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.
What cities of the Midwest are more important than DC, Philadelphia, and Boston? Also was not making that statement to insult Midwestern cities as I have family in many of them.
Boston being larger and more important than various cities in the Midwest is only something that happened in the last few decades, and as Midwestern cities continue to turn around that divide will likely start closing once again.
Quote:
I think there are people in the Midwest that would much rather live on the coasts than in "flyover country" yes. I know many are happy there and that's why they still live there, but still look at the rate of people moving towards the coasts/south and tell me that doesn't say something about the Midwest as a whole.
If I'm not mistaken, the Midwest has added more people than the Northeast since 2010 according to the most recent estimates. Using this logic, do people not want to live in the Northeast?
My take on it is that a region like the South is attractive due to jobs and a low cost of living, not due to any desire to leave "flyover country." Especially since much of the South is lumped in with flyover country. As the economies of the large Rust Belt cities in the Midwest improves, expect to see more people sticking around.
Quote:
Chicago is an outlier in its region, of course you have pretty much all the amenities anybody would need in a city of its size. But there is something to be said about the region of the country a city is in. Seattle is in a beautiful region of the country for example, and many people love being there due to its region and isolation, yet still access to Vancouver or Portland or Spokane. Chicago is in a region where no city comes close to being half of what it is for maybe 1000 miles. This is completely different from what people experience living on the coasts.
No city is half of Chicago by what metric? If it's population, then the same can be said for the West and East Coasts as well since no cities can touch LA or NYC population wise. If it's culutural amenities, then that's simply not true. Midwestern cities have some of the best museums, zoos, symphonies, etc, in the country due to them having formerly been some of the nations largest cities. Many cities in the Midwest are actually becoming much more competitive than they've been with Chicago in decades due to ongoing improvement.
I'll have to agree with others that Chicago outside of the Midwest simply isn't Chicago. Chicago is a city predominantly populated by Midwesterners. Just because it's big doesn't mean it would fit in better in the Northeast.
What cities of the Midwest are more important than DC, Philadelphia, and Boston? Also was not making that statement to insult Midwestern cities as I have family in many of them.
I think there are people in the Midwest that would much rather live on the coasts than in "flyover country" yes.
Again, what Meter are you using measuring "important" cities?
It's not a competition. At least I don't see it that way.
I have friends/family that work in DC but wouldn't live there to save their lives.
While they're certainly historic, why are Boston and Philly "important"?
One of my best friends is from Philly and won't go back there for any reason.
She swears it's a dump. (I've never been and have no opinion)
Obviously some people, actually a lot of people, love living in flyover country.
Some people prefer living in cold climates, with less neighbors and traffic and less keep up with the Jones mentality. Or they just don't like change and want to be near family and friends.
I hate snow and have a friend who just can't understand how I don't miss it.
Nothing wrong with that.
Having lived in Baltimore and Boston as well, when I lived in Chicago, I never once thought that Chicago would be any better of a city if it were on the East coast. I mean, it already *is* a better city than virtually all those on the East coast, in my opinion.
I think Chicago should be on the Gulf Coast, between Houston and Corpus Christi. Demographically speaking, large populations of Hispanics, blacks and working class whites, Chicago would fit better in Texas than it would on the East Coast.
Demographically speaking, I'm not sure I agree. I think Chicago is much more demographically aligned with the east coast overall. Large pockets/populations of working class blacks, Polish, Irish, Italians, Ukranians, Greeks, Puerto Ricans, Indians, a large legit Chinatown, etc. Of course, the one oddity is the huge Hispanic (vast majority Mexican) population. That definitely is more characteristic of the Gulf Coast.
Having lived in Baltimore and Boston as well, when I lived in Chicago, I never once thought that Chicago would be any better of a city if it were on the East coast. I mean, it already *is* a better city than virtually all those on the East coast, in my opinion.
Some people who went to Chicago for a business trip considered it a bigger and cleaner version of Philadelphia.
Some people who went to Chicago for a business trip considered it a bigger and cleaner version of Philadelphia.
I agree, bigger and cleaner. But these cities differ in key areas of built environment and housing especially.
- Philly has Colonial era neighborhoods as some of its most sought after neighborhoods. Chicago does not. Its gilded-age neighborhoods are its most sought after.
- Philly has Parks along waterways fully forested. Chicago has fringe forest preserves but most of its Parks are manicured and man-made. Including its Lakefront.
- Philly is the US Row-housing Capital at 60+% not including double-homes. Chicago is much less though it has neighborhoods with 2-3 flat homes as a residence each floor.
- Philly has National Early American Historical sights and buildings back to Colonial times. Chicago does not though it has its American Architecturally significant styles unique to it .... including the evolution of the skyscraper in every era since the late 19th century.
- Chicago was building its bungalow-belt 1910-1940 1/3 the city (NOT including its 1940s- early 1960s bungalow ranch and Tudor's that most kept the same blue-print and lot size (probably up to 1/2 the city overall then)? While Philly stuck to row-homes well into the 20th century.
- Chicago rebuilt a lost lakefront and kept it for public use and prevented industry by far.... building on it. Philly did not protect its Delaware riverfront nearly to that extent.
- Chicago has more apartment or multiple-family residences and created a larger Courtyard-style apartment building preventing tenements from being built and substantial high-rise/skyscraper living then Philly is by far more single-attached homes for whole blocks (but for blocks of lost housing).
- Chicago has a ordinance that ever room must have a window (since the very early 20th century) primarily multi-residential buildings (why the Courtyard building was the result). Philly has rows with interior rooms that ..... may have no windows within the blocks of row-homes.
- Chicago removed by far .... the worst of its blighted areas in the 90s. Philly did not on any scale close.
