Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-28-2007, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 103,201,963 times
Reputation: 29983

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by coldwine View Post
Having lived in both California and New England, I'm unimpressed. They're big, so what? They're limits on space and they serve no practical purpose.
That's exactly one of their draws. The difficulty of developing mountainous land leaves much of it undeveloped, which leads to more outdoor recreational opportunities. Part of what makes large swaths of Illinois so boring is that its geography has allowed about 90% of it to either be planted with corn or paved. The other 10% is teeming with people trying to get away from the other 90% on the weekends, so you can't help but feel like everyone that you're trying to get away from for a weekend followed you. Maybe endless acres of cornfields gets you off, but you'd be one of the few.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-28-2007, 02:43 PM
 
580 posts, read 1,681,268 times
Reputation: 108
Go for a medium size city... like Grand Rapids, Michigan.
You may have a better chance of keeping your job, let alone your relationship. :P
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2007, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,063 posts, read 31,628,883 times
Reputation: 3799
If you don't like cold Grand Rapids is surely not for you. Brrrr... And I mean so is Chicago- but at least it has the great city life to make it worthwhile
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2008, 08:04 AM
 
5 posts, read 13,661 times
Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Windy City John View Post
Spoken like a true flatlander!

Doesn't know what he's missing!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2008, 08:25 AM
 
Location: CHICAGO
88 posts, read 357,725 times
Reputation: 29
You will no doubt hear a lot of city vs city with threads like this one, but let's talk about one key point and leave it at that. I was schooled in Cambridge, MA and used to work around Kendall Sq for a biotech. I later moved to Portland, OR for a job and I will only speak about economy issues when comparing these two cities as I think that's 95% of what matters at your age. When you mention people working in bookstores to get by in Portland, you're right on. That's what really happens! People with MBA's and 5 years experience in their fields in cities x,y,z and when they come to Portland, it's usually because a company relo's them there. Once that company starts downsizing, where do you go? In Chicago, there's more opportunity and job openings than you can count. In Portland, if you get a pink slip at Nike, Intel or SIC....say goodbye. Pack your stuff and get out of the Northwest as there aren't that great of choices. This being said, I do like Portland and Seattle and think they are great choices for folks who's priorities look different than mine. Let me sum it up for you like this.

When I go to the polls to vote, my 2 biggest concerns are:
-Economy
-National Defense (including R&D)

You will no doubt encounter the majority of Portlanders and there's are:
-Welfare
-Education

Good luck!


Quote:
Originally Posted by GucciLittlePiggie View Post
(I'm sure you guys get annoying posts like this a lot, but I need some help. Sorry!)

So I live about 45 min outside Boston, I'm 25, and engaged. My fiancee and I are looking to move in spring 2009. I work in biotech, and she's almost done with an MBA, hoping for marketing or HR jobs. The main reasons for moving are the crappy weather here from late October --> early May, the fact that a 600k house is 1200 sq ft with no yard, and just for something different. Maybe more outdoor opportunities, less crowded (MA isn't so big, you see...), etc. Anyways, we had been focused on Portland, OR for awhile now. They seem to have low housing costs, compared to here, and a lot of nature stuff, good microbrews, wine, local food, etc. We're both liberal, but mainstream, and Portland seems good for that if you don't mind the freaks

Anyways, the obvious problems I see presented are the fact that it rains there a lot Nov-April, and this is preferable to snow, but might get depressing, compared to clear winter days of fresh snow. Also, I guess the job market is quite bad there. We're worried we're going to wind up working at a bookstore or something, stuck in gloomy weather. How does Chicago fit in to this? Is it reasonable for 2 college-educated late-20-somethings to make a combined 90k there? Or enough to buy a normal house? What is the shopping like (malls, little shops, etc)? What are the people like, friendly, conservative, liberal, diverse, straight-laced, weirdos, dressy, casual?? What kind of cars do people drive? Are there cool lofts or apartments downtown? Do people in my demographic typically live in suburbs, downtown, or certain sections? Is the weather nice? I'd really love some thoughts on the good, the bad, and any suggestions....on Chicago, Portland, other places, whatever.

Sorry this was so long and rambling. Thanks very much for anyone who responds!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 01:23 AM
 
40 posts, read 76,296 times
Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldwine View Post
Having lived in both California and New England, I'm unimpressed. They're big, so what? They're limits on space and they serve no practical purpose.

This is one of the strangest (if not dumbest) things I've ever read on the internet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 03:57 AM
 
Location: West Michigan
3,119 posts, read 6,606,364 times
Reputation: 4544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enders-1 View Post
This is one of the strangest (if not dumbest) things I've ever read on the internet.
I don't know, I sort of get what he's saying. Mountains are beautiful and all, but they are not nearly as useful as flat land with fertile soil. That's one of the saving graces of the midwest, in my opinion. I kinda like seeing the land worked up every spring, watching the crops grow, watching them being harvested. As opposed to just... watching rocks sit there and slowly erode over the course of millions of years.

