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.
Al-Qaeda doesn't know an economic symbol from a camel. WTC was an urban renewal program that was never economically successful. About 40% of the space was taken by government agencies including the landlord (the Port Authority). The amount of "world trade" that was conducted from WTC was minimal. Anyone who wants to damage world trade should attack the ports, airports, and computer systems.
There is no "western economic policy." Some Western countries are mostly capitalist, some are socialist, some are mixed. All have different policies regarding trade, financial services, labor relations, government regulation of business, and so forth.
Al-Qaeda attacked WTC because they are terrorists and it is terrifying to have two (actually more) buildings full of people in the middle of the country's largest city fall down.
Yeah I'm sure that is why, keep thinking that. Also they were tall, that really upped the ante. Holy crap you guys are clueless. Also, they saw Home Alone 1 and knew it was in Chicago, then they actually watched Home Alone 2 and saw that Kevin goes to the observation deck of the World Trade Center, thus knowing if they blew it up it would effect both residents of New York, and those of Chicago who are proud of having Home Alone featured in it's wealthy suburban enclaves in the previous first version. You know what, I think you are really onto something.
Al Queda also attacks towers b/c being terrorists are an end in itself, and it is definitive being such terrorists, that they need to blow up buildings, as all terrorists do the same type terror attacks.
The WTC had nothingggg to do with it being the world trade center and housing lots of gov organizations and wall street financial firms, zilch, nada. The pentagon was also targeted b/c it is in the shape of a pentagon, Americans love shapes and geometry, and Islamic Terrorists are anti math/science, so they showed us. Just tall buildings that are scary in a big city!!! You guys are really onto some good theories here.
Chicago is not as large of a target. The fact is the "second city" is actually the 3rd city behind LA and in the future it will be the 5th city. The fact is that many in Chicago have a inferiority complex because deep down inside they understand that Chicago is no match in any way to NYC and this pis#es them off. Denver, LA, Phoenix, Seattle have beauty and things that make them different. I have lived in Chicagoland my whole life and I can say that Chicago is for people who wish they could live in NYC but for some reason just can not cut it in the big apple(I call it the NYC wannabee).
The terrorists know this. Cripple NYC and you cripple the country or cripple Washington and you cripple the nation. Cripple chicago and it will not have as big effect on the whole nation. Chicago has declining population and declining power in the nation and if that is too hard to swollow for some I say too bad.
BTW WTC one is well on the way to becomming the tallest in the nation..just one more nail in the coffin for the pride of chicago!
BTW WTC one is well on the way to becomming the tallest in the nation..just one more nail in the coffin for the pride of chicago!
Does anyone really care about the height of WTC1's antenna? As far as I'm concerned, a building is only as tall as its highest occupied floor. The Sears Tower is still number one.
Yeah I'm sure that is why, keep thinking that. Also they were tall, that really upped the ante. Holy crap you guys are clueless. Also, they saw Home Alone 1 and knew it was in Chicago, then they actually watched Home Alone 2 and saw that Kevin goes to the observation deck of the World Trade Center, thus knowing if they blew it up it would effect both residents of New York, and those of Chicago who are proud of having Home Alone featured in it's wealthy suburban enclaves in the previous first version. You know what, I think you are really onto something.
Al Queda also attacks towers b/c being terrorists are an end in itself, and it is definitive being such terrorists, that they need to blow up buildings, as all terrorists do the same type terror attacks.
The WTC had nothingggg to do with it being the world trade center and housing lots of gov organizations and wall street financial firms, zilch, nada. The pentagon was also targeted b/c it is in the shape of a pentagon, Americans love shapes and geometry, and Islamic Terrorists are anti math/science, so they showed us. Just tall buildings that are scary in a big city!!! You guys are really onto some good theories here.
Chicago is not as large of a target. The fact is the "second city" is actually the 3rd city behind LA and in the future it will be the 5th city. The fact is that many in Chicago have a inferiority complex because deep down inside they understand that Chicago is no match in any way to NYC and this pis#es them off. Denver, LA, Phoenix, Seattle have beauty and things that make them different. I have lived in Chicagoland my whole life and I can say that Chicago is for people who wish they could live in NYC but for some reason just can not cut it in the big apple(I call it the NYC wannabee).
The terrorists know this. Cripple NYC and you cripple the country or cripple Washington and you cripple the nation. Cripple chicago and it will not have as big effect on the whole nation. Chicago has declining population and declining power in the nation and if that is too hard to swollow for some I say too bad.
BTW WTC one is well on the way to becomming the tallest in the nation..just one more nail in the coffin for the pride of chicago!
