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)
View Poll Results: SF vs Chic
San Francisco 161 40.97%
Chicago 232 59.03%
Voters: 393. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-13-2009, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,943 posts, read 5,076,056 times
Reputation: 1113

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dementor View Post
So does NYC metro. It does not explain though why both NYC metro and NYC grow while Chicago shrinks.
Most big cities in the Rust Belt and Northeast have shrank in the last several decades. People used to have way more kids than they do now. Following WWII, it was not uncommon for a family to have 10 children and live in a 3 bedroom house or apartment. Nowadays, people have far fewer children and require more living space, so while cities have technically lost residents, they haven't become vacant wastelands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-13-2009, 02:47 PM
 
1,750 posts, read 3,392,460 times
Reputation: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjacobeclark View Post
Most big cities in the Rust Belt and Northeast have shrank in the last several decades. People used to have way more kids than they do now. Following WWII, it was not uncommon for a family to have 10 children and live in a 3 bedroom house or apartment. Nowadays, people have far fewer children and require more living space, so while cities have technically lost residents, they haven't become vacant wastelands.
NYC is obviously the exception to this rule though, NYC is at its peak population ever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2009, 12:02 AM
 
Location: West Town, Chicago
633 posts, read 1,442,931 times
Reputation: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
not a good argument.
Chicago has shed almost 1m since 1960, NYC has added over 1m.
Thanks. You'd have to read what Dementor actually wrote in order to see why I wrote that. His big thing was "it's okay when people move away from New York, but nobody ever moves away from Chicago."

One trip to Phoenix, AZ would straighten out that myth, though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2009, 12:17 AM
 
Location: West Town, Chicago
633 posts, read 1,442,931 times
Reputation: 157
Here is Chicago's newest "Times Square" area. The theater district used to be very similar to TS in NYC, but of course now it is drastically changed (as is the rest of the Loop since the 1960s).

Anyway, here are the pictures of State near Lake St.





I'm curious: what areas does San Fran have that compare to this, or the Mag Mile, or the River North tourist district, or Navy Pier? Is there a busy, "beating heart" of the city?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2009, 12:34 AM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 103,201,963 times
Reputation: 29983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Americanboy View Post
Why do these funny Chicagoans pride Chicago being "urban" unlike "sprawled LA" and "endless sprawl Houston" but then told the city Chicago's population is shrinking (it is, and dramatically) they get all defensive and demand that we account for their metro (i.e SPRAWL) growth? I find that so funny!!

For a city to experience population declines ( especially of Chicago's rate) is dangerous. Chicago is one of the only two large cities to experience decline in the census.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose you might actually be interested in reasoned dialog rather than strictly being a flame artist. With that in mind, I have one comment and one question.

Comment: Chicago's population increased in the last census.

Question: what is your criterion for a "large city?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2009, 01:01 AM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,314 posts, read 9,239,221 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by chitown2pa View Post
I'm curious: what areas does San Fran have that compare to this, or the Mag Mile, or the River North tourist district, or Navy Pier? Is there a busy, "beating heart" of the city?
Yeah San Francisco has a "beating heart." I would say it's the downtown area, which i would define as Union Square, Nob Hill, parts of South of Market, the Financial District, the Tenderloin, Chinatown, parts of North Beach, and Civic Center. This area is SF's busiest and most densely populated.

Our "theater district" is in the Tenderloin. Our equivalent to the Magnificent Mile would be the area around Union Square, home to tons of upscale shopping and hotels, entertainment, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2009, 05:38 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 3,392,460 times
Reputation: 788
[quote=chitown2pa;8803374]Here is Chicago's newest "Times Square" area. The theater district used to be very similar to TS in NYC, but of course now it is drastically changed (as is the rest of the Loop since the 1960s).

Anyway, here are the pictures of State near Lake St.
quote]

i wouldnt really call State/Lake the theatre district, the theatre are mostly on Randolph
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2009, 07:44 AM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,659 posts, read 67,539,821 times
Reputation: 21244
Quote:
Originally Posted by chitown2pa View Post
I'm curious: what areas does San Fran have that compare to this...is there a busy, "beating heart" of the city?
No, not at all.






Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2009, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,525 posts, read 13,953,705 times
Reputation: 3908
A few years ago I stayed at a hotel that fronted Union Square. Its a lovely, vibrant area. It is an oddity that the Tenderloin is literally right around the corner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2009, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Isn't It Obvious
85 posts, read 167,004 times
Reputation: 40
^^nice pic. San Francisco is more appealing.
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:25 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