Chicago Fourth Most Miserable City Ranking (live, bus, cities) - Illinois (IL) - Page 5 - City-Data Forum

urza216 · 03-02-2013, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SimplyCosmopolitan24

This list is automatically discredited... Did anyone see how far back Gary IN was???!?!? That place shouldn't even be called a city but rather a shanty-town comparable to the slums of India. In addition to that Miami isn't even on the list.... **** Forbes.

I work in Gary. In fact, i am in Gary right now and postin from my smart phone. I think at least 25% of Chicago is exactly the same as 80 percent of Gary. There's very little difference between South Deering on the southeast side of Chicago and Glen Park in Gary. They're not far from each other either. And they have a similar history - the southeast side of Chicago and Gary, Indiana. I don't understand how anyone can speak so negatively of Gary and then think it's all good in Chicago..

But anyway, this list is silly. In a city full of pizza that actually tastes good, I beg to differ.

mjtinmemphis · 03-03-2013, 05:15 AM

Atlantabd,

I hate the suburbs! The syndrome you are describing is typical of suburban oriented cities. When I lived in St. Louis, there were very few times I would actually sit around and not enjoy things that city offers.

I found Memphis and Charlotte to be less engaging because it was not as easy to engage with those cities. They where too spread out. I get the same feeling visiting Atlanta.

If I where to sit here and think all Chicago was high taxes corrupt politician, gangsters and full of racist Yahoos I would hate this place. There is too much to enjoy in this city to not enjoy life.

When we wake up we all have a choice to enjoy life or not. Happiness is a personal choice along with choosing a city that is conducive to you lifestyle.

Irishtom29 · 03-03-2013, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis

Happiness is a personal choice.....

I don't know about that. Some people's lives are so full of misery beyond their control they don't have much of a choice.

Kamms · 03-03-2013, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

I don't know about that. Some people's lives are so full of misery beyond their control they don't have much of a choice.

I don't know about that either. People have more control over their lives than they think and are told by others and themselves that they have no control.

key4lp · 03-03-2013, 01:09 PM

Houston, Houston, Houston! Here's an interesting fact: many cities in Texas, Arizona & New Mexico emerged because of one
thing...Air Conditioning. As to Chicago, why do people knock it regarding the cold? Have you ever been to Toronto or
Minneapolis? I don't read anyone complaining about them & how miserable they are. Chicago weather is like the tropics
compared to areas further up north.

maclock · 03-03-2013, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by key4lp

Have you ever been to Toronto or Minneapolis? I don't read anyone complaining about them & how miserable they are. Chicago weather is like the tropics compared to areas further up north.

People complain about the cold winters to which both Minneapolis and Toronto are subjected to all the time. All of Chicago, Minneapolis and Toronto suffer through bad winter weather. Now, I cannot speak to Minneapolis, but it seems to me that Toronto starts to warm up earlier than Chicago; it appears to get more of a spring. This might have something to do with the fact that Lake Ontario is smaller than Lake Michigan, and thus it plays a lesser role in moderating temperatures as the seasons change from winter to spring. This is just a guess on my part, though.

marothisu · 03-03-2013, 01:56 PM

Agreed with Minneapolis..I grew up in MN and Chicago's winters, although cold, is pretty much a walk in the park compared to it. Minneapolis doesn't have as much crime though BUT Minneapolis is also WAY smaller. The metro area is pretty big (over 3 million people) but Minneapolis itself doesn't even have 400,000 people in it and St. Paul doesn't even have 300,000 so you can't really compare to Chicago.

I still think it's completely bogus Chicago is in the top 5. They mention things like traffic, but don't consider the fact that numerous people don't even need cars (same as NYC). They try and compare this to say Gary, Indiana and compare the cost of living. Well no crap, Gary Indiana has less of a population than the Austin neighborhood, Lakeview, and even close to the West Ridge neighborhood population. How can you compare a city of 80,000's COL to a city of 2.7 million with world class amenities with tons of great architecture, great apartments/condos, parks, etc? It's so dumb it's not even funny.

urza216 · 03-03-2013, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

They try and compare this to say Gary, Indiana and compare the cost of living. Well no crap, Gary Indiana has less of a population than the Austin neighborhood, Lakeview, and even close to the West Ridge neighborhood population. How can you compare a city of 80,000's COL to a city of 2.7 million with world class amenities with tons of great architecture, great apartments/condos, parks, etc? It's so dumb it's not even funny.

Well, Gary was built for 180,000 people. You are right that it has lost a whopping 55% of its population.

It's not that dumb because you're not fully acknowledging what Gary is and its significance. It's not SUPPOSED to be a city of only 80,000 people..

marothisu · 03-03-2013, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urza216

Well, Gary was built for 180,000 people. You are right that it has lost a whopping 55% of its population.

It's not that dumb because you're not fully acknowledging what Gary is and its significance. It's not SUPPOSED to be a city of only 80,000 people..

What's your point? I'm aware of how much population Gary has lost, and it still doesn't matter. We're talking about what it is today, not what it was in the 1960s and 1970s when it was at its height of population. Cost of living prices are reflected in what's going on now, not what it was in 1975 and the ranking reflects today, again, not the 60s and 70s when Gary almost had 180,000 people.

Even if it did have 180,000 people, you can in no way compare it STILL. 180,000 is less than 7% of the entire population of Chicago. There's two current neighborhoods of Chicago alone out of 77 which have a higher population combined than what Gary had at its height. In fact, back in the day there was one neighborhood (I believe Near West Side) which had a higher population alone than Gary's ever had. There's no point comparing them. Even if Gary had a population of 300,000, it wouldn't be the same.

urza216 · 03-03-2013, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

What's your point? I'm aware of how much population Gary has lost, and it still doesn't matter. We're talking about what it is today, not what it was in the 1960s and 1970s when it was at its height of population. Cost of living prices are reflected in what's going on now, not what it was in 1975 and the ranking reflects today, again, not the 60s and 70s when Gary almost had 180,000 people.

Even if it did have 180,000 people, you can in no way compare it STILL. 180,000 is less than 7% of the entire population of Chicago. There's two current neighborhoods of Chicago alone out of 77 which have a higher population combined than what Gary had at its height. In fact, back in the day there was one neighborhood (I believe Near West Side) which had a higher population alone than Gary's ever had. There's no point comparing them. Even if Gary had a population of 300,000, it wouldn't be the same.

Gary should still be included in a Forbes list of American cities - And therefore compared with Chicago, another city.