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)
 
 
Old 05-09-2010, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,189,749 times
Reputation: 4047

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower;14102938[B
]New Yorkers will think the way they want to think because its their home, just like people who like Chicago will think the way they want, people from San Francisco will to them, people from LA..etc etc. It is really all apart of defending where you are from, which is fine really.
[/b]
I have personally never been to Europe, but I have been to a whole lot of Asia, and the way "bigger" manifests itself there and most of the third world means "bigger slums". Western Europe (and hell, a lot of Eastern Europe) are not as populated as some of our bigger American metro areas, but they are not as fixated on that as the quality of the city itself. Otherwise, cities like Amsterdam (which is part of the Randstad) Copenhagen, and Helsinki would be overlooked. But population alone doesn't mean quality.

On this site, there are way too many people who are fixated on size. Look at all the people who defend Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and all the other sunbelt cities here. "Oh you know what, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta have bigger metro areas than San Francisco" So? What does that mean? It really doesn't mean anything because population size ALONE does NOT contribute to the quality of the place.

However, I will agree with you that a city can be bigger AND better. I am just saying that it shouldn't be the only determinant. To me as well, San Francisco feels sort of small but it makes up for it in the amount of energy it offers. Los Angeles is a BIG city, but the energy is more dispersed.

Chicago is bigger than SF, that's fine for me. But it doesn't mean that SF is a crappy place, which should be the bottom line.
I think that summarized the primary reasoning to all the controversies in this site.

Yeah bigger isn't always better, Miami is 38 square miles, and Houston is 601 square miles, but there are SO MANY things about Miami that top Houston's.

A wise woman once said, "Size isn't everything", little did she know her words would have such large impact.

 
Old 05-09-2010, 02:51 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,776,154 times
Reputation: 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower View Post
New Yorkers will think the way they want to think because its their home, just like people who like Chicago will think the way they want, people from San Francisco will to them, people from LA..etc etc. It is really all apart of defending where you are from, which is fine really.

I have personally never been to Europe, but I have been to a whole lot of Asia, and the way "bigger" manifests itself there and most of the third world means "bigger slums". Western Europe (and hell, a lot of Eastern Europe) are not as populated as some of our bigger American metro areas, but they are not as fixated on that as the quality of the city itself. Otherwise, cities like Amsterdam (which is part of the Randstad) Copenhagen, and Helsinki would be overlooked. But population alone doesn't mean quality.

On this site, there are way too many people who are fixated on size. Look at all the people who defend Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and all the other sunbelt cities here. "Oh you know what, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta have bigger metro areas than San Francisco" So? What does that mean? It really doesn't mean anything because population size ALONE does NOT contribute to the quality of the place.

However, I will agree with you that a city can be bigger AND better. I am just saying that it shouldn't be the only determinant. To me as well, San Francisco feels sort of small but it makes up for it in the amount of energy it offers. Los Angeles is a BIG city, but the energy is more dispersed.

Chicago is bigger than SF, that's fine for me. But it doesn't mean that SF is a crappy place, which should be the bottom line.
I agree with everything you said there. This is a lil different view so you can see what I mean... most pics on here are just all skyline, but never show you the other side...This is what most of Chicago looks like, and I'll go from further in, to keep panning out...






the last is just the downtown from the west, you aren't even seeing the north/northwest or south sides which are the biggest areas of the city..., most of the south loop is also cut off, that is about 4 miles of straight buildings in that pic. it goes on like that another 7-8 miles both north and south ...

which...is below,



so you can see it goes on and on and on like that...and back the other way looking south as well, that picture is primarily just the north/northwest side with the bleeding edge of the south and west sides..
but as you can see by the clearly marked grid, it keeps going south as well, below is looking back south from the hancock.


Last edited by grapico; 05-09-2010 at 03:18 PM..
 
Old 05-09-2010, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,945 posts, read 3,969,295 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower View Post
You guys are really way too fixated on size. If population size was the prime determinant of everything, then cities like Lagos, Mumbai, and Jakarta are the biggest world cities of them all

I really don't understand this mentality of "bigger is better". Most of the time, bigger = more problems. If someone doesn't like San Francisco because its 'too small', then to be honest, let them think that way. I honestly want the Bay Area to have LESS people because traffic there is already extremely bad.

