U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
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 07-16-2012, 11:15 PM
Location: In the heights
20,174 posts, read 21,776,227 times
Reputation: 10254


Originally Posted by SpaceisforAce View Post
Where did I say Chinatown wasnt growing? I never really said anything about growth, I just heavily prefer Flushing over it. When im in the city, (admittedly not as much anymore) I usually go to Flushing, as one of my best friends growing up, grew up in East Elmhurst.

If anything, Chinatown has actually gobbled up Little Italy almost.
Well, you went on a rant about lack of authenticity and playground for the rich and all that and in the same paragraph you cited Chinatown. What did you think you were saying? And what argument was there about Flushing?

Old 07-17-2012, 05:32 AM
2,924 posts, read 2,269,599 times
Reputation: 618
Originally Posted by SpaceisforAce View Post
By... promoting local business instead?

Yes, and anti-trust laws were imposed because of their monopolies on the economy. Today we are in a state of plutocracy, because now the govt is in bed with big business. Manhattan is becoming extremely sterile and you can thank your pals on Wall Street
Theyre all global cities. What do you not understand?

It doesnt matter if theyre *as* influential as NYC. See, thats the thing with you. "XXXX isnt as XXXX as NYC, etc. etc." Thats not the ****ing point, and it doesnt ****ing matter. If it did matter, then lets just have NYC be the only city in the world. There are things those cities offer that NYC does not, and vice versa.

NYC COL/QOL. Again. It. Doesnt. Matter. If NYC has better amenities, what good is it if you cant afford it to begin with? as the majority of this country cannot?

There seems to be a mental block or something, with people that are on NYC's jock. You just cannot get through to these people at all.

Im not sure I understand your other point about blue collar work. Its not blue collar anymore? No, it is. In the outer boroughs. Extremely.

The last part about computers and white collar culture and what it has to do with blue collar industry, I have no ****ing clue. Somewhere, somehow, blue collar people arent allowed to use white collar innovations, or cant praise th..... I dont even know dude. I got nothin.

Also, you should probably get someone to type for you. You sound like you are 18.
Haha. I wish I was 18 so I would have more patience reading such mindless populistic crap. Almost every sentence you typed contains some kind of historical or logical flaw, its hard to even read it...

First of America was build by "big business": from British trading companies which established posts on the continent to every American president, and every governor: they were all rich businessmen. Who was Thomas Jefferson? Was he a poor chocolate store owner? No, he was a rich slave owner. A rich businessmen.
Government is not in bed with the rich, government has always been the rich themselves.
That's the first flaw of your reasoning: its ahistorical, it disregards simple and generally known historical facts.

Second, all the good things in life have always been exclusive, meaning most people could not afford them. That's not new. Most people could not afford a Rembrandt or send kids to Harvard or drive a Cadillac or a Mercedes. Does that mean that Rembrandt, Harvard or Mercedes Benz is irrelevant or not valuable just because not afordable to most people? That's populist nonsense. Do you think MOST in people in America could afford living in donwtown Chicago? No. Does it mean Downtown Chicago is not important? No. As you can see affordability is a meaningless standard to judge value of things. That's you logical flaw.

Third. You cite Boston or San Francisco as global cities which did not lose their authenticity, without arguing what authenticity actually is, I can only point out that New York is much more global and influential than Boston and San Francisco combined so maybe their way of doing things is not the best? Maybe to be truly considered a global center of commerce and culture you have to become more gentrified, cleaner, safer and toned down? Just to attract global business you have to make the place livable they will not come if the employees ferr for their safety. Gulliani and Bloomberg did better job attracting business to New York than any mayors before them. Good job.

The last part about the blue collar and computers was making fun of the fact that you praise blue collar culture using a product of white collar culture - a computer. You like blue collar culture then stick to blue collar paraphanelia otherwise it is as funny as bashing the press for bias by publishing an article in a newspaper.

The rest of your drivel is equally comical, "promoting local business" is a populistic slogan and the "outer boroughs being blue collar" is nonsense. They haven't been for a long, long time. The best parts of the outer boroughs, those that people actually want to live at, best parts of Brooklyn, the Bronx or Queens are as far from blue collar as you can get. Want a proof? Visit Riverdale in the Bronx. Or Forrest Hills in Queens. There ALMOST are no big factories in NYC anymore, no need for that many blue collar workers here.

Now. Since you don't realize how absurd are the points you are making your probably don't realize how off topic is your populist/socialist drivel. Stop it. Just keep in mind: the reason New York city still grows in 2012, as opposed to slowly dying in the 80's is exactly what you are voicing your opinion against: gentrification. All my "ex-blue collar" friends in Brooklyn and Queens simply love it: after all gentrification is raising prices of their properties and allows them to charge more for rents. All mom and pop restaurant, dry cleaning business owners now cater to the clientele with large disposable incomes. They like gentrification more than anybody else. Only the schmucks with no financial interest complain...

