Does Chicago wish it could just pick up and move to the East Coast? (houses, centers)

[brodie734]

Originally Posted by DC's Finest

If Chicago was in a warmer location somewhere on the east coast, it would easily have a population of 4-5 million people. I think the winter months affect Chicago's image in a negative way. It would also make the EC much more of a destination than it already is.

I mean

would it be Chicago in the first place then?

Chicago is Chicago because it's Chicago. The city you are describing is like Miami or Tampa.

[Buckeye614]

Originally Posted by thefallensrvnge

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.

I'll third this. Midwest transplant by way of New Jersey/metro NYC.

I love this part of the country and if I didn't live in Columbus, Chicago would be my first choice to live by far. In general the Midwest offers a great balance of urban amenities with reasonable cost of living and accessibility.

Give me Lake Michigan any day over the Hudson River.

[Larry Siegel]

Chicago is the capital city of the Midwest and developed when the Midwest was the wealthiest and fastest-growing region of the country, from about 1870 to 1930.

If Chicago were located somewhere that already had a capital city, like the east coast (New York), it would be much smaller since the east coast doesn't need two huge financial centers.

I don't particularly love the Midwest but if I have to live in it, Chicago is the only city I really want to be in. I live in California in the winters.

[Jeohnny]

Originally Posted by Larry Siegel

Chicago is the capital city of the Midwest and developed when the Midwest was the wealthiest and fastest-growing region of the country, from about 1870 to 1930.

If Chicago were located somewhere that already had a capital city, like the east coast (New York), it would be much smaller since the east coast doesn't need two huge financial centers.

I don't particularly love the Midwest but if I have to live in it, Chicago is the only city I really want to be in. I live in California in the winters.

TO ME on a map Chicago looks more like the mideast, than the Midwest just saying

[edsg25]

I always thought Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington wished they could just pick up and move to the Middle West.

I mean, why wouldn't they.

[Larry Siegel]

Originally Posted by Jeohnny

TO ME on a map Chicago looks more like the mideast, than the Midwest just saying

San Francisco doesn't really look like the West, either, and London doesn't look like the rest of England. Capital cities differ from their hinterlands.

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by edsg25

I always thought Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington wished they could just pick up and move to the Middle West.

I mean, why wouldn't they.

Because there are far more advantages to being on the coastline than being stuck in the middle of the country. But sarcasm noted.

[cfbs2691]

Originally Posted by the resident09

Because there are far more advantages to being on the coastline than being stuck in the middle of the country. But sarcasm noted.

That's a matter of opinion.
Clearly it's yours and clearly it's not for the millions that like their lives in the middle of the country.

If you took the time to read through some threads, you'd find that there are actually people from the northeast that willingly moved to the Midwest and like it there better.

People have different wants in life.

[Vlajos]

No, it wouldn't be Chicago then.

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by the resident09

Because there are far more advantages to being on the coastline than being stuck in the middle of the country. But sarcasm noted.

I'm not sure "stuck in the middle of the country" is an accurate way of describing Chicago. I mean, if you're describing its people, in the modern era of transportation, no one in this country is "stuck." If you're meaning strategic location, Chicago's location (which is actually on the water and at the confluence of many of the most important railways and interstates) is probably why it's larger than any other city on the East Coast that isn't New York.