U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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 10-30-2012, 12:22 PM
 
102 posts, read 159,611 times
Reputation: 85

Advertisements

These lists are subjective, OK. But even more of these lists appeared in 2012, some from reputable or widely read publications, citing that these otherwise incomparably cosmopolitan and energetic cities still leave much to be desired when compared to other metros in some very important criteria. Their images are taking a hit, due to some negative aspects piling up quickly, and some glaring ugliness such as fiscal disasters, poor public schools, high gang violence(Chicago) or unreal cost of living and infrastructure problems(NYC) . Not sure if Chicago is still hemmoraging population, but it would seem that people are starting to realize even more than ever that you can go and visit the eye candy and vibrancy of such places anytime you want and not have to live anywhere nearby. This is no longer due to white flight, although that does still exist in the most segregated big city in America (Chicago) but more likely due to the other issues mentioned. How are cities like Seattle and San Francisco able to top these lists consistently, and find the right balance of serving its citizens, remaining vibrant, being safe, and offering cleaner air and better sustainability?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-30-2012, 01:11 PM
 
2,426 posts, read 3,621,629 times
Reputation: 1453
Because cities change? There are eras when cities are doing very healthy and then get very sick. Do youthink San Francisco and Seattle will always continue to go the way they are doing now? SF wasn't always what it is today.

DC lost so much population and look at it now. Paris for decades was losing population. Boston and SF also had their periods of population loss. Cities are always changing. And just like an economy it will have it's ups and downs.

Chicago is losing population, but it's homicides are much lower than what was in the 1990's, MUCH LOWER. Not city is perfect. If anything Chicago has proven to be a very healthy city compared to it's Midwestern counterparts (except for MPLS and Indianapolis) which have had devastating blows to their populations and their economies are still struggling to diversify and pick up the pieces. Chicago however, has been able to withold a powerful economy, even with massive population loss.

Cities images also are always changing. NYC isn't seen as that gritty dirty nasty city anymore. Chicago isn't seen as that polluted meatpacking stockyard city anymore. Their images are maybe taking at hit (which I actually think you are wrong on this, most people have postivie views on both cities) but it will change over time.

Perhaps 10 years from now NYC and Chicago will be on the top in those lists and SF and LA will not even make it. Who knows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
6,514 posts, read 9,056,969 times
Reputation: 5009
What lists are these? Chicago and New York some of the largest economic trading cities in the world. O'hare is the 2nd or 3rd busiest airport in the world. The population of Chicago goes up and down, but remains right under 3 million for the most part, I don't ever see it going down the toilet like Detroit, Chicago is much more diversified.

New York City is too big to fail, sections of it might fail, but the whole city itself will continue to grow and improve, just my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 07:41 PM
 
11,172 posts, read 22,378,103 times
Reputation: 10924
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
What lists are these? Chicago and New York some of the largest economic trading cities in the world. O'hare is the 2nd or 3rd busiest airport in the world. The population of Chicago goes up and down, but remains right under 3 million for the most part, I don't ever see it going down the toilet like Detroit, Chicago is much more diversified.

New York City is too big to fail, sections of it might fail, but the whole city itself will continue to grow and improve, just my opinion.
For whatever it's worth the OP has posted 100 posts or so and most of them have been whining about Chicago with a few rants about NYC as well. As my grandma says, I think a lot of this is "consider the source". I'm pretty sure there aren't many lists Chicago and New York are failing in more than they were from 1970 to the early 80's. Every city has problems, every city has good times and bad times. Overall they're not going anywhere. In the end we're all Americans and on the same team.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 09:47 AM
 
Location: on the High Seas
221 posts, read 300,784 times
Reputation: 171
I'm sorry I never knew that the South Side of Chicago was at the top of the list for best anything
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 8,318,361 times
Reputation: 4270
I can't speak for NYC but Chicago has its fair share of problems.....I can totally see why it's not considered one of the best places! Parts of Chicago are definitely among the best of the best, but most of it needs a lot of TLC before making one of those lists. HUGE cities like LA, Chicago, and NYC have so much space that it's almost impossible not to have a lot of bad mixed in with the good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2012, 10:49 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,570,477 times
Reputation: 5662
SF population hasn't exactly been a draw, it's only about 70k people since 1950... I wouldn't call that growing so much... Chicago metro continues to grow. Chicago added more people around their downtown than any other city in the last decade.
I don't see Oakland or Richmond making these best cities lists, if SF extended it's borders another 175 square miles to include these areas, it might not either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2012, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
1,446 posts, read 2,289,836 times
Reputation: 1361
Source? I think NYC is a much more desirable destination than it was in the 1970's and 80's. Costs are high, but aside from that most changes are improvements. Crime is lower and the city is still the premier city in the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 10:50 PM
 
Location: NY
778 posts, read 827,626 times
Reputation: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicagoist123 View Post
Because cities change? There are eras when cities are doing very healthy and then get very sick. Do youthink San Francisco and Seattle will always continue to go the way they are doing now? SF wasn't always what it is today.

DC lost so much population and look at it now. Paris for decades was losing population. Boston and SF also had their periods of population loss. Cities are always changing. And just like an economy it will have it's ups and downs.

Chicago is losing population, but it's homicides are much lower than what was in the 1990's, MUCH LOWER. Not city is perfect. If anything Chicago has proven to be a very healthy city compared to it's Midwestern counterparts (except for MPLS and Indianapolis) which have had devastating blows to their populations and their economies are still struggling to diversify and pick up the pieces. Chicago however, has been able to withold a powerful economy, even with massive population loss.

Cities images also are always changing. NYC isn't seen as that gritty dirty nasty city anymore. Chicago isn't seen as that polluted meatpacking stockyard city anymore. Their images are maybe taking at hit (which I actually think you are wrong on this, most people have postivie views on both cities) but it will change over time.

Perhaps 10 years from now NYC and Chicago will be on the top in those lists and SF and LA will not even make it. Who knows.
False.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...inally-growing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 10:56 PM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
6,514 posts, read 9,056,969 times
Reputation: 5009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyooooo View Post

They do a census once every 10 years. This year to year data is often inaccurate. The city of Chicago's population dropped in the last 10 years, but its metro continued to expand. Facts are facts. Now wait till 2020.
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.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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