New York is the best American urbanity can offer but not everybody is cut out to make it there. You can't? You don't like it? Leave. There is plenty of people happy to come to New York and take advantage of all that the new, gentrified, clean and safe city has to offer. Just don't make up stories how bad New York is as it is working for millions of other people. 8.5 million to be exact.

Last edited by rebel12; 07-17-2012 at 06:54 AM..
Old 07-17-2012, 07:00 AM
1,750 posts, read 2,805,321 times
Reputation: 764
Originally Posted by SpaceisforAce View Post
I dont know, maybe retain some of the character and local shops instead of replacing everything with chains? Corporate America isnt what made New York streets, its the people, its the diversity, and the more people that are priced out, the more you lose that.

There are a ton of cities that retain their character yet still function as a global city. Boston, Philly, SF, Chicago, etc.

I only get that in the outer boroughs.

Unfortunately, NYC is the figurehead for where this country is going economically. Thats its downfall IMO. Sometimes, I think, the whole 'capital' moniker is too much for its own good. Manhattan is becoming entirely too homogenized, sadly. It also unfortunately attracts the most neurotic people from all over like moths to a light.

As far as COL, There is absolutely no justification in paying out the ass for something im getting of the same quality or better, elsewhere, and it seems most transplants to the city have convinced themselves otherwise. After awhile, it just becomes too much.

Chicago to me is more like Brooklyn, which is a good thing.
Do you realize New York is probably the least chain overrun city in the US? How has SF or Chicago specifically retained their character yet New York hasn't?
Old 07-17-2012, 07:07 AM
Location: In the heights
20,174 posts, read 21,776,227 times
Reputation: 10254
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
Do you realize New York is probably the least chain overrun city in the US? How has SF or Chicago specifically retained their character yet New York hasn't?
Actually, SF also has very few chains, too, and quite a bit of that has to do with actual legislation put in place. Chicago defniitely has a lot o fchains.
Old 07-17-2012, 07:10 AM
1,750 posts, read 2,805,321 times
Reputation: 764
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Actually, SF also has very few chains, too, and quite a bit of that has to do with actual legislation put in place. Chicago defniitely has a lot o fchains.
I would agree with your statement.
Old 07-17-2012, 07:47 AM
2,924 posts, read 2,269,599 times
Reputation: 618
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Like it would matter to you anyway --you'd either doubt the source or ignore the data or find some reason why it's irrelevant and find some new angle of attack.

Same shtik, different screen name.
All this while you are ignoring the most respected and available data such as US Census...
Show me your data..
Old 07-17-2012, 07:56 AM
2,924 posts, read 2,269,599 times
Reputation: 618
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
Not getting into this since this thread has just gotten pointless, but I did see in the census results that the downtown area actually grew by over 50,000 residents between 2000 and 2010. That's expected to continue. I work real estate and there are currently around 4,000 apartment units downtown that are under construction or finalizing their financing.

The overall population loss in the city was almost entirely african american and located on the south and west sides of the city. That was partially offset by around 70,000 residents gained in other areas of the city.

Most of the black residents lost on the west/south sides of the city migrated to the suburban areas - which saw a fairly large increase in black population. That was the biggest demographic change during the 2000's. The white population didn't change much, the hispanic and asian populations continued to grow by hundreds of thousands, but mostly spread out around suburban areas as opposed to the city.

Overall the suburbs added around 560,000 people.
What are you disputing here???
US Census data for Chicago:

Historical populations
Census Pop. %
1840 4,470
1850 29,963 570.3%
1860 112,172 274.4%
1870 298,977 166.5%
1880 503,185 68.3%
1890 1,099,850 118.6%
1900 1,698,575 54.4%
1910 2,185,283 28.7%
1920 2,701,705 23.6%
1930 3,376,438 25.0%
1940 3,396,808 0.6%
1950 3,620,962 6.6%
1960 3,550,404 −1.9%
1970 3,366,957 −5.2%
1980 3,005,072 −10.7%
1990 2,783,726 −7.4%
2000 2,896,016 4.0%
2010 2,695,598 −6.9%

Do you see data that shows that in 2010 Chicago had a smaller population than in 1920?
In 60 years, between 1950 and 2010 Chicago lost close to ONE MILLION residents.
You call it growth? You don't think it is an alarming trend?

It's not just the 2010 census results that are significant, its the overall 50 years trend that's alarming.

All the new skyscrapers, all the condos built around Chicago did not help and Chicago still lost whopping 1 million of residents between now and 1950.
All the new apartments in downtown will simply cannibalize other parts of the city but not help to reverse the negative trend.