But you almost have to grow up in the rural midwest to appreciate it. I'm not sure why that is. I can appreciate mountains AND farm land. But people from urban areas only seem to be able to appreciate mountains/forests/coasts. Does that mean I'm more open minded?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2012, 07:41 PM
 
40 posts, read 76,296 times
Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by michigan83 View Post
I don't know, I sort of get what he's saying. Mountains are beautiful and all, but they are not nearly as useful as flat land with fertile soil.
That's not true at all.


Quote:
That's one of the saving graces of the midwest, in my opinion. I kinda like seeing the land worked up every spring, watching the crops grow, watching them being harvested. As opposed to just... watching rocks sit there and slowly erode over the course of millions of years.
There no "saving grace" about millions upon millions of acres of developed land that is soaked with pesticides and where the water in the rivers isn't fit for drinking. Also, biodiversity has been wiped out in these areas. Key predator species are assaulted non-stop based on ignorance and a monoculture mentality.

Mountain and forest ecosystems provide CLEAN drinking water for 100 million Americans, provide habitat for the rarest animals on earth, including grizzly bears, wolverines, bull trout, and other imperiled species.The quality of the habitat in many of these ecoystems is first-rate (The Rocky Mountain Front in Montana, Yellowstone National Park, Glacier National Park). They also act as air purifiers, carbon sinks, and temperature moderators.

This is why you'll find most national parks in the mountain and forest ecosystems. There's nothing wild in any sense about the Midwest except for the Northwoods, and even that doesn't begin to cut it (with the exception of Northern Minnesota).

While farmland is important, don't forget what that actually was at one time - pristine prairie, with bison, elk, wolves, and mountain lion and rivers you could drink from. That no longer exists. We wiped it out and developed it for farms and strip malls and subdivisions. Rugged moutnain and forest ecosystems are not only a last refuge for the most development-sensitive speices but they are last refuges FOR US in regards to clean air, clean water, and space.



Quote:
But you almost have to grow up in the rural midwest to appreciate it. I'm not sure why that is. I can appreciate mountains AND farm land. But people from urban areas only seem to be able to appreciate mountains/forests/coasts. Does that mean I'm more open minded?
No, it means you just don't understand how ecosystems work, no offense.

You could start by reading this site, which will change forever how you look at the landscape.

The most important landscape we have is roadless landscape, and it is disappearing:

Roadlessland.org ~ Discover Your Land Now

Notice how almost all of the roadless areas left are in the west? Very simple reasons for that. These areas, by default, are the most pristine places in the U.S., with the best species diversity, air quality, water quality, and habitat. They act as "core buffers" for the land around them. Think of rings of habitat quality, with the core roadless areas in the center, and getting progressively weaker until the rings hit the cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2012, 11:51 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
6,413 posts, read 12,147,004 times
Reputation: 5860
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinegar312 View Post
When I go to the polls to vote, my 2 biggest concerns are:
-Economy
-National Defense (including R&D)

You will no doubt encounter the majority of Portlanders and there's are:
-Welfare
-Education

Good luck!
Welfare? Not even close to a top two priority or concern. It's without a doubt Economy, and I'll give you education.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2012, 08:15 PM
 
Location: West Michigan
3,119 posts, read 6,606,364 times
Reputation: 4544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enders-1 View Post
There no "saving grace" about millions upon millions of acres of developed land that is soaked with pesticides and where the water in the rivers isn't fit for drinking. Also, biodiversity has been wiped out in these areas. Key predator species are assaulted non-stop based on ignorance and a monoculture mentality.

Mountain and forest ecosystems provide CLEAN drinking water for 100 million Americans, provide habitat for the rarest animals on earth, including grizzly bears, wolverines, bull trout, and other imperiled species.The quality of the habitat in many of these ecoystems is first-rate (The Rocky Mountain Front in Montana, Yellowstone National Park, Glacier National Park). They also act as air purifiers, carbon sinks, and temperature moderators.

...
I don't remember saying that I like the Midwest because of the intact ecosystem here. Did I miss something?

I was giving my opinion that I like and appreciate the appearance of farmland in the Midwest, and also the fact that acre upon acre of crops are grown here. And yes, the physical appearance that I am commenting on includes many man-made structures, such as big red barns, houses, and mile after mile of roads. I also am fully aware that the landscape has been altered big time by humans. My area in particular was mostly forested at one time (not prairie), and now it is a combination of cleared land and square patches of woods. I also know that farmers are not always respectful of the ecosystem. I own 7 acres of land next to farmland. Farmers like to use the woods as a place to collect piles of rocks that have been picked from the fields, or to dump corn stubble after the harvest.

Anyway, the point is that I have two eyes, just like you, and my eyes are telling me that the surrounding landscape here is pleasing to the eye, regardless of how it ended up looking this way. If you can only find pleasure from looking at land that is untouched by humans, you are going to spend a lot of time being disgusted with your surroundings, because humans are everywhere, and they are multiplying. Thankfully we have large-scale agriculture in the Midwest so that we can at least attempt to feed all of them.

Oh, and for the record... I love it out west. It is amazing for all of the reasons you have stated. I am not debating that.

Last edited by michigan83; 07-25-2012 at 08:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:19 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top