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.
NYC is the main port of entry for legal immigrants. Always has been. That certainly helps just as much as LA getting help from bordering Mexico.
Personally, id like be as far away from those *******s on Wall St.
Wouldnt you? I wouldnt take pride in that.
Wow, I have worked on Wall St. for 7 years, 99.9% of the people working there are normal people with wife, kids, and student debt. Way to make such a huge generalization.
AA or not Chicago's population is decreasing, NY population is increasing. What does it mean?
So is Chicago. Not that many immigrants come on boats nowadays, you know
And you think Chicago is the best city to run away from them?
You know Paris was had a decreasing population for decades and decades. Look it up. Paris was bleeding out people. So I guess during that time it was wasn't that great of city right? Nobody wanted to live there right.
Paris:
1954 - 2.8 million
1962 - 2.7 million
1968 - 2.5 million
1975 - 2.2 million
1982 - 2.1 million
1990 - 2.1. million
1999 - 2.1 million
2008 - 2.2 million
So Paris lost a ton of people, so I guess it is not that great of city where no one wants to live. I love when people use the Chicago population loss as a point against it because then I can bring in this data of Paris, a city that Chicago "can never live up to".
I believe that NYC is in a leauge of it's own. I just hate when people bring in population loss to this because there are usually several reasons for this. People always say "it's because no one wants to live there" which is usually the last reason. Many of the world's greatest cities and the U.S.'s have experienced population loss. So it's pretty hypocritical.
Tristann you never answered my question. What is so funny?
If there's one thing to be gained from this thread -- and apparently not much due to the last 10-12 pages of this thing veering toward ****dom-- it's that this Tristann person is a troll to be ignored. Dementoresque.
I dont disagree. NYC is clearly the superior city, but what you fail to understand is subjectivity. Of course NYC has more amenities, it has 3x the population to sustain. Just as Chicago does for its population.
Chicago actually does have a skyline that rivals NYC. Thats the thing. For a city 1/3 the size of NYC, it packs quite a substantial punch. It also doesnt have the issues that NYC does with NIMBYs and zoning issues to get taller buildings. High-rise living in Chicago may not provide everything close by, but perhaps they prefer it that way. I do know one thing, id rather have a lakeivew over an UWS view of Jersey. And for half the price. This is one just one example. Chicago is manageable. Its not overwhelming, its in a way, just right.This is the main point that you or tristann fail to comprehend, right here. It takes out some of the best things you can get in NYC and lays them out more practically, for half the cost, and arguably a nicer atmosphere.
Chicago. Quality over quantity.
Different strokes, for different folks.
and for all the superiority talk, Chicago is very close in the polls.
Lets stack NYC up to London for finance, or Tokyo for size, or Hong Kong/Sao Paulo for highrises, or Toronto for diversity (if the US keeps up its immigration policies, its also much easier to get into Canada), or virtually any city for cleanliness, etc.
Other cities are catching up, or have passed it already in a number of things.
Chicago has more quality than NYC? You're a bit early for April Fools, no?
NYC museums, NYC art, NYC restaurants, NYC shopping, NYC nightlife, NYC culture, high paying NYC jobs. Just not up to par with Chicago's world class offerings? Those ignorant world-billioniares, celebrities, and tourists who flock to NYC don't know what they're missing by flying over gold ol' Chicago, right? LOL, lay off of the pipe.
PS, 13% spread on a poll is usually considered a landslide victory.
You know Paris was had a decreasing population for decades and decades. Look it up. Paris was bleeding out people. So I guess during that time it was wasn't that great of city right? Nobody wanted to live there right.
Paris:
1954 - 2.8 million
1962 - 2.7 million
1968 - 2.5 million
1975 - 2.2 million
1982 - 2.1 million
1990 - 2.1. million
1999 - 2.1 million
2008 - 2.2 million
So Paris lost a ton of people, so I guess it is not that great of city where no one wants to live. I love when people use the Chicago population loss as a point against it because then I can bring in this data of Paris, a city that Chicago "can never live up to".
I believe that NYC is in a leauge of it's own. I just hate when people bring in population loss to this because there are usually several reasons for this. People always say "it's because no one wants to live there" which is usually the last reason. Many of the world's greatest cities and the U.S.'s have experienced population loss. So it's pretty hypocritical.
I dont agree with the "let's hate Chicago" thing that is going on, but to use Paris as an example is apples and oranges compared to Chicago population loss. Paris is roughly 40 sq miles compared to Chicago's roughly 230, even with this size difference, they are nearly the same in population.