I disagree with this notion that somehow it is inevitable that Chicago will no longer be the third largest city, it's a common thing that Chicago haters latch on to. I am not saying it is utterly impossible for a city like Houston to surpass Chicago someday (I don't even know what the implied second city to pass Chicago is, Phoenix?) but to talk about it as if it essentially already is, is absurd. Chicago and Houston would have to have identical population loss and gain respectively for 20-30 years to switch places and rarely do demographic trends hold for that long. So sorry saying that something MIGHT happen in the 2030's does not cut it. Now in the case of 1980 when Los Angeles was within about 40K of eclipsing Chicago at the time of the census, THEN is the time to talk about it. Chicago still has 600K more people than Houston, far different than LA and Chicago in 1980. This not even touching the reality that Chicago proper is 227 square miles and Houston proper is 600 square miles and that Chicago metro is way bigger than Houston metro. Jumping the gun is an understatement here. Honestly the only people who make this kind of argument about Houston surpassing Chicago is those who WANT it to happen and are psychologically addicted to the notion of Chicago going down and thus need to see the glass as half empty to justify their own world view. That's what it is about, it's not about a logical discussion of changing demographics it's about vindication of one's own ideology, when there is good news about Chicago they would omit it and try to knock holes in the argument because being right is more important than loyalty to one's own city. If that reality is too hard to swollow for some than I say too bad. No serious urban scholar believes Chicago has a declining role in the world aside from perhaps America as a whole having a smaller role, it's why Chicago was recently ranked the sixth most powerful economic city in the world. So it's as plain as day there is no logic to back up your views up just wishful thinking that you are correct.
Secondly at the risk of sounding Chicago defensive I must also point out that the new World Trade Center will only be taller than the Sears/Willis Tower by virtue of a spire reaching 1,776 feet, the roof height will be the same as the old One World Trade Center so the Sears/Willis Tower will still have a higher roof and occupied floor. Moreover any person who views greatness and loyalty to a city simply based on who has the tallest building in the world/nation has a shallow loyalty to this city. I think we can agree on that so really it's a moot point.
Who the f__k really cares? The important thing is World Trade Center I is rising and that says it all. This "size" matter is unimportant and embarrassingly trite.
If I were a member of Al-Qaeda planning my 10th anniversary attack on the US, the Willis Tower would definitely be a target. It is the tallest building in the US now since the twin towers are gone. Why isn't the media or anyone else considering this more? Even aside from the 10th anniversary aspect of it, what about future attacks?
I'm sure the security is high and the risk is there, but the Willis/Sears Tower doesn't have the same cultural significance the WTC did. If I were a terrorist, I'd probably plan to hit the Rockefeller Center or the White House.
Yeah I'm sure that is why, keep thinking that. Also they were tall, that really upped the ante. Holy crap you guys are clueless. Also, they saw Home Alone 1 and knew it was in Chicago, then they actually watched Home Alone 2 and saw that Kevin goes to the observation deck of the World Trade Center, thus knowing if they blew it up it would effect both residents of New York, and those of Chicago who are proud of having Home Alone featured in it's wealthy suburban enclaves in the previous first version. You know what, I think you are really onto something.
Al Queda also attacks towers b/c being terrorists are an end in itself, and it is definitive being such terrorists, that they need to blow up buildings, as all terrorists do the same type terror attacks.
The WTC had nothingggg to do with it being the world trade center and housing lots of gov organizations and wall street financial firms, zilch, nada. The pentagon was also targeted b/c it is in the shape of a pentagon, Americans love shapes and geometry, and Islamic Terrorists are anti math/science, so they showed us. Just tall buildings that are scary in a big city!!! You guys are really onto some good theories here.
This thread is just a human landfill of nothing productive being added - and I don't exactly have any desire to up it -but this poster/post really caught my attention.
I was looking for some sort of numbers, citations, statistics, articles, etc. to prove a point. Instead, what's found here? Self-righteous indignation, desperate attempts at affirming one’s own self-worth, name-dropping, random cliches, and just overall pathetic grasps at saving face.
I was curious to see how this handle was perusing threads, and wasted my damn time looking at his 25 posts. Results?
11 - Posts signifying Chicago in disfavor. Fine. How many posts actually had a sliver of some sort of empirical evidence?
0 - Posts with any sort of empirical evidence.
How many different threads?
4 - threads.
That's quality city-data posting right there. What the hell's the point of a post deprived of quality, statistics, logical ideas, or any sort of support? And rather concocting and misrepresenting others' assertions? There is no point. It's a worthless post. Just like this one.
