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.
Akron and Cleveland are farther away from each other through,and theres areas bettween them that are other suburbs,I thought St. Paul was like 7 miles from MNPLS.
Politics most likely, and St. Paul and Minneapolis are also very distinct from one another despite being so close. Each one has its own identity...i guess maybe the want to maintain the "Twin Cities" idea...i dunno...the bottom-line is I don't see Minneapolis and Saint Paul merging with each other in the near future. The reason that St. Louis County and St. Louis City don't merge back together to be the same county is because St. Louis County people do not want to have their taxes skyrocket to help pay to fix up St. Louis City. Regardless, they are in the same metro...I consider St. Louis County, St. Charles, and St. Louis and the Metro East to all be St. Louis....likewise I consider Cleveland and Akron to essentially be the same city and also Dallas and Fort Worth. That's just my take though, I'm sure there are many who would disagree, and rightfully so.
As Yoda once said, "Size matters not." It's an arbitrary number. What matters is what a city is able to do with with respect to its size. I'd argue that a place such as Madison, Wisconsin has more vibrant nightlife and better walkable neighborhoods than Detroit or Clevelend even though it's much smaller.
The reason why Chicago is #1 here isn't just because of its size - it simply has the total package in terms of the economy, architecture, culture, sports, nightlife and neighborhoods. When people visit Chicago, it's usually not because of a single attraction - instead, the entire city itself is the attraction. It's called critical mass. That's the biggest difference between Chicago and the other cities on this list. Almost every town can list off some museums, a couple of hip neighborhoods, or even a top tourist attraction or two, but it's the way that all of those attributes are put together that determines whether the city overall is vibrant and an attraction in and of itself or just has a list of things to do. Chicago has that critical mass that only a handful of other cities can lay claim to, while I can't really say the same about the other large Midwestern cities.
As Yoda once said, "Size matters not." It's an arbitrary number. What matters is what a city is able to do with with respect to its size. I'd argue that a place such as Madison, Wisconsin has more vibrant nightlife and better walkable neighborhoods than Detroit or Clevelend even though it's much smaller.
The reason why Chicago is #1 here isn't just because of its size - it simply has the total package in terms of the economy, architecture, culture, sports, nightlife and neighborhoods. When people visit Chicago, it's usually not because of a single attraction - instead, the entire city itself is the attraction. It's called critical mass. That's the biggest difference between Chicago and the other cities on this list. Almost every town can list off some museums, a couple of hip neighborhoods, or even a top tourist attraction or two, but it's the way that all of those attributes are put together that determines whether the city overall is vibrant and an attraction in and of itself or just has a list of things to do. Chicago has that critical mass that only a handful of other cities can lay claim to, while I can't really say the same about the other large Midwestern cities.
I might have to disagree, being that I attend WSU and I take a jog everynight along with alot of my buddies. each time there has been no crimes that we've seen, and we are not the only ones who take jogs down the midtown streets. so do, the new loft owners, and business workers.
As Yoda once said, "Size matters not." It's an arbitrary number. What matters is what a city is able to do with with respect to its size. I'd argue that a place such as Madison, Wisconsin has more vibrant nightlife and better walkable neighborhoods than Detroit or Clevelend even though it's much smaller.
The reason why Chicago is #1 here isn't just because of its size - it simply has the total package in terms of the economy, architecture, culture, sports, nightlife and neighborhoods. When people visit Chicago, it's usually not because of a single attraction - instead, the entire city itself is the attraction. It's called critical mass. That's the biggest difference between Chicago and the other cities on this list. Almost every town can list off some museums, a couple of hip neighborhoods, or even a top tourist attraction or two, but it's the way that all of those attributes are put together that determines whether the city overall is vibrant and an attraction in and of itself or just has a list of things to do. Chicago has that critical mass that only a handful of other cities can lay claim to, while I can't really say the same about the other large Midwestern cities.
Yoda didn't say that, Frank Oz did...I notice your first name is Frank...is it your saying perhaps?
I might have to disagree, being that I attend WSU and I take a jog everynight along with alot of my buddies. each time there has been no crimes that we've seen, and we are not the only ones who take jogs down the midtown streets. so do, the new loft owners, and business workers.