The population loss in Paris is more on par to the Population loss Manhattan has seen since the first part of the 20th century (Manhattan at 20 sq miles used to have over 2 million people).
Paris lost population because people were no longer living 6 deep in a studio, the living conditions were much improved over the second half of the 20th century.
The population loss in Chicago is quite different, and nowhere in the city is it half as crowded as Manhattan or Paris.
I dont agree with the "let's hate Chicago" thing that is going on, but to use Paris as an example is apples and oranges compared to Chicago population loss. Paris is roughly 40 sq miles compared to Chicago's roughly 230, even with this size difference, they are nearly the same in population.
The population loss in Paris is more on par to the Population loss Manhattan has seen since the first part of the 20th century (Manhattan at 20 sq miles used to have over 2 million people).
Paris lost population because people were no longer living 6 deep in a studio, the living conditions were much improved over the second half of the 20th century.
The population loss in Chicago is quite different, and nowhere in the city is it half as crowded as Manhattan or Paris.
So why are NYC and Chicago even be compared as well if they are so different in their size as well? Paris and London are always compared to NYC, but they are so different in size. So we can't compare Chicago now to it?
Population in Chicago is dropping because many POOR people are leaving. The topic of AA was brought up because it's been many poor African Americans leaving for the burbs. A lot where kicked out as almost all the major housing projects have been destroyed. So the population loss = Chicago is less of a city and no one wants to live there doesn't stick just as it doesn't for Paris.
As many of you said, population loss is population loss. Every city has different circumstances as to why that happens, but it's a fact that both Paris and Chicago have loss huge populations, regardless of the reason. So people try to explain Chicago's loss and it's argues against, but then Paris is an exception? That's not being rational, fair or realistic. Let's not sugarcoat one because it's Paris, France. Population doesn't make or break a city, Paris is a case in point.
So why are NYC and Chicago even be compared as well if they are so different in their size as well? Paris and London are always compared to NYC, but they are so different in size. So we can't compare Chicago now to it?
Population in Chicago is dropping because many POOR people are leaving. The topic of AA was brought up because it's been many poor African Americans leaving for the burbs. A lot where kicked out as almost all the major housing projects have been destroyed. So the population loss = Chicago is less of a city and no one wants to live there doesn't stick just as it doesn't for Paris.
As many of you said, population loss is population loss. Every city has different circumstances as to why that happens, but it's a fact that both Paris and Chicago have loss huge populations, regardless of the reason. So people try to explain Chicago's loss, but then Paris is an exception. That's not being rational, fair or realistic.
As the income gap in this country continues to increase, itll continue pushing out middle class folks out of NYC as well. Most people going to the city are wealthy white folk and immigrants, before of course, they move either Upstate or to Jersey or elsewhere altogether.
Originally Posted by ChikidII;[URL="tel:[URL="tel:23508259"
23508259 (tel:23508259 - broken link)[/url]"]23508259 (tel:23508259 - broken link)[/url]] You know Paris was had a decreasing population for decades and decades. Look it up. Paris was bleeding out people. So I guess during that time it was wasn't that great of city right? Nobody wanted to live there right.
So Paris lost a ton of people, so I guess it is not that great of city where no one wants to live. I love when people use the Chicago population loss as a point against it because then I can bring in this data of Paris, a city that Chicago "can never live up to". .
Ha, ha ha. Do you realize that even now Paris has over 52K people / sq mille and when it was more populous its density was higher as well i.e. five times that of Chicago?
52,000 people per square mile and not that many high-rises. Paris is so dense that it is sometime unbearable, especially in the summer with the influx of tourists.
Anyways, when Chicago get to 52,000 people per square mile then it can start losing population and still stay an incredible urban experience. ROTFL
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChikidII;[URL="tel:23508259"
23508259 (tel:23508259 - broken link)[/url]]
I just hate when people bring in population loss to this because there are usually several reasons for this. People always say "it's because no one wants to live there" which is usually the last reason..
No. Besides some catastrophic events there is usually just one reason for population loss: people don't like to live in one location and move to another, more attractive location.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChikidII;[URL="tel:23508259"
23508259 (tel:23508259 - broken link)[/url]]
Many of the world's greatest cities and the U.S.'s have experienced population loss. So it's pretty hypocritical.
Hypocritical? Bud, between 1970 and 2010 Chicago lost 671K of residents or almost 20% of population. That's almost like losing entire Austin!
Of course such a population loss does not bode well for the city's future nor it is a reason to celebrate.
Pretending that Chicago is not in a deep population crisis and still trying to portray it as a global contender is silly.
Last edited by tristann; 03-21-2012 at 04:22 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.