I disagree with this notion that somehow it is inevitable that Chicago will no longer be the third largest city, it's a common thing that Chicago haters latch on to. I am not saying it is utterly impossible for a city like Houston to surpass Chicago someday (I don't even know what the implied second city to pass Chicago is, Phoenix?) but to talk about it as if it essentially already is, is absurd. Chicago and Houston would have to have identical population loss and gain respectively for 20-30 years to switch places and rarely do demographic trends hold for that long. So sorry saying that something MIGHT happen in the 2030's does not cut it. Now in the case of 1980 when Los Angeles was within about 40K of eclipsing Chicago at the time of the census, THEN is the time to talk about it. Chicago still has 600K more people than Houston, far different than LA and Chicago in 1980. This not even touching the reality that Chicago proper is 227 square miles and Houston proper is 600 square miles and that Chicago metro is way bigger than Houston metro. Jumping the gun is an understatement here. Honestly the only people who make this kind of argument about Houston surpassing Chicago is those who WANT it to happen and are psychologically addicted to the notion of Chicago going down and thus need to see the glass as half empty to justify their own world view. That's what it is about, it's not about a logical discussion of changing demographics it's about vindication of one's own ideology, when there is good news about Chicago they would omit it and try to knock holes in the argument because being right is more important than loyalty to one's own city. If that reality is too hard to swollow for some than I say too bad. No serious urban scholar believes Chicago has a declining role in the world aside from perhaps America as a whole having a smaller role, it's why Chicago was recently ranked the sixth most powerful economic city in the world. So it's as plain as day there is no logic to back up your views up just wishful thinking that you are correct.
Secondly at the risk of sounding Chicago defensive I must also point out that the new World Trade Center will only be taller than the Sears/Willis Tower by virtue of a spire reaching 1,776 feet, the roof height will be the same as the old One World Trade Center so the Sears/Willis Tower will still have a higher roof and occupied floor. Moreover any person who views greatness and loyalty to a city simply based on who has the tallest building in the world/nation has a shallow loyalty to this city. I think we can agree on that so really it's a moot point.
Well we shall start with some figures and facts. Chicago had 3.6 million people in 1950 and has seen declines in nearly every decade since. You are right no one can predict the future but the facts show that Chicago is not even stable..it's in decline. Do you understand the EXPLOSIVE growth seen in Houston, Phoenix, Dallas? Now I understand there are other factors here like Houston being 600 square miles and Phoenix being 550. I also understand that the economy has a impact because people are "stuck" in chicago and the decline would have been much larger if not for that.
This is fact. When the economy does well Chicago is on the loosing side of the population change and the cities mentioned gain..and gain big! It is interesting you bring up demographics because you may think that the populatioin leaving the city of chicago are the very poor but that is not the case. The facts from the census show that the middle class whites and middle class blacks that can leave the city...DO!
Let me ask a question. You say Chicago was ranked 6th most economic powerful city in the world. Do you think it was at a higher rank in say 1955? Things change and for Chicago the change has not been for the better and in my opinion and the opinion of others Chicago will continue the slide down while other US cities continue to rise.
In the words of Steve Bartin in 2008 "
The horrible public schools, high taxes, and crime have driven families out of Chicago. The city’s job base cannot compete with anti-union places like Houston and Phoenix.
Chicago used to be the number one convention town in America but Las Vegas and Orlando now lead the pack. Chicago has lost its top spot as busiest airport to Atlanta. Chicago's high priced unions and restrictive work rules have driven business elsewhere. For decades, Chicago was a major banking center with two major banking headquarters located on LaSalle Street. Continental Bank and First National Bank of Chicago were always among the top ten largest banks for much of the twentieth century.
No longer. Continental was purchased by Bank of America while First National Bank of Chicago was purchased by JP Morgan. Not a single bank in the top 25 largest banks in America is headquartered in Chicago. While Chicago’s financial district declines Charlotte, North Carolina has emerged as a bigger banking town. Charlotte has the headquarters of two of the four largest banks in America: Wachovia and Bank of America.
Other elements of Chicago’s financial district also show major weaknesses. Chicago doesn’t have one major mutual fund company headquarters. Chicago’s mutual fund job base is smaller than Denver, Indianapolis, or Baltimore. Chicago has a few major hedge funds but nothing like New York City or London. Chicago is the futures capital of America with the merger of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade but even here the news isn’t all positive. Computers have shed tens of thousands of jobs in the futures industry. Futures trading floors are headed for extinction within the next three to seven years, eliminating even more jobs.
Chicago’s high tax life style has driven businesses and jobs to the suburbs. Chicago is one ofthe only towns in America with an employee head tax on employment. Companies with over 50 employees must pay $4 a month per employee to the city. Most of the major corporate headquarters in the Chicago area are located in Chicago’s suburbs. Motorola, Walgreens, All State, Kraft, Anixter, Illinois Tool Works, McDonald’s, Alberta-Culver, and Abbott Labs all have their corporate headquarters outside city limits.
