HalcyonEra
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2012
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 7
I think it comes down to the fact that:
Chicago is laid out to be a massive city with lots of land to work with.
Boston is a midsized city that is close to build out. Buildings like the Pierce breadground on a monthly basis in Chicago.
On the plus side, the quality of Boston buildings is far higher. Chicago has tons of cheaply built high rises with parking podiums.
Don't forget too that the Great Fires of the 1870's cleared large swathes of buildings and land allowing for more thoughtful grid layouts. Chicago's destroyed 3.3 square miles while Boston's consumed "only" 65 acres (1/10 of a square mile).