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.
At first I thought they were different people, but I find it hard to believe that eurous1, dementor, and northEnd are all people that felt the need to come to C-D and post incessantly not even about their own cities, but just against Chicago. Think about it. Ignore. There's actual people to discuss things with (although I thought Grapico had potential, but he's making some asinine arguments himself now).
lol... I'm arguing down to some people at this point... to get a point across... you sometimes have to cross the line and push the limits, then fall back to center as they won't get the concept otherwise... that is all. I try to give all cities equal critique so they can improve from those particular aspects. None are without fault. I am stretching the limits in this thread to test the boundaries. I would rather negate claims then build up, then overstate then have to go back down. Also, this *is* the internet...
We can get the thread back on topic if necessary.
I looked up the population of Boston (proper), and it's not even 600,000. That surprised me.
It's also only 49 square miles which makes it comparable to DC and SF.
Boston started out on a small peninsula in 1630. At the same time Boston was founded, a bunch of other towns sprouted up alongside Boston like Cambridge Watertown, Brookline, and Dorchester. These towns hemmed Boston in from all sides. Boston annexed a few of these towns but most of them kept their incorporated status. As a consequence Boston was never able to become a huge megalopolis land wise or population wise.
However those other towns eventually became cities themselves, for example: Cambridge is right across the river from Boston and has a population of over 100,000, Somerville has 100,000, Brookline has 80,000 Watertown 40,000, Medford 60,000, Malden 60,000 etc., etc.
In any other city in the country, these towns would actually be in the city limits and would count as a part of the city's population.
'Chicagoland' as it is known, if superimposed on a map of Boston would stretch from Maine to Providence. It just so happens that the Boston Metro area stretches almost that far. So while the Boston Metro area is not quite as large as Chicagoland, it does have very close to the population.
It's also only 49 square miles which makes it comparable to DC and SF.
Boston started out on a small peninsula in 1630. At the same time Boston was founded, a bunch of other towns sprouted up alongside Boston like Cambridge Watertown, Brookline, and Dorchester. These towns hemmed Boston in from all sides. Boston annexed a few of these towns but most of them kept their incorporated status. As a consequence Boston was never able to become a huge megalopolis land wise or population wise.
However those other towns eventually became cities themselves, for example: Cambridge is right across the river from Boston and has a population of over 100,000, Somerville has 100,000, Brookline has 80,000 Watertown 40,000, Medford 60,000, Malden 60,000 etc., etc.
In any other city in the country, these towns would actually be in the city limits and would count as a part of the city's population.
That makes a lot of sense. Kind of like how Chicago has Aurora (150,000), Naperville (150,000), Joliet (150,000), Elgin (150,000), and Evanston (80,000) as suburbs. I guess we should've annexed those too! Haha, just kidding. Every city has large suburbs nearby.
It's also only 49 square miles which makes it comparable to DC and SF.
Boston started out on a small peninsula in 1630. At the same time Boston was founded, a bunch of other towns sprouted up alongside Boston like Cambridge Watertown, Brookline, and Dorchester. These towns hemmed Boston in from all sides. Boston annexed a few of these towns but most of them kept their incorporated status. As a consequence Boston was never able to become a huge megalopolis land wise or population wise.
However those other towns eventually became cities themselves, for example: Cambridge is right across the river from Boston and has a population of over 100,000, Somerville has 100,000, Brookline has 80,000 Watertown 40,000, Medford 60,000, Malden 60,000 etc., etc.
In any other city in the country, these towns would actually be in the city limits and would count as a part of the city's population.
@ 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. Make those apart of Boston and it's reaching over 950,000 people in 88 sq miles. So basically you could expand the borders of Boston to be twice its size and you wouldn't lose any urbanity.
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.
^^ 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.
Maybe this thread should be, Chicago's North Side vs. Boston then? I think the west/south sides of Chicago definitely bring it down.
That makes a lot of sense. Kind of like how Chicago has Aurora (150,000), Naperville (150,000), Joliet (150,000), Elgin (150,000), and Evanston (80,000) as suburbs. I guess we should've annexed those too! Haha, just kidding. Every city has large suburbs nearby.
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.
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.
