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.
It does not change the fact that there is more to the United States than an handful of wealthy cities. Like it or not as Americans we are all in the same leaky boat.
Yeah Chicago is big; it is the largest convenience store in the Midwest, but that does not change facts. There is more to Illinois and the Midwest than one city. Yes, Chicago is a true Midwestern, American city: founded by an Illinois resident, and a city in Peoria County for several years before Cook was pulled out and formed. This Alpha city has country roots it neither relates to celebrates or embraces. And nn that regard Chicagoans do stand alone.
I don't really have any interest in Edsg's Chicago triumphalism, but Chicago is still a city with the Roman goddess of grain looking down upon its central business district. I'd say Chicago, due its history of meatpacking among the blue-collar set and agricultural commodity trading among the white-collar set relates/celebrates its rural neighbors about as much as one could expect for a city its size.
If it didn't embrace the 'country' roots, you wouldn't have half of University of Iowa's student population coming from Chicagoland.
Chicago dominates the Midwest in most things. However there is more to the Midwest than one ginormous city. Unfortunately, and unlike NYC, Chicago has no competition. And unlike NYC, Chicagoans do not have much in the way in terms of cultural experience except within Chicagoland whereas New yorkers have DC and Boston for variety. While New Yorkers might escape the city by going to the Hamptons or Martha's Vineyard, Chicagoans go to the Wisconson Dells or Door County, and the Indiana Dunes or the Indy 500. .
BS. Then they are just ignorant.
New Yorkers do NOT really have any interest in Boston or DC. New York proper is 15 times the size of Boston or DC!! (8 million in the five burroughs, about 600,000 in DC and Boston) The metro areas or tri-state new York is 22 million as opposed to the 6-8 million pop of Boston and DC combined metro popl.
If anything New Yorkers even more so than Chicagoans see no reason to go anywhere else. Thats a bad comparison.
If Chicagoans don't appreciate and don't care to see what STL, Detroit, Cleveland, or Cinncy has to offer then thats their loss.
Granted however, we have much more huge distances between big cities in the midwest, so in that respect it is understandable why Chicagoans wouldn't bother checking them out. New York is no more than two hours to Philly in no traffic (which almost is never the case) Boston maybe three to four hours.
Chicago is unique in this regard. And, no, I'm not singing our praises, just looking at a reality. That reality doesn't make us better or worse; just different.
No US city can come close to the dominance that Chicago shows in its own region. Period. It's not even close.
New York may be A #1, king of the hill, top of the heap, but it shares a narrow Boswash corridor with DC and that alone should tell you how it has to share its position. But there is more than DC. There's also Boston, a global city of incredible urban presence. And Philadelphia is no slouch. Only the fifth city in the northeast corridor, Baltimore, fits the mold of power and presence of the other midwestern cities other than Chicago.
The South? It's a free-for-all. Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Dallas are all in the same league.
Out west? The nation state of California alone offers two heavy weights of alpha global status in the form of San Francisco and Los Angeles. Neither of those cities will ever be in the shadow of the other. Outside of California, Seattle exists as a formidible place.
And then there is Chicago. Alone as the stand apart city in the mid-continent. Nothing can compare. Up to the mid point of the 20th century, Detroit and a healthy automotive industry shared many muscular attributes with Chicago (though without its white collar strengths); sadly we all know what has happened to Detroit, a true American tragedy.
The Twin Cities are arguably The Second City of the Midwest with their high quality of urban life and an admirable arts scene, but the scale just doesn't match Chicago. Minneapolis is pure Minnesota Nice, but it is no global metropolis.
The rest? St. Louis may offer a type of historical charm but this is (like Detroit) a sadly decimated place. Gritty (in a good sense) Cleveland also suffers greatly. Milwaukee, IMHO, is a great town, highly underrated, but no midwestern city comes close to being under Chicago's thumb as our next-door neighbors. That's not a bad thing. Milwaukee benefits from being part of an extended Chicago region. Cincinnati may have been the first major midwestern city, it too a place of true charm, but it sticks out from other midwestern cities only by the height of its topography. Columbus and Indianapolis may have experienced a type of growth that other midwestern cities did not during the post WWII era, but that's because they rose from rather small places, these non-industrial cities (by midwestern standards) following the post war rise of places like Atlanta and Houston. Let's see: did I leave any city out? KC....but not much to discuss there short of cows.
