Chicago not on the top 10 must visit list for US cities?

[Rizpah37]

Tonythetuna: In answer to your question: Yes, Peshtigo has a street named Chicago Court, just as Chicago has a street named Peshtigo Court.

Peshtigo also has a street named after William Ogden, the Chicago lumbering and real estate magnate who virtually owned Peshtigo in 1871 and lost huge amounts of property in BOTH fires. He promised to rebuild the town, but never did. We don't hold it against him, however. :-)

- A Peshtigo native

[Chicago76]

As big of an impact as the fire had on Chicago's history, and as much as it is ingrained in childen across the country w/ the song, is that really a huge reason to visit the city?

San Francisco had the 1906 earthquake that was arguably more catastrophic and indisputably more recent. London had the blitz. Many cities have been torched (Atlanta, Richmond, etc.). Do people specifically go to any of these destinations because of the historic urban disasters? There's no tangible reminder of the fire, other than the water tower and those stupid Chicago fire engine tours. The only uban disaster that I can see as a must-see would be New Orleans, if only because the impact can still be felt throughout the city.

[tonythetuna]

Originally Posted by Rizpah37

Tonythetuna: In answer to your question: Yes, Peshtigo has a street named Chicago Court, just as Chicago has a street named Peshtigo Court.

Peshtigo also has a street named after William Ogden, the Chicago lumbering and real estate magnate who virtually owned Peshtigo in 1871 and lost huge amounts of property in BOTH fires. He promised to rebuild the town, but never did. We don't hold it against him, however. :-)

- A Peshtigo native

Thanks. I appreciate the info.

You should hold it against Ogden, (who also was the first Mayor of Chicago) from all I have read about him he did not seem too honest and was overly greedy. Hey, but since he was really a New York carpetbagger, it should not be a surprise.

[ForYourLungsOnly]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

As big of an impact as the fire had on Chicago's history, and as much as it is ingrained in childen across the country w/ the song, is that really a huge reason to visit the city?

San Francisco had the 1906 earthquake that was arguably more catastrophic and indisputably more recent. London had the blitz. Many cities have been torched (Atlanta, Richmond, etc.). Do people specifically go to any of these destinations because of the historic urban disasters? There's no tangible reminder of the fire, other than the water tower and those stupid Chicago fire engine tours. The only uban disaster that I can see as a must-see would be New Orleans, if only because the impact can still be felt throughout the city.

Pretty much agree. The fire was extremely important to the city's history. It was terrible, yet created one of the biggest construction/rebuilding booms in our nations history. I don't see the fire as a big reason to visit the city today however.

[ATUMRE75]

Love Chicago. Hope to get back someday. Currently live in South Florida and it sucks if your not rich or Spanish.

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by tonythetuna

You are a Cardinals fan. That assessment is expected and par for the course.

I interpreted the OP's response to mean from the stands Wrigley is pretty nice, but the concourses and conveniences are lacking compared to other stadiums.
Wrigley great to watch a game, lousy to walk around during a game(which is important if attending a game with short attention span children).
US Cellular good to watch a game, great to walk around during a game.
I "get" Wrigley.
I do not "get" how any criticisms of Wrigley are automatically deemed wrong.

[tonythetuna]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

I interpreted the OP's response to mean from the stands Wrigley is pretty nice, but the concourses and conveniences are lacking compared to other stadiums.

Well, Wrigley is a baseball park, not a stadium. It is also the oldest in the National League. The fricken place is almost a hundred years old.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by tonythetuna

Well, Wrigley is a baseball park, not a stadium. It is also the oldest in the National League. The fricken place is almost a hundred years old.

Exactly. And if you don't have the nostalgia of going to games there as a kid, you're pretty likely to find it lacking. I totally understand nostalgia -- I'm one of the most ridiculously over-nostalgic people you'll ever meet, but if you're going to spend big money to see a baseball game there are things a baseball fan who's seen a lot of stadiums is going to feel lacking at Wrigley.

That doesn't, for the record, mean I think they should tear Wrigley to the ground. Just that you shouldn't be surprised that non-locals don't love it the way locals do and it doesn't mean they love baseball any less than you.

[tonythetuna]

Originally Posted by aragx6

Just that you shouldn't be surprised that non-locals don't love it the way locals do and it doesn't mean they love baseball any less than you.

I am not surprised at people not liking it, but I think many do not take into consideration how old it is and how the improvements that can be made to it are limited.

This place was built when a vast majority of the crowd was men that smoked,drank, and swore all game long. Wrigley was not built for families. Not many women and children were going to baseball games a hundred years ago. Of course, that is not the case now.

I am positive I would dislike Busch Stadium almost as much as I was turned off by Miller Park.