- Chicago required by ordinance, setbacks of housing from sidewalks and curbs (main streets excluded). Philly allowed much of its row-housing and new infill to have no-setbacks and right to sidewalk and curbing.
Just to me ..... each if these city's housing in neighborhoods is a HUGE difference to me that stands out? I can't agree as similar to just say one just a bigger city.... and version of the other.
Chicago is the Alleyway Capital of the world with 1900 miles of alleys in 90% of the city. Philly did not maintain any standard alley-grid. Some blocks do .... some have walkways. Chicago's alleyways are lined with garages too.
Philly is totally..... East Coast. Chicago is East Coast and West meet with ITS OWN Style prevailing. Just if a region it aligns more with was debated? I'd say by far it s the East coast over the west.
I DO NOT THINK Chicago would want to be picked up and be on the East Coast as the thread topic .... titles it. But wouldn't mind milder winters of a more southern local east coast or not?
The Midwestern location is a big part (arguably the biggest part) of what makes Chicago, Chicago. If it were on the East Coast it would just be a smaller NYC or a larger Boston.
I agree, bigger and cleaner. But these cities differ in key areas of built environment and housing especially.
- Philly has Colonial era neighborhoods as some of its most sought after neighborhoods. Chicago does not. Its gilded-age neighborhoods are its most sought after.
- Philly has Parks along waterways fully forested. Chicago has fringe forest preserves but most of its Parks are manicured and man-made. Including its Lakefront.
- Philly is the US Row-housing Capital at 60+% not including double-homes. Chicago is much less though it has neighborhoods with 2-3 flat homes as a residence each floor.
- Philly has National Early American Historical sights and buildings back to Colonial times. Chicago does not though it has its American Architecturally significant styles unique to it .... including the evolution of the skyscraper in every era since the late 19th century.
- Chicago was building its bungalow-belt 1910-1940 1/3 the city (NOT including its 1940s- early 1960s bungalow ranch and Tudor's that most kept the same blue-print and lot size (probably up to 1/2 the city overall then)? While Philly stuck to row-homes well into the 20th century.
- Chicago rebuilt a lost lakefront and kept it for public use and prevented industry by far.... building on it. Philly did not protect its Delaware riverfront nearly to that extent.
- Chicago has more apartment or multiple-family residences and created a larger Courtyard-style apartment building preventing tenements from being built and substantial high-rise/skyscraper living then Philly is by far more single-attached homes for whole blocks (but for blocks of lost housing).
- Chicago has a ordinance that ever room must have a window (since the very early 20th century) primarily multi-residential buildings (why the Courtyard building was the result). Philly has rows with interior rooms that ..... may have no windows within the blocks of row-homes.
- Chicago removed by far .... the worst of its blighted areas in the 90s. Philly did not on any scale close.
- Chicago required by ordinance, setbacks of housing from sidewalks and curbs (main streets excluded). Philly allowed much of its row-housing and new infill to have no-setbacks and right to sidewalk and curbing.
Just to me ..... each if these city's housing in neighborhoods is a HUGE difference to me that stands out? I can't agree as similar to just say one just a bigger city.... and version of the other.
Chicago is the Alleyway Capital of the world with 1900 miles of alleys in 90% of the city. Philly did not maintain any standard alley-grid. Some blocks do .... some have walkways. Chicago's alleyways are lined with garages too.
Philly is totally..... East Coast. Chicago is East Coast and West meet with ITS OWN Style prevailing. Just if a region it aligns more with was debated? I'd say by far it s the East coast over the west.
I DO NOT THINK Chicago would want to be picked up and be on the East Coast as the thread topic .... titles it. But wouldn't mind milder winters of a more southern local east coast or not?
What about the downtown area? Any similarities at all between the two cities?
What about the downtown area? Any similarities at all between the two cities?
Not really?
Philly has its quaint Colonial neighborhoods in its core. Chicago has the larger office area of the Loop with the other half of the CBD as High-rise/Skyscraper living and warehousing to Lofts. Areas of new higher-end town-housing too. Some more Boston-like?
Philly's Downtown ..... is a bit cut off from its riverfront. But Center City still stretches to there. But nothing like the Grand Waterfront Parks like in the heart of Chicago's Core.... with skyscrapers one side and Lake the other. Philly has its Parkway leading to the Art Museum. But it not on the riverfront of the Delaware river..... though it goes by the Schuylkill river at the Art Museum and beyond. Both offer skyline views.
I don't want to just downplay one city. But there is a Scale to one that gives it a more Open feel and Grandeur in scope.
Chicago also has a wider core city street-grid too. But it's more that Philly's is possibly the tightest streets in any US big city core in the nation?
Chicago's 2-main downtown shopping streets (State and N Michigan Ave), are wider avenues then Philly's Chestnut and Walnut Streets as significantly more narrow. Both have a similarly broad Main thoroughfare through their cores. Chicago's adds more green and much of one side is its Lakefront Parks with added openness feel.
Philly's Core borders two rivers. Chicago's a river through it and its Lakefront.... with its river as is a virtual Canyon of Skyscrapers also.
They have different settings though both are core-centric city's. But scale's differ from street-level and in the distance. Both have a substantial live-in core population too.
Am I allowed to say...........I like the Midwest. Seriously. I like the Midwest.
And I am not the least bit ashamed of our location.
I'll second this. I actually really like the Midwest, probably because I was born and raised here. I like that when I drive home to my family in Kansas, once you get outside of Chicago, the land kind of opens up. Big skies and beautiful Midwestern farmland. I'm not a fan of the dense forests and heavy population density of the Northeast.
I like how Chicago crushes a lot of stereotypes about life in the Midwest. It did for me personally.
I think Chicago likes being in the Midwest too. I know the city is in love with Lake Michigan.
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.
