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.
I'm going on a week long camping/hiking trip in Colorado in September. Direct, round trip flight to DEN from ORD was only $213. Two hour and 20 minute flight....
This makes a lot of sense. I live right by a Blue Line stop and when I want to hike I usually fly somewhere in the same amount of time it used to take me to drive from NYC to the Adirondacks or from Boston to the White Mountains.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,522,794 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attrill
This makes a lot of sense. I live right by a Blue Line stop and when I want to hike I usually fly somewhere in the same amount of time it used to take me to drive from NYC to the Adirondacks or from Boston to the White Mountains.
there are also lots of places in a 2 hr drive to hike in the Chicago region
I don't think my reply necessarily answers the question, Why would people choose Chicago over other major cities?, but it might prove interesting:
When you hear Chicago discussed on any media, often in the form of someone in industry mentioning they will be in Chicago next week or something to that effect, you end up hearing something to a degree I have never heard spoken of any other city, a phrase that ends up being almost universal...
"the great city of Chicago"
no, i'm not naive. I realize that we don't hear "the great city of New York" because that city is far more the center of media and focus than Chicago is.
But, then again, as noted, no city gets that word "great" attached to it verbally as does ours.
Why? Because, IMHO, that's iconically what Chicago is. Yes, we have our stand outs and our uniqueness: the architecture, the endless park lined lakefront, the largest convention facilities, the center point for the nation's transportation, the future's markets, etc.
But what sets Chicago apart, I think, is that in many ways comes across as the most complete of all US cities in terms of what a great city should look like. It comes from many sources and Chicago doesn't have to be #1 in all sources for its attributes to work so well as describe it as being great in urban terms. when you start putting together "a great restaurant town", "a great theatre town", "a great business town", "a city of great energy", "a great newspaper town" (ok, so none exist today; but they did.), "a great museum town", "a great sports town", "a great neighborhood town", "a great sense of place",,"a great walking town", etc., #1 is never the issue....because who needs to compare when you have those attributes?
In simple terms, Chicago looks and functions as a great city and the adjective great just runs off the lips.
I'd like to build on what i say above. perhaps one of the things that makes chicago so great is that it is the largest city in the united states.
what? have i lost complete control of any sense of reality? possibly. but let me explain:
by incorporated city limits, a purely municipal organism, chicago is third in size among US cities after NYC and LA. but if we measure cities in their ability to function as a unit, I would contend that Chicago comes across as the largest.
NYC and LA are just plain different. They are far less cities than they are urban regions. Indeed both NYC and LA could function as a metropolitan area on their own in the way they are structured.
Their histories are just different from other US cities and thus so is the way each functions; and i contend that neither functions quite like being a city like Chicago does.
NYC was created by an act of legislation as the 19th century was about to unfold into the 20th. Greater New York was created in Albany, not on the Manhattan that was the former NYC. Many forces gave rise to this legislation, one being the growth of certain midwestern city on Lake Michigan that threatened to become the nation's largest, replacing the land locked new york that was manhattan.
in creating NYC and turning five counties into boroughs, a vast hinterland of well established towns (Long Island City, Astoria, St. George) and a city (Brooklyn) became "instant New York". the identify that those towns and that city (even without its Dodgers) still remains as part of their fabric.
LA didn't grow in size by legislation, but through water which it procured for itself in great quantities which virtually forced surrounding areas to become part of the city. Annexation came in huge chunks. LA literally had to jump over the Hollywood Hills which are big enough to actually be mountains (officially the Santa Monica Mts.). There is nothing very LA about the San Fernando Valley communities north of the hills. Indeed, independent cities in the LA basin like Bev Hills, W Hollywood, and Santa Monica, all surrounded by the city, are more real "LA" than the valley towns or the far flung harbor in San Pedro which are within city limits.
And thus, Chicago is different. The whole city, while much admittedly taken in by its own series of annexations, was made part of the whole. the grid united the whole place and there were no rivers and bays to separate as in NYC or the moutnains in LA.
Chicago is one. and that is part of its city greatness; it is a city in far more of the real sense of the word than NY or LA because it is one. "Chicago" is the largest postal address in the nation; you don't have any place like Brooklyn, NY, or Encino, CA, in which to mail a letter to.
What does that oneness and size do for Chicago? Let me give one example: Millennium Park.
I contend that smaller communities than Chicago couldn't have created it. It took Chicago's size and critical mass to develop such a project on its own, a gift it gave itself as a city (not a metro area). For all the greatness of either San Francisco or Boston, neither has the size to have made something like this possible as a civic enterprise.
NY and LA? It couldn't happen there either. the places are just too big. In New York, Manhattan can still be seen as "The City" and building something there hardly comes across as being for all New Yorkers. In LA, those areas in the valley and down by the harbor have little enough connection with LA's downtown core; building something in DT LA would not stand for who they are, be part of them. Indeed, the Valley tried to secede from the city not too far back.
Part of Chicago's uniqueness does come, I feel, from that sense of being the largest of cities in the sense of how that word "city" has traditionally been used.
I'd like to build on what i say above. perhaps one of the things that makes chicago so great is that it is the largest city in the united states.
what? have i lost complete control of any sense of reality? possibly. but let me explain:
by incorporated city limits, a purely municipal organism, chicago is third in size among US cities after NYC and LA. but if we measure cities in their ability to function as a unit, I would contend that Chicago comes across as the largest.
NYC and LA are just plain different. They are far less cities than they are urban regions. Indeed both NYC and LA could function as a metropolitan area on their own in the way they are structured.
Their histories are just different from other US cities and thus so is the way each functions; and i contend that neither functions quite like being a city like Chicago does.