And yes, it is utterly pointless if you chose to dispute the numbers and what they mean.

Last edited by rebel12; 07-17-2012 at 08:34 AM..
Old 07-17-2012, 07:59 AM
2,924 posts, read 2,269,599 times
Reputation: 618
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Actually, SF also has very few chains, too, and quite a bit of that has to do with actual legislation put in place. Chicago defniitely has a lot o fchains.
So does New York.
Old 07-17-2012, 10:26 AM
Location: Chicago (from pittsburgh)
3,678 posts, read 4,355,751 times
Reputation: 2852
can we stop feeding this "rebel" troll please and close this and the LA vs. Chicago nightlife thread? Still amazed that CD mods shut down skyline threads but let garbage like this go on for weeks. Watch out...he's going to start calling people gay because they drink wine, like he did in the other thread.
Old 07-17-2012, 11:43 AM
Location: Chicago
1,312 posts, read 1,528,980 times
Reputation: 1486
Originally Posted by evmafioso View Post
No, not at all. Let's not go into this conversation. I know Westerners must work with all they got, but a lake isn't comparable to an being on the coast..being an ocean. It is a completely different thing, and I'm sorry but Lake Michigan doesn't compare. Beaches in the NYC area are simply superior (partly because they're actual beaches!).

Long Island:

It disheartens me to know that a lot of people treat geography as something to never bother with.

Here is a list of things that are not an ocean:


With that in mind, there are only, from what I can tell, 2 *real* (according to some people) beaches in NYC: Rockaway and Breezy Point. Any other "beach" in NYC is not on the Atlantic Ocean. There are certainly more beaches on various bays, but only two that are on the ocean.

And I can hear the cries already:

"But... but... But A2DAC, those beaches are in the bays, and the bays are connected to the Atlantic Ocean, so they do count as ocean beaches!"

To which I ask, "Is that all it takes?" All it takes to be an "ocean" beach, aka a *real* beach, is for the body of water in question to touch or empty into the ocean?

If that's the case... then... ummm... Lake Michigan has *real* beaches too. The lake IS connected to the Atlantic Ocean. This might blow some people's minds, but anyone could take a boat from Chicago to NYC, and vice versa. You could even take a boat from Chicago to LA, or London, or Tokyo. Shocking, I know.

So Lake Michigan is connected to the Atlantic Ocean, and subsequently the Pacific, Indian, and Arctic. Therefore, by some people's reasoning, that does in fact make the beaches along the coast of Lake Michigan *real*.

I wonder how many people really know how big Lake Michigan is.

I wonder how many people think because it's a "lake" that means it isn't of any size or consequence.

And I wonder how many people hear the word "lake", and especially in NYC, relate it to something like the Lake in Central Park, Lake Placid, Lake Ronkonkoma, Greenwood Lake, or Lake Oneida (the biggest lake in the state of New York).

Surface area of the lakes I listed:

The Lake in Central Park = 0.04 square miles
Lake Placid = 3.4 square miles
Lake Ronkonkoma = 0.4 square miles
Greenwood Lake = 3 square miles
Lake Oneida (the biggest) = 80 square miles

Lake Michigan? 22,394 square miles. That is equal to:

280 Lake Oneidas
6,586 Lake Placids
7,465 Greenwood Lakes
55,985 Lake Ronkonkomas
559,850 Lakes of Central Park

When all the lakes in the general area of NYC are that small, it's no wonder that people scoff at the idea that having Lake Michigan is a pretty good substitute for the ocean. All the lakes they know could be swum across by a one-armed, one legged man.

And then this is the point where I imagine that people are going to bring up the fact that New York state (not the city) has access to 2(!) Great Lakes in Erie and Ontario. But even then, you add up the surface area for those lakes (Erie = 9,910 square miles, Ontario = 7,340) and they are still 5,144 square miles smaller (combined) than Lake Michigan. Erie and Ontario are still 128,600 Central Park Lakes away from the size of Lake Michigan.

Another fun comparison: NYC land area = 305 square miles. That's a big city by anyone's standards. But it would still take 73 NYCs to equal the size of Lake Michigan.

To put it another way: Bodies of water are like houses.

The Lake in Central Park is like having a cardboard box for a home.
Lake Oneida is like having a 400 square foot studio apartment.
Lake Michigan is like having a 20,000 square foot house.
The Atlantic Ocean is like having a 200,000 square foot house.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would have one HELL of a time trying to fill and utilize all of a 20,000 square foot house. Having a 200,000 square foot house would be virtually impossible for me, or anyone for that matter, to use all that space.

Lake Michigan isn't the Atlantic. But they do have something in common: The people and the cities that sit on them CANNOT possibly use all of the water surface area they afford.

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