Los Angeles is the 2nd largest metro area in the country and the 2nd largest city. Look how much respect that's resulted in from this site

Alright, now I hope you guys know that the way MSA's and CSA's are determined is not only overlapping development (but is very important), but also commuting patterns. If 5% of a county's population commutes from one MSA to another MSA, they become a CSA. If 15% of commuters go from one county's MSA to another county's MSA, then they are consolidated into one MSA. That's how it works.

Differences between the 1990 and 2000 Census Questionnaires

(County of Residence - County Outflow)

Wisconsin [Racine]:

Racine-Boone, IL: 3
Racine-Cook, IL: 141
Racine-DuPage, IL: 24
Racine-Lake, IL: 407
Racine-McHenry, IL: 76
Racine-Winnebago, IL: 6
Racine-Kenosha, WI: 6,526

Racine County Total Commuters [Racine County, Wisconsin - Selected Economic Characteristics: 2006-2008] 95,480
Racine County to Chicagoland: 7,183

7.52% of Racine County commuters commute to Chicagoland!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower View Post
I realize there is more than one county in Milwaukee's metropolitan area, but its not even close to being one CSA, never mind one metro area. Unless someone shows me data saying otherwise, then Milwaukee and Chicago are probably going to remain two distinct metro areas for awhile. Unless the US census bureau changes the definition of an MSA or CSA. Unless something happened in the past 10 years that 20,000 people from Milwaukee have to commuter to Chicagoland all of a sudden. Somehow, I doubt that. In fact, Milwaukee didn't even send commuters to ALL of Chicagoland's counties (which is why it isn't present).
Clearly you don't understand. WI is in the process of widening 94 from Milwaukee to the IL border. Metra is exploring extending service from Kenosha to Downtown Milwaukee. Chicagoland added the counties of Boone, DeKalb, and Winnebago in the last Census. I wouldn't be surprised if Walworth and Rock counties on the WI side get included in this year's Census.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower View Post
Milwaukee to Chicago (core) is the same distance as Stockton to San Francisco (core) as well.

Chicago-Milwaukee: 93.1 miles (Chicago, IL to Milwaukee, WI - Google Maps)
San Francisco-Stockton: 83.0 miles (San Francisco, CA to Stockton, CA - Google Maps)
Chicago-Milwaukee: 73.5 mi (General Mitchell Intl, Milwaukee, WI 53207 to Chicago O'Hare Intl, Chicago, IL 60666 - Google Maps)
 
Old 05-09-2010, 03:06 PM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
15,671 posts, read 18,223,008 times
Reputation: 11177
Great pics of Chicago up there. Very imposing skyline and building masonry.
 
Old 05-09-2010, 03:10 PM
 
370 posts, read 265,926 times
Reputation: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
I agree with everything you said there. This is a lil different view so you can see what I mean... most pics on here are just all skyline, but never show you the other side...This is what most of Chicago looks like, and I'll go from further in, to keep panning out...






the last is just the downtown from the west, you aren't even seeing the north/northwest or south sides which are the biggest areas of the city..., most of the south loop is also cut off, that is about 4 miles of straight buildings in that pic. it goes on like that another 7-8 miles both north and south ...

which...is below,



so you can see it goes on and on and on like that...
It looks OK.
 
Old 05-09-2010, 03:26 PM
 
Location: The City
21,945 posts, read 30,816,665 times
Reputation: 7489
^^ First i agree - the commuter rates blur the cohesion of areas - because of the proximity of some metros where they connect; it is very prevalent - this happens in my Metro which is even closer to the next (Philly and NYC only 46 miles from city border to city border) It is even more pronounced and created a CSA cut-off less than 11 miles from the edge of Philly yet the area inter-acts seemlessly. Having said that point it only is relavant when comparing population. Chicago is definately bigger than the bay area either by city or metro (with or without Milwaukee). Also said that bigger isn't always better but given the choice bigger and vibrant is. That being said I think you can't lose choosing either SF or Chicago. If you want to go on Size Chicago is bigger but both are winner in my book.

The census uses statistics to create comparisons. Sometimes they don't make sense to me - example according to statistics Phoenix is larger than Philadelphia as a city; in person they don't even seem in the same ballpark. Or Houston has a larger Metro - this I also disagree; but everyone on here is happy to put areas 50+ miles away into their metro and disregard places that are maintained in higher density of development less than 11 miles away because the census says more people commute 18 miles that direction versus 11 miles this direction. Sometimes getting out and seeing the places helps gain greater perspective. Philly has ~12 million people within a 50 mile radius and ~35 million within a 100 mile radius.

