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: Battle of "number three" US cities: Chicago, SF, DC, Houston or Boston?
Chicago 79 51.97%
SF 18 11.84%
Houston 18 11.84%
Boston 12 7.89%
DC 25 16.45%
Voters: 152. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-09-2009, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Chicago
721 posts, read 1,786,097 times
Reputation: 451

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57 View Post
Agreed, we could rank Chicago #1 if we are looking at population loss, homicides, corruption, and pollution.

But if we are looking at positive indicators, somewhere between #3 and #6 sounds reasonable. I was simply thinking population, but economic power would also fit in this general range.
Chicago's arguably one of the best cities in the WORLD. People come from all over to live here. I don't understand what concept is so hard for you to grasp. Are you really that limited intellectually?

According to you and your misinformed "knowledge" in 2004 Chicago had less than 2,700,000 residents. Now, only five years later that number has grown to 2,853,000+! In what way is that amount of growth, decaying and "emptying?"

Why don't you get off City-data for a couple of days, think about a constructive argument, one you can support with evidence, and then go practice this argument in front of a third grader. Even then you'll probably get eaten alive, but at least you'll find that your arguments are 100% wrong.

 
Old 09-09-2009, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Chicago
721 posts, read 1,786,097 times
Reputation: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Come again? I don't get it... What is Chicago #1 at anymore?
Commodities. They pretty much decide the financial future of the world we call home. The city is important in nearly every business field around the world. Take away Chicago, and our global economy collapses. Not to mention all rail roads cross within Chicago. How would you transport your goods without rail? Are you really going to pay huge amounts to have them air shipped?

Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
I just posted historical context, but you are doing the windy city thing... "residents boasting about their city"
That statement made no sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Yes yes, the encylopedia is wrong too. and YOU are right...

does the word delusional ring a bell?
It definitely does with you. You clearly have no idea what the term Second City means, you even failed when you looked it up.

Whatever "encyclopedia" you're using is very wrong. Then again, you cant really be right about anything if you agree with osito.
 
Old 09-09-2009, 05:08 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,385 posts, read 28,383,763 times
Reputation: 5877
Funny thing is I know more about Chicago than most of the people around the area, but you guys are so caught up in being a booster you don't see your own cities faults. I can name virtually every piece of architecture downtown along with historical reference as well as the area... I used to give private architecture tours. I lived across from the board of trade for 2 years in printers row, along with west town, west loop and rogers park... PLEASE. I also worked at the international visitors center of chicago, and did fund raisers for hostel international. I'm actually visiting right now.
That was one thing that I never really GOT while living there, how ****ing chicago centric, chicago this, chicago that, everything revolves around Chicago for many people there, frankly it was ANNOYING. And I see now why people on this site get annoyed with you guys.
 
Old 09-09-2009, 05:08 PM
 
2,598 posts, read 4,896,775 times
Reputation: 2275
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Come again? I don't get it... What is Chicago #1 at anymore?

I just posted historical context, but you are doing the windy city thing... "residents boasting about their city"



Yes yes, the encylopedia is wrong too. and YOU are right...

does the word delusional ring a bell?
I'm not delusional, thank you. If you knew anything about Chicago, you would know why it's called the "Second City." Having to look it up in an encyclopedia is telling.
 
Old 09-09-2009, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, NY
136 posts, read 234,440 times
Reputation: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Funny thing is I know more about Chicago than most of the people around the area, but you guys are so caught up in being a booster you don't see your own cities faults.
They are calling you out on your "Second City" misinformation. They are not ignoring faults. Again, you are misinformed about the "Second City" etymology.
 
Old 09-09-2009, 05:15 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,385 posts, read 28,383,763 times
Reputation: 5877
Quote:
Originally Posted by NowInWI View Post
I'm not delusional, thank you. If you knew anything about Chicago, you would know why it's called the "Second City." Having to look it up in an encyclopedia is telling.
Sorry I like to use external sources that aren't just something I made up, because there is obvious extreme bias on here... Do you think I am writing it out?
 
Old 09-09-2009, 05:18 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,385 posts, read 28,383,763 times
Reputation: 5877
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBurgBK View Post
They are calling you out on your "Second City" misinformation. They are not ignoring faults. Again, you are misinformed about the "Second City" etymology.
Nah cuz, they are wrong.

In the United States, the term has long been a nickname for Chicago. A.J. Liebling coined the "Second City" phrase and applied it to Chicago to highlight his opinion of the city as being culturally second to New York.

I will even use YOUR OWN CITY FUNDED ENCYCLOPEDIA if you don't like others. STRAIGHT FROM THE MOFO'ING The Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago © 2005 Chicago Historical Society.

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohisto...es/410156.html

During the mid-twentieth century, critics of Chicago continued to deride the Midwestern metropolis as a provincial backwater. New York writer A. J. Liebling commented on the dearth of fine dining and entertainment and the migration of rising literary stars from Chicago to New York and Los Angeles, and labeled Chicago the "Second City"--a metropolis whose glory days were now passed. As before, civic and business leaders fought against such
characterizations.

man i hate this site sometimes. Is nobody here unbiased? Or are you all provincial cretins?


Apologies? of course not...I'm dealing with a mob.
 
Old 09-09-2009, 05:19 PM
 
Location: Chicago
721 posts, read 1,786,097 times
Reputation: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Sorry I like to use external sources that aren't just something I made up, because there is obvious extreme bias on here... Do you think I am writing it out?
Ugh the term "Second City" comes from the Chicago Fire. It destroyed a huge chunk of the city so they had to rebuild it and they called it the Second City. You know so much, yet you don't know that?
 
Old 09-09-2009, 05:19 PM
 
2,598 posts, read 4,896,775 times
Reputation: 2275
There is also extreme bias on your part. Most people know why Chicago is called the "Second City" without having to look it up. Why does one take so much time to bash a city? I don't know that I've ever done that. I will defend, however.
 
Old 09-09-2009, 05:20 PM
 
8 posts, read 16,944 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57 View Post
It's actually likely less than 2.7 million by now. It was 2.7 million back in 2005:

Chicago’s population decreased to 2.7 million by 2005, a loss of 6% leaving Chicago with fewer people in 2004 than in 1990 (or any time since 1920).

http://www.pacebus.com/pdf/2009%20Bu...0Part%20II.pdf

Page 76

Chicago's population peaked at 3.6 million at the end of World War II, and is now 2.7 million

Who we are by the Numbers
that's true. i first became aware of Chicago's population drop on the evening news last year. The story was actually about Philadelphia. Their population is shrinking too.

On infoplease, it shows Chicago decreasing every two years, by almost 20,000. 2008, Chicago population increased. I think most are moving into the surrounding areas. The gap between Houston and Chicago has never been so closer. I see Houston surpassing Chicago in ten years.
Top 50 Cities in the U.S. by Population and Rank — Infoplease.com

I personally would not want to live in Chicago. It's ranked the most segregated city in America. I'm from Houston, I'm used to diversity. Plus it's too cold and expensive.
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.


Closed Thread


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.

© 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