match up for Chicago, albeit outside of the U.S., is Toronto as both cities have identical size and scale and are much more comparable in their urban forms IMO.
It is not a clear cut answer. The South Side of Chicago is very large land wise, and much of it is not classically urban. You will find lawns, and even some rural looking areas.
Boston is smaller, tighter, and you fill not find areas like the South Side. So on a percentage basis, Boston is likely more urban.
Seems like the conversation has shifted to which city feels bigger. Nobody can possibly debate that Chicago feels bigger. Feeling bigger, however, is not the same as being more urban which is a more qualitative question. Houston feels bigger than Seville. But Seville is 100 times more urban.
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.