Allright back on topic - If the question is which is bigger - Chicago - If the question is which is better - you could almost flip a coin - both awesome cities; truly

btw Grapico - luv the first pic - one of my favorite neighborhoods in Chicago - and on the blue line with access to downtown and O'hare
 
Old 05-09-2010, 03:29 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,776,154 times
Reputation: 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjacobeclark View Post

good post... also...

Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor


there is a reason for having this site...

http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/~yopopov/rrt/us/chicago/rr_chicago_metra.gif
http://wikitravel.org/upload/shared/0/04/Metra_map.png

this is equivalent to the BART. just to show how chicago is developed out and how interconnected it is and how much chicago serves as the be all end all central location, while bay area as many have said is very much multi cored. SF is not even the most populated city in the Bay Area or with the most industrial development, San Jose is.

Last edited by grapico; 05-09-2010 at 03:41 PM..
 
Old 05-09-2010, 03:59 PM
 
594 posts, read 1,493,280 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer View Post
I don't get this either. San Francisco is obviously a lightweight compared to Chicago when it comes to size and architecture. Yet, some are intent on making San Francisco much larger than it actually is. Go figure.
No on is arguing that SF is bigger than Chicago. Obviously, SF is 850,000 (according to the latest figures) and Chicago is nearly 3 million. A huge difference no doubt.

The point is SF is still the cultural and economic center of the 5th or 6th biggest urbanized area in the country (and the 50th largest in the world). There are 7.6 million people within a very close area (and far more if you look at Sacramento and other nearby Central Valley cities). Again, this is obviously less than Chicago's nearly 10 million population in its urbanized area, but the difference in terms of overall urban area isn't as pronounced as you're making it out to be.

And while Chicago itself feels much bigger than SF, Chicagoland as a whole doesn't feel that much bigger than the Bay Area. Both are highly developed, and the Bay actually has more large cities and is denser than Chicagoland.
 
Old 05-09-2010, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,945 posts, read 3,969,295 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcroJimmy2 View Post
No on is arguing that SF is bigger than Chicago. Obviously, SF is 850,000 (according to the latest figures) and Chicago is nearly 3 million. A huge difference no doubt.

The point is SF is still the cultural and economic center of the 5th or 6th biggest urbanized area in the country (and the 50th largest in the world). There are 7.6 million people within a very close area (and far more if you look at Sacramento and other nearby Central Valley cities). Again, this is obviously less than Chicago's nearly 10 million population in its urbanized area, but the difference in terms of overall urban area isn't as pronounced as you're making it out to be.

And while Chicago itself feels much bigger than SF, Chicagoland as a whole doesn't feel that much bigger than the Bay Area. Both are highly developed, and the Bay actually has more large cities and is denser than Chicagoland.
7.6 million people/8750 square miles = 869 people per square mile

9.8 million people/9600 square miles = 1021 people per square mile

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcroJimmy2 View Post
In fact, SF's CSA (~8750 sq miles) is smaller in area than Chicago's MSA (~9600)
 
Old 05-09-2010, 04:44 PM
 
1,263 posts, read 3,456,081 times
Reputation: 610
Those pictues go on to show that aside from the downtown area, Chicago just looks like Los Angeles, only less built up. It is not uniformly built up like the city of San Francisco. Chicago is great and all but its downtown is drastically different than the rest of the city. The skyline seems to be from nowhere. NYC, DC, Boston and SF are not like that. Different people may prefer differrent kind of layout though, but if you go outside downtown in these cities, Chicago feel least like a big city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
I agree with everything you said there. This is a lil different view so you can see what I mean... most pics on here are just all skyline, but never show you the other side...This is what most of Chicago looks like, and I'll go from further in, to keep panning out...






the last is just the downtown from the west, you aren't even seeing the north/northwest or south sides which are the biggest areas of the city..., most of the south loop is also cut off, that is about 4 miles of straight buildings in that pic. it goes on like that another 7-8 miles both north and south ...

which...is below,



so you can see it goes on and on and on like that...and back the other way looking south as well, that picture is primarily just the north/northwest side with the bleeding edge of the south and west sides..
but as you can see by the clearly marked grid, it keeps going south as well, below is looking back south from the hancock.
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.


Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top