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.
BajanYankee: Do you like Washington DC or do you dislike it? I'm just trying to figure that out..
Tex?Il?: Do you like Chicago or do you hate it? Trying to figure this one out too..
I like Chicago. But no more on the level of other American cities.
Its very different from when I was a kid in the 80s. People had doubts about Chicagos importance, future, global influence back then it seems. Everyone talked about NYC and LA. And kind of wrote of Chicago as a bit of a dinosaur. No one back in the 1980s would have thought of Chicago as being better than LA. Yes, this is not the 1980s. I just focus more on LONG term trends than 5-10 year trends.
Theres absolutely nothing wrong with progress. I don't live in the past, but I put more stake in 30-40 year trends than recent 5-10 year trends.
And since its only recently in the last 10 years or so, that people started thinking of Chicago as being the best city in America, then it makes sense to questions those sentiments.
And if Detroit was the 5th largest city as recently as the 70s, then obviously it should get some respect. Thats really not that long ago. To Europeans that nothing. Americans in general don't find history that relevant as Europeans I think.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
I like Chicago. But no more on the level of other American cities.
Then you're like me. I also like Chicago A LOT, but the city really frustrates me to no end more than any other city just because of the potential it has but wastes it. It borderline ticks me off a lot. I will defend Chicago, easily for what it is and only for what it is, but I will never let Chicago slide by either and get credit for something it shouldn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
Its very different from when I was a kid in the 80s. People had doubts about Chicagos importance, future, global influence back then it seems. Everyone talked about NYC and LA. And kind of wrote of Chicago as a bit of a dinosaur. No one back in the 1980s would have thought of Chicago as being better than LA. Yes, this is not the 1980s. I just focus more on LONG term trends than 5-10 year trends.
As the number two city, Chicago ran the second spot from 1880 to 1960 at least. That is a long time to be the 2nd in command, and researching news articles from the early 20th Century, Chicago was very popular, it was all about New York & Chicago then.
I do agree, no one in the 1980's would have thought Chicago would be home to more opportunities than Los Angeles. The 1980's were the best decade for Los Angeles. It was Los Angeles's peak and where its power was nearly unlimited, it controlled the media industry (it doesn't anymore, New York does) it was significantly in better economical shape than New York (which seemed to be going through rough times in the 80's just like Chicago).
However it all changed in 1992, when Los Angeles took its very first kick in the chin. Things started slowing down, it started becoming expensive, it started to fade away and Hollywood started packing up one production studio at a time and began planning their exit. Since then Los Angeles has been in a performance decline, Chicago's uproar and come back was from 1990's to early 2000's. That's when Chicago & Los Angeles traded back, Chicago became richer than Los Angeles (median income), Chicago's economy became more prominent than Los Angeles's (acquisitions, and mergers and new centers), and Chicago began progressing into the modern era while Los Angeles tried to find its economical drive to keep going.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
Theres absolutely nothing wrong with progress. I don't live in the past, but I put more stake in 30-40 year trends than recent 5-10 year trends.
And since its only recently in the last 10 years or so, that people started thinking of Chicago as being the best city in America, then it makes sense to questions those sentiments.
Chicago isn't the best city in America. It's one of the best cities in America because of what it offers. Yes it has major issues it needs to clean up, but compared to its peers it ranks moderate in that too. Los Angeles considerably has far more they have to work on in almost every aspect than crime, which they've done a phenomenal job with (and hope they continue to do so).
Chicago is stagnant now, seeing minimal progress, but that's better than being at the negatives, especially in these times. Los Angeles is trying to find itself and its hurt, its almost lost its niche industry, New York controls 67% of the US Cinema Shares now, houses 5 out of the Big 6 Production Film Companies. Aerospace, the last of which Los Angeles has "Northrop Grumann" is leaving to Washington DC in 2 months, the entirety of it, the headquarters, the assemly lines, everything is going to Washington DC.
