Any Latent "Chicago Cardinals" Love Still Out There? (worth, sports) - Illinois (IL) - Page 6 - City-Data Forum

Drover · 02-04-2009, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pittsteelerfan

Man, you need to let this go! A 'borough' is a sub-division of a city. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Pittsburgh, but have you ever been say Sharpsburgh, Etna, Millvale, I think Rankon, Braddock etc are boroughs too. You'll never confuse them with a 'true suburb', they're still very 'city' in nature. I hope this answers your question.

P.s. NYC is made of 5 'boroughs'. Mannhattan, Queens, Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island.

The five boroughs of New York used to be separate municipalities until they united to form a single municipality. In NYC, borough presidents are figureheads. The boroughs do not have their own government bodies or any separate authority. Their only claim to autonomy is at the county level since the borough boundaries are also coterminous with county boundaries.

That's not how it works in Pennsylvania. A borough is not a sub-division of a city in Pennsylvania like it is in New York City. In Pennsylvania, boroughs are autonomous and politically independent. They have their own mayors, city councils, budgets, public works, taxing authority, et cetera. Some near Pittsburgh share city services such as police and fire protection out of economic convenience, but that's it. So I still don't understand how they're not "real" suburbs when they're politically independent and not part of the city. Etna is no less a suburb of Pittsburgh than Oak Lawn is of Chicago.

pittsteelerfan · 02-04-2009, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drover

The five boroughs of New York used to be separate municipalities until they united to form a single municipality. In NYC, borough presidents are figureheads. The boroughs do not have their own government bodies or any separate authority. Their only claim to autonomy is at the county level since the borough boundaries are also coterminous with county boundaries.

That's not how it works in Pennsylvania. A borough is not a sub-division of a city in Pennsylvania like it is in New York City. In Pennsylvania, boroughs are autonomous and politically independent. They have their own mayors, city councils, budgets, public works, taxing authority, et cetera. Some near Pittsburgh share city services such as police and fire protection out of economic convenience, but that's it. So I still don't understand how they're not "real" suburbs when they're politically independent and not part of the city. Etna is no less a suburb of Pittsburgh than Oak Lawn is of Chicago.

Jesus, you got alot time on your hands! If all those boroughs in Pittsburgh, you consider the 'burbs', God bless you. I don't live in one, don't care. I never had the feeling of being in a 'suburb' when I was passing by, or stopping for a drink. Pittsburgh's got some rough ass people living in their 'suburbs' if thats the case too. I know areas like Broddock and Rankon ain't considered the 'city' of Pittsburgh either, I'd NEVER consider those ares to be 'suburbs'. But maybe you do.

I'm well aware of how NYC works and how it was formed. You probably also know that MOST NYC'ers saying that they're going into 'the city', when refering to 'Mannhattan'. Alot of them who were actually born and raised there will argue the fact that Queens or Brooklyn are even NYC. They honestly believe that ONLY Mannhattan, is actually NYC.

A borough, I would consider to be, a transional piece of land between the 'city' and the 'burbs'. If that makes any sense.

Drover · 02-04-2009, 01:33 AM

Well yeah, I consider Braddock (not "Broddock") and Rankin to be suburbs, because that's what they are. Since they are independent municipalities that are part of the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, that kind of makes them suburbs by definition. Dolton and Harvey and Cal City are rough too, but that doesn't make them part of Chicago. That just makes them rough suburbs.

And no, "a transitional piece of land between the 'city' and 'burbs'" doesn't make sense because Pennsylvania has hundreds of boroughs that are nowhere near major cities.

pittsteelerfan · 02-04-2009, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drover

Well yeah, I consider Braddock (not "Broddock") and Rankin to be suburbs, because that's what they are. Since they are independent municipalities that are part of the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, that kind of makes them suburbs by definition. Dolton and Harvey and Cal City are rough too, but that doesn't make them part of Chicago. That just makes them rough suburbs.

And no, "a transitional piece of land between the 'city' and 'burbs'" doesn't make sense because Pennsylvania has hundreds of boroughs that are nowhere near major cities.

lol Jesus Dover, you win! By the way my man, I've worked at Edgar Thompson many times (the steel mill there), I know how to spell 'braddock'. I just know that the city of Pittsburgh delivers mail to them (have family that are city mailmen). None of those areas I listed look or feel like 'real suburbs'. Braddock and Rankon look like war zones, but to you, they're suburbs, you point has been taken. Boroughs, like I said, to ME, are a transitional are between the burb and city.

I'm not familiar with Cal city or the other places you listed, but do they look suburban? If someone didn't know that wasn't Chicago, could they tell by looking? Like the difference between Braddock or Garfield? How about Butler Street in Lawerenceville or Butler Street in Sharpsburg?

P.S. I can imagine someone from Pittsburgh travelling and someone asking them "Hey, where you from"? and then them saying "The 'suburbs' of Pittsurgh" then the guy says" Oh really, I'm from Fox Chapel, and my wife is from Hampton, what suburb are you from"? then he says "Braddock".

!!!!!!!!

Fishtacos · 02-04-2009, 03:19 PM

Late to the discussion. As someone who's lived in Chicago and St. Louis, I pulled for the Cardinals, but mostly because of Kurt Warner.

The majority of St. Louis fans were pulling for Warner. His large appeal really is something. There were some factions of old St. Louis Big Red fans,(Gray, Metcalf, Hanifan, Coryell, etc...) as well as smaller factions of despise anything Bill Bidwill root against the Cardinals at all cost fans too. Can't blame them for that, Bill Bidwill treated his players and fans terribly in St. Louis, though ironically is a very charitable person outside of that. But the biggest group of the all by a lot was pro the pro Warner group.

The guy wins NFL Man of the year for all of his charitable work, and much of that was even in St. Louis, a city he hasn't played in for several years. Who else goes out to dinner less than 48 hours before the game and buys a group of 20 Steeler fans dinner in low key fashion? (He buys one table dinner every time he eats out)

I know some high profile sports media types and to a person, they say Warner is the most genuine, generous guy they've ever covered in sports. Tough to root against that.

Avengerfire · 02-04-2009, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishtacos

Late to the discussion. As someone who's lived in Chicago and St. Louis, I pulled for the Cardinals, but mostly because of Kurt Warner.

The majority of St. Louis fans were pulling for Warner. His large appeal really is something. There were some factions of old St. Louis Big Red fans,(Gray, Metcalf, Hanifan, Coryell, etc...) as well as smaller factions of despise anything Bill Bidwill root against the Cardinals at all cost fans too. Can't blame them for that, Bill Bidwill treated his players and fans terribly in St. Louis, though ironically is a very charitable person outside of that. But the biggest group of the all by a lot was pro the pro Warner group.

The guy wins NFL Man of the year for all of his charitable work, and much of that was even in St. Louis, a city he hasn't played in for several years. Who else goes out to dinner less than 48 hours before the game and buys a group of 20 Steeler fans dinner in low key fashion? (He buys one table dinner every time he eats out)

I know some high profile sports media types and to a person, they say Warner is the most genuine, generous guy they've ever covered in sports. Tough to root against that.

Here is one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aragx6

Kurt Warner was a real asset to St. Louis and did a lot of fabulous charity work while he lived there, plus he was a damn fine quarterback, so I had to root for the Cardinals -- though I agree with Lookout that my hatred for Phoenix almost made my loyalties swing the other direction.

P.S. Both feet were so down.