NYC was created by an act of legislation as the 19th century was about to unfold into the 20th. Greater New York was created in Albany, not on the Manhattan that was the former NYC. Many forces gave rise to this legislation, one being the growth of certain midwestern city on Lake Michigan that threatened to become the nation's largest, replacing the land locked new york that was manhattan.
in creating NYC and turning five counties into boroughs, a vast hinterland of well established towns (Long Island City, Astoria, St. George) and a city (Brooklyn) became "instant New York". the identify that those towns and that city (even without its Dodgers) still remains as part of their fabric.
LA didn't grow in size by legislation, but through water which it procured for itself in great quantities which virtually forced surrounding areas to become part of the city. Annexation came in huge chunks. LA literally had to jump over the Hollywood Hills which are big enough to actually be mountains (officially the Santa Monica Mts.). There is nothing very LA about the San Fernando Valley communities north of the hills. Indeed, independent cities in the LA basin like Bev Hills, W Hollywood, and Santa Monica, all surrounded by the city, are more real "LA" than the valley towns or the far flung harbor in San Pedro which are within city limits.
And thus, Chicago is different. The whole city, while much admittedly taken in by its own series of annexations, was made part of the whole. the grid united the whole place and there were no rivers and bays to separate as in NYC or the moutnains in LA.
Chicago is one. and that is part of its city greatness; it is a city in far more of the real sense of the word than NY or LA because it is one. "Chicago" is the largest postal address in the nation; you don't have any place like Brooklyn, NY, or Encino, CA, in which to mail a letter to.
What does that oneness and size do for Chicago? Let me give one example: Millennium Park.
I contend that smaller communities than Chicago couldn't have created it. It took Chicago's size and critical mass to develop such a project on its own, a gift it gave itself as a city (not a metro area). For all the greatness of either San Francisco or Boston, neither has the size to have made something like this possible as a civic enterprise.
NY and LA? It couldn't happen there either. the places are just too big. In New York, Manhattan can still be seen as "The City" and building something there hardly comes across as being for all New Yorkers. In LA, those areas in the valley and down by the harbor have little enough connection with LA's downtown core; building something in DT LA would not stand for who they are, be part of them. Indeed, the Valley tried to secede from the city not too far back.
Part of Chicago's uniqueness does come, I feel, from that sense of being the largest of cities in the sense of how that word "city" has traditionally been used.
You make reference to Millenium Park many times in your posts. Now, I agree that Millenium is beautiful and has been very successful as a major dazzling Chicago focal point.
However, I'm not sure if it really stands out as a one of a kind project. From what I can tell, it seems like many cities have equivalent artistic pieces in major urban parks.
When I looked up on wikipedia I found a whole list of Frank Gehry projects across the world and country.
Again, I'm not arguing your points, I'm just trying to get a sense of why Millenium Park is seen as something that does not have its counterparts in other cities.
You make reference to Millenium Park many times in your posts. Now, I agree that Millenium is beautiful and has been very successful as a major dazzling Chicago focal point.
However, I'm not sure if it really stands out as a one of a kind project. From what I can tell, it seems like many cities have equivalent artistic pieces in major urban parks.
When I looked up on wikipedia I found a whole list of Frank Gehry projects across the world and country.
Again, I'm not arguing your points, I'm just trying to get a sense of why Millenium Park is seen as something that does not have its counterparts in other cities.
Tex, certainly one could evaluate how millennium park worked out from extremely positive to extremely negative. and even i, as one who likes it, can find flaws.
i guess, however, i didn't get my ideas across very well here. I was thinking less about how millennium park worked out, its pros and cons, and was really concentrating on what type of a city could create such a large scale public space dedicated to the pleasure of having it.
as such, I don't think Boston or San Francisco could have pulled off something of this scale and I don't think that NY or LA had the type of distinct city character (again I refer to their size and their internal divisions which weaken the concept of "1 city") to do something like it.
When I lived in the Chicago area, I did not visit neighboring states often at all. We went to the Dunes with girl scouts once and to Bloomington with Girl scouts once.
The Indiana Dunes, in particular, is an area I was thinking of that Illinois people flock to on weekends. The beaches of SW Michigan (New Buffalo, St. Joe, etc.) are much the same.
The Indiana Dunes, in particular, is an area I was thinking of that Illinois people flock to on weekends. The beaches of SW Michigan (New Buffalo, St. Joe, etc.) are much the same.
Maybe some Chicagoans do. I preferred our own lakefront to the Dunes. I certainly never went to Michigan for beaches.
-Chicago has an obsession with cupcakes. Enough said.
Molly's Cupcakes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davis Street
Chicago is better because of the famously attractive Midwest people
I don't find Midwest people uglier than those in NYC. I would say NYC is tad bit more physically attractive, but that's solely if we go by Manhattan alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by divakat
You want to see a live braodway show? There are 50 choices in NYC. Not true here.
I never quite understood this mentality. What is so great about a Broadway musical or play? I've seen both and the talent isn't much better. The only thing that it has is the Broadway brand. I sense if Broadway was in LA or Chicago instead the salivating would be geared towards those cities.
Last edited by TheSunshineKid; 06-04-2012 at 02:06 PM..
We have the Goodman, Steppenwolf, and over 200 neighborhood theaters. The variety of offerings is fantastic. While you have less of the *big* Broadway type shows, we have so many good dramas that it is impressive. Then there are the smaller theaters that offer truly interesting plays as well, like the Neo-Futurists and Looking Glass Theater. We have a Shakespeare Theater that is phenomenal. We have many children's theater productions.
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.
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.