The construction industry is almost gone now there. The manufacturing is headed to China and never coming back because of how expensive its become and also headed to other Sunbelt states and cities. The housing situation is in total chaos. And for the largest top 10 metropolitan areas it has the highest unemployment rate in the nation now at 12.1% and the other half of its metropolitan area (Riverside-San Bernardino) is at 14.6% (the worst in the nation).
Los Angeles is an amazing city, just like Chicago, but it sucks how some of America's largest cities have to put up such a struggle. Los Angeles has a huge task ahead of itself but in a few years I can see it reinvent itself and stabilize, its hey day is kind of over though. Chicago has been ignoring its problems for decades, but even then has done well for itself just staying on there and keeping itself focussed on improving bits and pieces at a time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
And if Detroit was the 5th largest city as recently as the 70s, then obviously it should get some respect. Thats really not that long ago. To Europeans that nothing. Americans in general don't find history that relevant as Europeans I think.
People CAN live too much in the here and now.
Well it is the here and now that determines the tomorrow. Americans in general are gullible idiots (I am American for the record), we bank on too much of what we don't have and the illusions of what others before us have done. We ignore problems.
One thing you can always bank on as far as cities go, is that New York will be number one, it made its spot and its there to stay.
Cities on the rise:
- Washington DC
- Houston
- Dallas-Fort Worth
- Bay Area
Chicago is stagnant, it has to clean itself up, and it has a task ahead of itself, but its considerably healthier than people give it credit for. Los Angeles has to completely reinvent itself and pick up the slack for lost times, it has the hardest job right now in the country to fix itself up, hopefully it gets it done.
America's 2nd & 3rd largest cities struggling in such a way is not a good image for any of us. And I know Chicago should be more focussed on picking its performance back up.
"The" is used in front of highway names in Chicago? I thought that was just a Cali thing.
Seriously? I think this might be over-analyzing.
Anyway, some cities like L.A. have vastly different climates and landscapes within city limits, including a 5,000 ft. mountain! Those are some pretty big intra-city differences.
Then you're like me. I also like Chicago A LOT, but the city really frustrates me to no end more than any other city just because of the potential it has but wastes it. It borderline ticks me off a lot. I will defend Chicago, easily for what it is and only for what it is, but I will never let Chicago slide by either and get credit for something it shouldn't.
As the number two city, Chicago ran the second spot from 1880 to 1960 at least. That is a long time to be the 2nd in command, and researching news articles from the early 20th Century, Chicago was very popular, it was all about New York & Chicago then.
I do agree, no one in the 1980's would have thought Chicago would be home to more opportunities than Los Angeles. The 1980's were the best decade for Los Angeles. It was Los Angeles's peak and where its power was nearly unlimited, it controlled the media industry (it doesn't anymore, New York does) it was significantly in better economical shape than New York (which seemed to be going through rough times in the 80's just like Chicago).
However it all changed in 1992, when Los Angeles took its very first kick in the chin. Things started slowing down, it started becoming expensive, it started to fade away and Hollywood started packing up one production studio at a time and began planning their exit. Since then Los Angeles has been in a performance decline, Chicago's uproar and come back was from 1990's to early 2000's. That's when Chicago & Los Angeles traded back, Chicago became richer than Los Angeles (median income), Chicago's economy became more prominent than Los Angeles's (acquisitions, and mergers and new centers), and Chicago began progressing into the modern era while Los Angeles tried to find its economical drive to keep going.
Chicago isn't the best city in America. It's one of the best cities in America because of what it offers. Yes it has major issues it needs to clean up, but compared to its peers it ranks moderate in that too. Los Angeles considerably has far more they have to work on in almost every aspect than crime, which they've done a phenomenal job with (and hope they continue to do so).