And then there is Chicago which speaks for itself.
Yep, we are unique. No city can come close to Chicago's ability to #1 in its own region. And there is something related to this that also speaks of how different a type of place Chicago is. If you were to draw a line some 200 miles inland from all three of our coasts....Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf and look at that huge nation behind that line, you'd find only one truly global city, Chicago. Chicago alone comes across The Great American City that was built by America. The coastal cities got their start through European colonization, certainly more true of the northeastern cities (short of DC, but let's not forget that Georgetown wasn't named after a president), but also of New Orleans's French/Spanish creole mix and the Spanish roots of LA and SF.
Chicago, however, is uniquely American.
Again, I say this not as better or worse, just my opinion of how it is. Indeed we lack the good fortune of those on the northeast corridor who share an endless array of urban delight in one small stretch of coast. Or how about California where people have access to two incredible world class metropolises in the form of Los Angeles and the Bay Area....and that doesn't even include that embarassment of riches that makes the Golden State stand out in a way that no other state could match in its offerings. But none of this negates the Chicago uniqueness I described. And I say it in the right place. I'm saying this in the Chicago subforum where such observations are appropriate; I'd be out-of-line, I think, if I posted this elsewhere where it might come across offensive.
I agree with you.
I still think this all comes down to preference and perception.
LA proper is 3.8 million, with a combined statistical area of 17-18 million. The Bay area is 7 million, with San Fran being 700,000. Seattle is even less. San Diego annexed quite a bit of land and is over a million but only 3 million in the metro. Yet many people prefer the other cities/metro areas, because they like them better.
Like I replied to Linix. New York City is 8 million people, with 22 million. The next largest city is Philly as 1.5 million, DC.-Baltimore is 8 million in the combined metro.
Chicago stands alone because of its centralized downtown/skyline/lakefront. And since that is unique, and there are many people who highly value that perception and preference becomes a reality on its own. If one believes that Royal Oak/Birmingham of Oakland County, Windsor, Ann Arbor, and the city of Detroit and their collective amenities make metro Detroit awesome, or that Ohios collective metro population of the three Cs and the states overall population density which is slightly higher than Illinois because of all its smaller urban areas then that should be just as valid and respected of an opinion, just as much as preferring Seattle, San Francisco, or San Diego to LA.
Besides Detroit is only as tragic as Rome, Italy, or Mexico City, formerly Tenochtitlan, or some other city that went through an era of economy hinderered 20th century communism. All places that were once one of the largest cities in the world, went through a downfall, and got reborn as a modern city which may even include anceint ruins as a tourist attraction. Detroits a boom and bust city, thats all. Detroit was gaining on Chicago from 1910 through the 1960s, stagnated through the 70s and 80s, experienced a bit of a rennassiance in the 90s, fell down again in the mid to late 2000s, only to experience some recent very positive change only within the last year or two. Its not going to be 2 million people ever again in the city of Detroit, but it can and is starting to become a hotbed for creativity, investment and entrepreurship.
What you say is true due to perception and preference, which as I said becomes reality. Which is totally fine, and has always been good for Chicago. However it is still ultimately subjective.
And if people want to think that downtown Chicago (everything in 312) makes the whole metropolitan area that much great cosmopolitan then that is good for Chicago. If one thinks that extensive public transit in the form of the El makes the city more "urban" and vibrant" rather than a city that has only a recently installed light rail system that is less extensive than the El, then that is good for Chicago. But ultimately again, is at the end of the day subjective and opinion.
Whether or not New Yorkers every leave the city is moot. The point is IF they chose to experience a different vibe/culture/? it is easy enough to visit DC*or Boston or Philly or even Maryland. Chicagoans have little choice. And while Chicago may embrace country roots, it does not embrace its own. .
Whether or not New Yorkers every leave the city is moot. The point is IF they chose to experience a different vibe/culture/? it is easy enough to visit DC*or Boston or Philly or even Maryland. Chicagoans have little choice. And while Chicago may embrace country roots, it does not embrace its own. .
