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.
Over all Id say Chicago but I wouldnt necesarily say its a blowout(I wouldnt say its dead close either just not a blowout).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
Condescending are we?? No. I never "think" about what I post
2.2 million in Houston.
2.9 in Chicago.
3.8 in L.A.
Everything this whole thread points to what
Again, Chicago has beautiful older buildings mixed in, the lakefront location with beaches, and a comprehensive (albeit aging, and simply a product of yesteryear) public transit system.
The lack of an entertianment industry/celebrity culture, etc. in my opinion, really makes Chicago a distant third behind New York and L.A. ser
On the other hand, it very much keeps the cost of living down for all of us.
Besides, in a few other posts, you were on the other side, pointing out that Chicago is the most racially charged city you've been to. And how even the gentrified north side is a more racist feel than people realize. Well if that were true, which I believe there is some truth to, doesn't that take away from what would make Chicago world class??
Do you trash talk Chicago on its own terms, and then stick up for it, when comparing the city to other cities?? Just wondering.
no offense Tex?Il? but you've been doing the same thing for the past several days. Just sayin.
I think Chicago & LA are fairly equal in prominence. LA & Houston is a very differnt comparison!
Honestly.....I disagree.
Houston and Chicago both suffer from the same thing; they both are seen as less popular and inferior amongst their peers. They both have a reputation for being laid-back and more organic. This can be a negative and positive thing [imo].
Last edited by blkgiraffe; 12-27-2010 at 07:41 PM..
Why don't you try communicating with the Texans in this thread in your native deep southern language and see if they understand you. "Ay yall, yall goin to that thur flying biscuit, aint nothin mo upscale than the digs in tha ATL homies, yall come on hur ovur yall!". TX isn't the deep south.
Yea, this obvious trolling. Are you 12?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infamous Past
So I'm trolling now because I am correcting you on what your claims?
Atlanta is rural, I provided proof for what I said. You see NYC looking like that? Chicago? Baltimore? DC? SF? Boston? No because those cities aren't rural like Atlanta.
You claim to have a dictionary right? Please look up the word rural, post it up for us and then post mile high pics of Chicago, Baltimore or any other city you are trying to compare to Atlanta.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infamous Past
Many Atlantans take pride in their city being the "NYC of the South". NYC is always on Atlantans minds, every day there are Atlantans thinking about NYC and how their city compares to NYC.
No they don't. You are just making stuff up. I live here. No one cares about NYC unless they are from there.
No last I checked TX is not in the deep south. ATL is a rural wasteland, its not dense, its just a poor mans NYC. Your city is so full of itself they started calling the place "NYC of the South" LMAO. ATL is the most irrelevant city in the south just a bigger version of Charlotte but at least Charlotte has banking. Atlanta is rural, so cultureless, so monotonic all you see are white/black people and little of anything else. ATL lacks a lot and its in the poorest section of its region, the deep dirty south. Yuck
Why does a city have to have X number of Y ethnicities to be considered a "real city?" There are transplants from all over the world down there. In my opinion, it is number of tranplants that makes a city cosmopolitan.
MANY people from the Chicago area, have been impressed with Atlanta for two reasons.
Using my definition of "cosmopolitan" there transplants from all over the world seem to make up a higher percentage of people in Atlanta than in Chicago. There may not be really any "ethnic villages" but who the hell cares. Those ethnic villages are not necessarily good for American cities. It breeds a balkanizing attitude. You may get more authentic food, but overall its not as good for society. Many of Chicago problems stem from European ethnic groups living in their own little enclaves for generations and putting their people first, rather than the city as a whole.
The Atlanta metro area is a mecca for successful white collared African Americans. It really is amazing. Just check up on wikipedia of the demographics of all the upscale communities. The can-do spirit and positive attitude is much bigger part of a greater percent of African Americans in Atlanta than in the northern rustbelt cities (and yes I do include Chicago as rustbelt because AAs make up a small% in the areas that are the economic engines of Chicago) More AAs are geographically disadvantaged in south Chicagoland, where communities revolved around heavy industry and are a further commute to good jobs. (Although there are plenty of neighborhoods and suburbs where successful white collared AAs live: Hyde Park, Catham, Oak Park, Beverly, Flossmoor/Olympia Fields)
Houston and Chicago both suffer from the same thing; they both are seen as less popular and inferior amongst their peers. They are both have a reputation for being laid-back and more organic. This can be a negative and positive thing [imo].
Exactly!!!
The senior and junior capitals of "flyover country"
LA is closer to rivaling Chicago than it is to rivaling NYC. Actually the proof is right in front of me, Chicago to me seems more relevant than LA. LA does not rank in finance, commodities exchange, transportation modal of all cargo, and Chicago is richer than LA. LA MSA closely rivals Chicago and I consider it inferior to Chicago. LA CSA is the size of Tennessee, obviously it will have a large population... and that is when LA begins to pull away from Chicago but it still doesn't come close to rivaling NYC.
If Chicago had the same land area for its city as LA, which is double the land area, Chicago would be more populated than LA still. If Chicagoland was the size of Tennessee it would obliterate LA in importance.
Reading this thread you would think Houston is the toilet of the Earth. All of us in Houston should flee to Chicago. From what I'm reading they are much better than us here. They have so many amenities and we have....I guess Walmart.
I thought Houston was getting rid of its rednecks.
Some are still around...and they do provide some old school character. They're generally much more agreeable around than those arrogant Chi-centric boors whose dialect is something along the lines of "Da Beaaarssss!"
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.
