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.
So you seriously think that Chicago is more iconic than LA, because Michael Jordan played for a Chicago franchise 20 years ago?
Pele, the most famous athlete of all time, played the vast bulk of his career with Santos, so Sao Paulo is the most iconic city in the world because of Pele?
Oops, I thought Santos was a team in Sao Paulo. I never knew there was a city called Santos.
That kinda goes to my point, though. Sports teams aren't directly linked to a city's global status. I don't think Liverpool is some global mega-giant even though their team is as storied as any sports club on the planet.
Do you really think people see Kobe Bryant as a separate entity from the Lakers?
I don't think they strongly identify him with LA's relative global status. No one says "Kobe is a great player on a marquee franchise; therefore LA is a global city".
I mean, if Durant & Westbrook win a bunch of titles for OKC, then suddenly its a world class city? What about Green Bay? I guess it's world class because of iconic Farve/Rodgers? LOL
Chicago has roughly 10 million in the metro. LA has 13 million. Those are immediate metropolitan areas.
The MSA should be the only area considered, because CSA's are far too extensive. For example, Washington includes Baltimore. Do you really think DC should be lumped with Baltimore? Philadelphia includes Reading. Detroit includes Flint, etc.
Pretty soon youll be seeing NYC/NJ/Philly as one CSA, and Chicago/Milwaukee.
San Bernadino and Riverside arent included in the LA metro, and theres a reason.
This is all wrong. There is no NYC/Philly CSA, and a Chicago/Milwaukee CSA is even more ridiculous. Those examples have nothing to do with the current LA CSA.
I am talking real world, not your imagined future combinations. In the real world, LA is nearly twice the size of Chicago, per Census classifications. There is no break whatsoever between LA and the Inland Empire. It's like saying that Chicagoland's North Shore isn't part of Chicago.
And, even using your incorrect comparison, you are talking about a difference of 4 million people, the exact same difference between Chicago and Detroit! Do you think Chicago and Detroit are the exact same size because they're "only" 4 million residents apart?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoobCam
The Sears Tower and Hancock Tower arent as iconic as the Hollywood sign?
Dude, are you serious?
First, there is no Sears Tower; it's the Willis Tower. Second, no one could pick out these towers, unless you were from Chicago or a skyscraper geek.
The Hollywood sign would be recongizable to tribal bushmen in the African Serengeti. You think they know the Willis Tower? LOL
Sports athletes are synonymous with the teams they play for.
When you think of the Green Bay Packers, what do you think of? By the same token, when you think of Brett Favre, what do you think of?
Babe Ruth? Michael Jordan? Wayne Gretzky? Derek Jeter? etc.
Ok, but are you saying that Green Bay is a world-class, iconic city, because they happen to have a successful sports team with globally recognized stars?
I don't think cities are largely defined by sports franchises. Everyone knows Green Bay is a small northern Wisconsin town. No one thinks Green Bay is Paris because they have a famous franchise.
Do you really think people see Kobe Bryant as a separate entity from the Lakers?
Its because we are 20 years removed from Jordan. Plus Kobe won the titles as part of a larger Lakers team, not practically single handedly (Pipin was OK, but Jordan elevated him)
All its suggesting is that famous athletes are also synonymous with the teams they play for, and vice versa.
In no way, whatsoever, am I suggesting that Green Bay is globally iconic because of that.
The subject here is global prominence and Chicago vs LA, so its entirely reasonable to suggest that people know who the Chicago Bulls are a la Michael Jordan, per our little example directly above.
You make no sense whatsover. You are claiming that Chicago is more globally iconic because of Michael Jordan, but then say that other cities aren't globally iconic because of their marquee players.
Either a city is defined by its marquee athletes or it isn't. You can't say that Chicago is World Class because of Michael Jordan and other cities aren't World Class because of their global sports icons.
We're 20 years removed from the Cold War, and there are still Americans who view Russian as Communists.
You actually think people forgot about Michael Jordan?
Thats because the Russians are still communist, but the Eastern Bloc isnt. People did not forget about Jordan, but he only is seen still as a Bull by Chicagoans, same with Larry Bird or Magic Johnson. Both Bird and Jordon now manage teams that they where not on.
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.