I still think your wrong. Its still just as easy to visit Detroit, Cleveland, or Cincinnati. The actual distance between those places and Chicago may be significantly more. But one has to fight WAY more traffic to get OUT of New York and even the tri-state area as a whole. Once you get beyond Joliet, Munster, IN its 75 miles/hour all the way.
Granted those cities may not have a REAL lot that you can't, see, do and experience in Chicago, but you can do it less expensively, and fighting fewer crowds, less traffic, etc.
I still dont' see your point. Those other cities are an easy days drive (only 5 hours, Cleve - 6). You may not be familiar with them, but they are very accessible if one was interested in checking them out.
I do agree that Chicago does not embrace its "country" roots. If it did there would be a great nightlife district with great steakhouses and barbecue joints around the vicinity of 35th street just west of the Dan Ryan.
Oh lord if you want country roots go to elburn or woodstock. I've never seen a big city embrace its country roots. There is just no need.
I do like how close Chicago is to other cities. As a giants fan, if I move to Chicago I know I will still be able to catch a number of games because there are so many ball parks with in driving distance.
Tex...One thing worth mentioning is that a lotta folks in NYC are going to public trans it from NYC to a neighboring east coast city such as Philly, Boston, D.C., etc. Millions of people in NYC do not even own a vehicle. There is FREQUENT (but expensive) Amtrak rail service connecting all of these cities. Additionally there are several discount bus lines that connect these cities as well (Megabus, Bolt Bus, the Chinatown buses, Greyhound, Peter Pan bus, etc.). And every single one of those cities actually has decent public transit (ie. subway trains, etc.) of their own unlike Chicago's counterparts in the Midwest. Good luck trying to ride public transit in Detroit or Indianapolis lol. St. Louis & Minneapolis at least TRY to have some form of transit, although they're much less extensive than Chicago's CTA system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
I still think your wrong. Its still just as easy to visit Detroit, Cleveland, or Cincinnati. The actual distance between those places and Chicago may be significantly more. But one has to fight WAY more traffic to get OUT of New York and even the tri-state area as a whole. Once you get beyond Joliet, Munster, IN its 75 miles/hour all the way.
Granted those cities may not have a REAL lot that you can't, see, do and experience in Chicago, but you can do it less expensively, and fighting fewer crowds, less traffic, etc.
I still dont' see your point. Those other cities are an easy days drive (only 5 hours, Cleve - 6). You may not be familiar with them, but they are very accessible if one was interested in checking them out.
I do agree that Chicago does not embrace its "country" roots. If it did there would be a great nightlife district with great steakhouses and barbecue joints around the vicinity of 35th street just west of the Dan Ryan.
Oh lord if you want country roots go to elburn or woodstock. I've never seen a big city embrace its country roots. There is just no need.
I do like how close Chicago is to other cities. As a giants fan, if I move to Chicago I know I will still be able to catch a number of games because there are so many ball parks with in driving distance.
New Yorkers do NOT really have any interest in Boston or DC. New York proper is 15 times the size of Boston or DC!! (8 million in the five burroughs, about 600,000 in DC and Boston) The metro areas or tri-state new York is 22 million as opposed to the 6-8 million pop of Boston and DC combined metro popl.
If anything New Yorkers even more so than Chicagoans see no reason to go anywhere else. Thats a bad comparison.
If Chicagoans don't appreciate and don't care to see what STL, Detroit, Cleveland, or Cinncy has to offer then thats their loss.
Granted however, we have much more huge distances between big cities in the midwest, so in that respect it is understandable why Chicagoans wouldn't bother checking them out. New York is no more than two hours to Philly in no traffic (which almost is never the case) Boston maybe three to four hours.
Not to mention rail serves pretty much the entire Eastern Seaboard
Clear from DC all the way into Boston.
Sorry just noticed this was already mentioned.
And while Chicago may embrace country roots, it does not embrace its own. .
The City as we know it was built after the Fire on investments from NYC and London bankers. Workers came here from other cities when the factories opened, this is and always has been a quintessentially American city.
Chicago may be located in the grain belt, but IMO any "country" roots we have are purely in the form of commerce as related to agriculture.
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.