That's not my point - it has nothing to do with whether an area is dangerous or not. Once again, it's all about critical mass. If you take a person that is "objective" (i.e. didn't grow up or live in a particular city where perceptions are going to be naturally skewed), is that person going to consider Detroit a top-tier destination? No offense, but probably not. People might say they'll go up specifically for a baseball game at Comerica Park or check out Greenfield Village, but I don't know too many people that will claim that Detroit overall is an attraction in and of itself where you just want to walk around town to take it all in.
That's not my point - it has nothing to do with whether an area is dangerous or not. Once again, it's all about critical mass. If you take a person that is "objective" (i.e. didn't grow up or live in a particular city where perceptions are going to be naturally skewed), is that person going to consider Detroit a top-tier destination? No offense, but probably not. People might say they'll go up specifically for a baseball game at Comerica Park or check out Greenfield Village, but I don't know too many people that will claim that Detroit overall is an attraction in and of itself where you just want to walk around town to take it all in.
well, alot of people walk downtown to do alot like, Greektown, Mexicantown, the financial district, the riverwalk, concerts, Thetare District, and to the three sports teams. I don't know how much the fireworks in other cities get, but downtown detroit gets 1 million people.
well, alot of people walk downtown to do alot like, Greektown, Mexicantown, the financial district, the riverwalk, concerts, Thetare District, and to the three sports teams. I don't know how much the fireworks in other cities get, but downtown detroit gets 1 million people.
CityKing59 and your many alter egos, I understand that most people have an affinity for their hometown, which is perfectly fine. However, you can't tell me that the average person really has a desire to say, "I need to live it up in Detroit for a weekend!" for a vacation. On the other hand, plenty of people will do just that in Chicago, NYC, San Francisco and other cities. People from all of the country and the world come to just hang out in those cities because they are destinations unto themselves. I just don't think Detroit fits that category, which doesn't mean you shouldn't live there or take advantage of what it might have to offer if you're in that area. I had a blast going to school in Champaign, but despite my personal affinity for that town, I'm not really being objective if I try to argue to that it's a better college town than Ann Arbor or Madison. I'll admit that it's not. Likewise, Detroit just isn't an alluring destination for that many people if you don't already live there or have some personal connection (i.e. grew up there or have family in the area).
CityKing59 and your many alter egos, I understand that most people have an affinity for their hometown, which is perfectly fine. However, you can't tell me that the average person really has a desire to say, "I need to live it up in Detroit for a weekend!" for a vacation. On the other hand, plenty of people will do just that in Chicago, NYC, San Francisco and other cities. People from all of the country and the world come to just hang out in those cities because they are destinations unto themselves. I just don't think Detroit fits that category, which doesn't mean you shouldn't live there or take advantage of what it might have to offer if you're in that area. I had a blast going to school in Champaign, but despite my personal affinity for that town, I'm not really being objective if I try to argue to that it's a better college town than Ann Arbor or Madison. I'll admit that it's not. Likewise, Detroit just isn't an alluring destination for that many people if you don't already live there or have some personal connection (i.e. grew up there or have family in the area).
I know that NYC is a much bigger vacation destiantion than Detroit. but your making it seem that no one walks the downtown at all. I
m just saying that yes, alot of people do things downtown. it may not be a vacation destination even compared to chicago, or NYC, but we still get are share of people on the streets downtown. I was on Detroit's elevated transit the other day and I heard people talking in Greman. so the city does get visitors and yes the city does have people walking the streets and yes chicago is a more populated vacation destination. the city of chicago maybe better, but all I'm saying is that the city does get people downtown. and I only have two names, Jake1256 and this one, because Jake got kicked off for posting comments without explanation.
Akron and Cleveland are farther away from each other through,and theres areas bettween them that are other suburbs,I thought St. Paul was like 7 miles from MNPLS.
7 miles? Are you talking about the downtowns? If so then I could understand. But the cities themselves are right next to each other.
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.
...I notice your first name is Frank...is it your saying perhaps? 
