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.
Please tell me one thing I have posted that is factually wrong.
Look, you're transparent to me. You find threads involving Chicago and troll. Like I said, keep up the good work. I actually find you sort of amusing in a way.
Look, you're transparent to me. You find threads involving Chicago and troll. Like I said, keep up the good work. I actually find you sort of amusing in a way.
Looks like you're the troll. I post facts, you don't like the facts, so you resort to personal attacks.
If you have anything to add to the conversation, then do so. If not, then stop trolling.
Charleston wasn't, but New Orleans, St Louis, and Baltimore were.. There goes that angle.
Wrong. None of these cities were bigger, unless you want to go back centuries.
Go back to the 1880 Census (for example) and you see that Chicago is much bigger than Baltimore, New Orleans, and St. Louis, but much smaller than Philly.
And this is why Philly feels bigger. It was a bigger city, until the 20th Century. Chicago is a young city, and feels raw.
Wrong. None of these cities were bigger, unless you want to go back centuries.
Go back to the 1880 Census (for example) and you see that Chicago is much bigger than Baltimore, New Orleans, and St. Louis, but much smaller than Philly.
And this is why Philly feels bigger. It was a bigger city, until the 20th Century. Chicago is a young city, and feels raw.
Exactly my point. Everything built post automobile age, regardless of the city was a step backwards as far as urbanity went. Philly was lucky to have a mammoth city already at the time; before the automobile takeover. This goes the same for NYC and Boston.
I'd clump up Chicago along with Detroit, LA, and almost all of the MW in terms of the era in time where their respective populations boomed. Boston/Baltimore/DC/Philly/NY are of a different era IMO.
Wrong. None of these cities were bigger, unless you want to go back centuries.
Go back to the 1880 Census (for example) and you see that Chicago is much bigger than Baltimore, New Orleans, and St. Louis, but much smaller than Philly.
And this is why Philly feels bigger. It was a bigger city, until the 20th Century. Chicago is a young city, and feels raw.
Chicago passed Philly in 1890 like it has with the rest of those cities due to one of the biggest booms of growth in the nation's history. Philly is older but smaller today compared to Chicago. Philly will not grow fast enough in our life to catch back up to Chicago's size. It's a fact we live with today. London was the world's largest city get my point.
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.