Recently, Chicago got its first Wal-Mart. In most places in America, politicians allow consumers to decide whether a business should fail or succeed. In Chicago, with the power of the unions, Chicago’s city council has made it difficult for Wal-Mart to open up any more stores. Chicago’s poor are relegated to paying higher retail prices and have less access to entry-level jobs. The adjacent suburb of Niles has the unusual distinction of being the only town in America (with less than 45,000 people) with two Wal-Marts. One of the Niles Wal-Marts is located right across the street from Chicago."
Well we shall start with some figures and facts. Chicago had 3.6 million people in 1950 and has seen declines in nearly every decade since. You are right no one can predict the future but the facts show that Chicago is not even stable..it's in decline. Do you understand the EXPLOSIVE growth seen in Houston, Phoenix, Dallas? Now I understand there are other factors here like Houston being 600 square miles and Phoenix being 550. I also understand that the economy has a impact because people are "stuck" in chicago and the decline would have been much larger if not for that.
This is fact. When the economy does well Chicago is on the loosing side of the population change and the cities mentioned gain..and gain big! It is interesting you bring up demographics because you may think that the populatioin leaving the city of chicago are the very poor but that is not the case. The facts from the census show that the middle class whites and middle class blacks that can leave the city...DO!
Let me ask a question. You say Chicago was ranked 6th most economic powerful city in the world. Do you think it was at a higher rank in say 1955? Things change and for Chicago the change has not been for the better and in my opinion and the opinion of others Chicago will continue the slide down while other US cities continue to rise.
I actually learned nothing new from your post because I know all the facts and figures very cold about population, in fact that is the reason I disputed your assertion in saying Chicago will be the 5th largest city as if it is some inevitable fact. I have heard people say 4th because of Houston but you saying 5th shows how negative you are and probably want to be. Other cities have made that mistake, a few years ago unofficial census estimates said Phoenix was bigger than Philadelphia in about 2007 but when the official 2010 census came out guess what? Philadelphia was still slightly bigger than Phoenix, it seems in that case the later will surpass the former this decade but it is an example of jumping the gun.
Also Chicago did gain population in the 2000 census, something you alluded to when you said "most" decades since 1950 experienced a population decline. Many american cities fared worse than expected in the 2010 census, this was not something unique to Chicago at all.
As far as Chicago's economic ranking today vs. 1955 well the cities in 2011 are ranked NYC, London, Tokyo, Paris, Hong Kong, Chicago. Now if it has fallen since 1955 it is because of globalization and the rise of places like Hong Kong and Tokyo and not because of Chicago's decline. It is also quite amazing that after all this time Los Angeles has still not surpassed Chicago in that regard, illustrating how much further behind other cities you mentioned are.
Honestly legitimate criticism of Chicago's public policy and how everything can effect the future of the city is something I welcome. However your preaching the inevitable decline of Chicago is not only something I disagree with for logical reasons grounded in fact but also I find your pessimism disturbing and if you claim to care for Chicago your lack of loyalty is repulsive to me. I am sorry but I just can't take somebody seriously who states as if it's inevitable that Chicago will be the 5th largest city without wondering if you have something emotionally invested in Chicago's decline. I have laid my emotions about Chicago on the table but I also have a lot of reason to back up my arguments and most serious urban scholars agree with me. The question I wonder is what chip you have on your shoulders and when you say others agree with you I imagine your probably mean your average joe blow on the street and armchair critics of the city who might have some valid points but have caught the glass is half empty bug. I am an optimist and you seem to be a pessimist. Maybe that is the key and why I shouldn't take what you say personally because someone like you would have said NYC was finished in 1975 because it went bankrupt or for that matter Chicago with all it's de-industrialization. Honestly that Steve Bartin quote 2008 has insights into the challenges of the city but taken by itself is only focusing on the negative glass if half empty mentality. You can make any place seem in bad shape if you cherry pick to suit your worldview. So my counter evidence about all these corporations is Groupon being headquartered in downtown Chicago and several financial firms just this summer that chose to relocated downtown with Sara Lee considering a move downtown. Companies are following the talent that want to live and work downtown and that will benefit Chicago, can the city possibly do more to promote this? Sure but considering we are still in a recession the economic news has not all been bad.
You made some good points about peripheral issues regarding challenges the city faces but as far as the city being in some kind of permanent decline or being surpassed by other cities your case is rather weak and probably based on some kind of emotional undercurrent and not on logic.
Last edited by chicago103; 09-13-2011 at 11:49 PM..
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.