Chicago is stagnant now, seeing minimal progress, but that's better than being at the negatives, especially in these times. Los Angeles is trying to find itself and its hurt, its almost lost its niche industry, New York controls 67% of the US Cinema Shares now, houses 5 out of the Big 6 Production Film Companies. Aerospace, the last of which Los Angeles has "Northrop Grumann" is leaving to Washington DC in 2 months, the entirety of it, the headquarters, the assemly lines, everything is going to Washington DC.
The construction industry is almost gone now there. The manufacturing is headed to China and never coming back because of how expensive its become and also headed to other Sunbelt states and cities. The housing situation is in total chaos. And for the largest top 10 metropolitan areas it has the highest unemployment rate in the nation now at 12.1% and the other half of its metropolitan area (Riverside-San Bernardino) is at 14.6% (the worst in the nation).
Los Angeles is an amazing city, just like Chicago, but it sucks how some of America's largest cities have to put up such a struggle. Los Angeles has a huge task ahead of itself but in a few years I can see it reinvent itself and stabilize, its hey day is kind of over though. Chicago has been ignoring its problems for decades, but even then has done well for itself just staying on there and keeping itself focussed on improving bits and pieces at a time.
Well it is the here and now that determines the tomorrow. Americans in general are gullible idiots (I am American for the record), we bank on too much of what we don't have and the illusions of what others before us have done. We ignore problems.
One thing you can always bank on as far as cities go, is that New York will be number one, it made its spot and its there to stay.
Cities on the rise:
- Washington DC
- Houston
- Dallas-Fort Worth
- Bay Area
Chicago is stagnant, it has to clean itself up, and it has a task ahead of itself, but its considerably healthier than people give it credit for. Los Angeles has to completely reinvent itself and pick up the slack for lost times, it has the hardest job right now in the country to fix itself up, hopefully it gets it done.
America's 2nd & 3rd largest cities struggling in such a way is not a good image for any of us. And I know Chicago should be more focussed on picking its performance back up.
But how much of Chicagos comeback or LAs slowdown is whether you are looking at city versus metropolitan area.
Heres where I get suspicious:
How much is Chicago proper's comeback due to (ahem) a population exchange. You know, tearing down projects, and building new highrises in the south loop.
I guess what strikes about the LA area, is that, when you look at googleearth street view, all the ghetto/bad areas look 100% intact. With store fronts full. No urban prairies. No where that looks like Englewood, Back of the Yards, Garfield Park, Harvey, Chicago Hts, etc. etc. Everything south and east of the Stevenson is part of the rustbelt more or less. Even the far northwest sides of Chicago proper, closer to O'Hare. Look like they haven;t had any new development in this boom. Can people understand why Chicagos comeback is questionable?
And there are high powered, high income suburbs big time in every direction from LA. Every slope of the Santa Monica Mountains, on the edge of the San Gabriels. All over Orange County. THere are major Schaumburg-like office complexes every ten miles. I think the relative decline is more in LA proper.
I've been to the LA area on a vacation recently, and I fill in whatever I need with research. I mean everything from U.S. Cellular field to the cornfields, save Hyde Park and Flossmoor/Olypmia Fields out to where the cornfields begin is an economic desert.
Rock Creek Park is a true gem. When friends and family visit, and I drive along the Parkway, they're usually surprised to learn that they're still in the city. Most people mistake it for Maryland.
Take them down Canal Road next time. They would probably think they are in Maryland as well when they are on this road.
You go from here on Canal Road Washington DC - Google Maps
Charlotte is a big city. It's over 260 sq miles. Parts of South Charlotte seems a totally different universe than the University Area which is totally different from West Charlotte(considered the hood). I'll post pics later.
Outside of National mall area most people think D.C. is Maryland for some reason.
Most don't really get to feel or see all 68 square miles of D.C., which is probably why folks say that D.C. is so small but in reality it feels huge.
You gotta get outside the beltway to really get into Maryland, except PG once you cross southern ave you know your in MD.
The second link OMG!!
Thats it yaw up north people can no longer call us country, no sir, not after seeing that.
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.
