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)
 
Old 04-13-2009, 10:14 AM
 
2,598 posts, read 4,896,032 times
Reputation: 2275

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomDot View Post
Yes it is hemmed in, at 230 square miles!
Obviously it's bigger than Boston - my point is, it doesn't annex.

 
Old 04-13-2009, 10:15 AM
 
Location: West Town, Chicago
633 posts, read 1,435,870 times
Reputation: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
@ chitown2pa: I don't think his point was to say Boston is near the same size as Chicago, just that Boston's population is deceptive because of its tiny geographical size.

Also, all of those cities you mentioned are located 10-20 miles away from Chicago. They're completely independent from the city. Brookline, Watertown, Cambridge, and Somerville are all adjacent to the city of Boston. Combined they would only take up a land-area of 21.43 sq. miles, versus Naperville which is 33 sq. miles alone. They would also have a population over 263,000. That's 4 "suburbs" combining to average 12,273 people per sq. mile. Much denser than almost all major American cities.

If you add Newton and the sq. mi would go up to almost 40 sq miles with the population reaching about 350,000. The point is, these aren't your typical suburbs or satellite cities. The Chicago areas you listed are definitely more on the suburban side of things, while many of the cities surrounding Boston you wouldn't realize you had left the city proper. Both Cambridge and Somerville are considerably denser than Boston.
Thanks for the explanation. It sounds like Cambridge, et. al are more like Skokie, Evanston, and Oak Park than Naperville. Is that a more accurate comparison? Next to the city, dense, urban?
 
Old 04-13-2009, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,523 posts, read 13,884,332 times
Reputation: 3906
Quote:
Originally Posted by chitown2pa View Post
Thanks for the explanation. It sounds like Cambridge, et. al are more like Skokie, Evanston, and Oak Park than Naperville. Is that a more accurate comparison? Next to the city, dense, urban?
Exactly. When you cross over from Boston to Cambridge, Somerville, or Brookline, you really can't tell that you're in a different city. The apt comparison to Naperville would be a town like Framingham.
 
Old 04-13-2009, 10:18 AM
 
Location: West Town, Chicago
633 posts, read 1,435,870 times
Reputation: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Maybe this thread should be, Chicago's North Side vs. Boston then? I think the west/south sides of Chicago definitely bring it down.
Totally. Wicker Park and Bucktown on the West Side are too full of artists, trendsetters, and hipsters. Also, yuppies and business owners. Likewise, Hyde Park and Kenwood on the South Side are too full of Presidents of the United States of America to be any good. Oh, wait....

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomDot View Post
Just trying to explain Boston's layout. If Chicago were like Boston, sections of the city like Near North, Lincoln Park, Wicker Park, McKinley Park, Bridgeport, etc. would all be incorporated towns and not part of the city itself.

I'm not arguing sizes. Chicagoland is about twice the size of Metro Boston.
Sure, and if Chicago were like New York, then all the surrounding suburbs would have been annexed a hundred years ago. My point is that you cannot compare cities like that. This whole thread is pointless.
 
Old 04-13-2009, 10:20 AM
 
8,276 posts, read 11,835,148 times
Reputation: 10075
Default Yes,..an accurate description..

Quote:
Originally Posted by chitown2pa View Post
Thanks for the explanation. It sounds like Cambridge, et. al are more like Skokie, Evanston, and Oak Park than Naperville. Is that a more accurate comparison? Next to the city, dense, urban?
...as I live in Cambridge, and it's not suburban at all; neither are Watertown and especially not Somerville, which is a densely-packed city in its own right...
 
Old 04-13-2009, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,523 posts, read 13,884,332 times
Reputation: 3906
Quote:
Originally Posted by chitown2pa View Post
This whole thread is pointless.
And yet, somehow, we can't resist posting.
 
Old 04-13-2009, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Denver
6,625 posts, read 14,392,168 times
Reputation: 4191
@ chitown2pa responding to my post:

They are extremely dense and urban. Cambridge's density is 15,767 ppl/sq. mi. Somerville is 18,148 ppl/sq mi! Compare that to Boston, which I believe is the fourth densest city in the United States at 12,569 ppl/sq mi. NYC, San Francisco and Chicago are all denser. My point wasn't to say "hey we're the same size as Chicago!" because I don't think we are (though I think our urbanity is very close), I'm just trying to show that Boston's satellite cities aren't the same as most others in the United States.

Also, I edited my first post like 5 times haha, so it's got new information in it now.
 
Old 04-13-2009, 10:25 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,385 posts, read 28,380,094 times
Reputation: 5877
Quote:
Originally Posted by chitown2pa View Post
Totally. Wicker Park and Bucktown on the West Side are too full of artists, trendsetters, and hipsters. Also, yuppies and business owners. Likewise, Hyde Park and Kenwood on the South Side are too full of Presidents of the United States of America to be any good. Oh, wait....
I'm not trying to throw the baby out with the bath water, there are anomolies, I'm sure you get my point... You are doing the exact opposite spectrum, but in reality the same fallacy if I were to say the whole north side sucks, b/c of some gang activity in uptown...
When you drop the homer attitude, you'll be able to critique your city better. You are seeing it through rose colored glasses.
If you don't, I'm not sure what to tell you.
 
Old 04-13-2009, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Chicago - mudhole in the prairie...
1,624 posts, read 3,276,088 times
Reputation: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by chitown2pa View Post
Totally. Wicker Park and Bucktown on the West Side are too full of artists, trendsetters, and hipsters.

I have been walking around Milwaukee/Damen in Bucktown few days ago. I can't believe how run down this supposedly hip area of Chicago is. It lookes like the worst parts of Brooklyn. And despite the claim of being populated by artists and trendsetters I did not see any art galleries or people with clothes stained with paint. All I saw was a mass of pretentious hipsters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chitown2pa View Post
Likewise, Hyde Park and Kenwood on the South Side are too full of Presidents of the United States of America to be any good. Oh, wait....

Hyde Park is nice as it's multicaltural feel resemblesthat of New York a little bit. Too bad it is so small and there are not many other areas like this in Chicago. Chicago is too segregated to my liking. By the way, I haven't seen any presidents but was told HE moved to DC.



Quote:
Originally Posted by chitown2pa View Post
Sure, and if Chicago were like New York, then all the surrounding suburbs would have been annexed a hundred years ago. My point is that you cannot compare cities like that. This whole thread is pointless.
With the density of population in Chicago being not even half of that in New York there was no good reason for Chicago to annex anything. There is a plenty of room to grow within current city limits.

I am not sure how many people reading those board have actually been to Chicago but if you seen Bucktown, Wicker Park I can't believe you would call those areas "pretty". If anything they are at a very early stage of getting nice and easthetically pleasing.
 
Old 04-13-2009, 11:14 AM
 
100 posts, read 219,272 times
Reputation: 44
Default go back to the numbers

Chicago CSA - 9.75 million
Boston CSA - 7.5 million

Table of United States Combined Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add to this that there are no other Major metro areas anywhere else near Chicago, while Boston has the NYC metro area within a 3 hour drive, and the city itself within 4.

One of the many things that makes Boston and NYC different is that they are part of the same megalopolis. Close to 20% of the population of this entire country lives between Manchester, NH and Virginia, about 50 million people, in an area about the same size as that from Milwaukee to the bottom tip of Illinois.
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.


Closed Thread


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