Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-01-2012, 07:59 PM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,606 posts, read 55,881,767 times
Reputation: 11862

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Indeed it is valid, it is why when I wanted the big city urban experience, Chicago was a much easier move for me to go to, though I had originally wanted to move to NYC after college. Not that Chicago is the same... or, that is a "mini NYC" ... but it does offer the next best "Big city urban experience" in the U.S. IMO.
Definitely, for 'big city experience' Chicago is no. 2 and SF is no. 3. I've not been to Toronto or Chicago so I can't compare between them, but I think Toronto is catching up. Chicago probably feels bigger because of the skyscrapers and sprawling metro, but in terms of vibrancy I can see Toronto being it's equal. Same goes for SF. If Philly is on the upswing, I think foot traffic in Philly could equal Chicago, as does DC and Boston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-01-2012, 08:04 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,430,296 times
Reputation: 5878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
Definitely, for 'big city experience' Chicago is no. 2 and SF is no. 3. I've not been to Toronto or Chicago so I can't compare between them, but I think Toronto is catching up. Chicago probably feels bigger because of the skyscrapers and sprawling metro, but in terms of vibrancy I can see Toronto being it's equal. Same goes for SF. If Philly is on the upswing, I think foot traffic in Philly could equal Chicago, as does DC and Boston.
I'd say that is accurate, I've lived in both Chi/SF but not NYC... visited many times to NYC and it's quite obvious NYC is on a completely different level. I've been to Toronto and wouldn't quite put it on that level yet, but the last time I was there was about 10 years ago, so I'm sure it's a bit different now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2012, 08:14 PM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,606 posts, read 55,881,767 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
I'd say that is accurate, I've lived in both Chi/SF but not NYC... visited many times to NYC and it's quite obvious NYC is on a completely different level. I've been to Toronto and wouldn't quite put it on that level yet, but the last time I was there was about 10 years ago, so I'm sure it's a bit different now.
Americans sometimes forget that the relationship between size/city vibrancy is different in other countries.

And I'm not talking 'city limit' populations, which only Americans seem to care about. Internationally, when people talk about city size, it's almost always metro size. That's what really counts.

When one asks what the population of Perth is, we always say the metro size...only Brisbane has a city wide municipal government (there is the 'City of Perth' but that really includes only inner Perth and has 30,000 people) but they still consider city size as metro size.

Back to topic. Canadian cities tend to be denser so feel bigger for their size. In Europe, there are cities with 200,000 that blow cities like Phoenix away for their downtown vibrancy and even the size of the city. They have the cultural institutions of a city 10 times the size in the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2012, 10:14 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,430,296 times
Reputation: 5878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
Americans sometimes forget that the relationship between size/city vibrancy is different in other countries.

And I'm not talking 'city limit' populations, which only Americans seem to care about. Internationally, when people talk about city size, it's almost always metro size. That's what really counts.

When one asks what the population of Perth is, we always say the metro size...only Brisbane has a city wide municipal government (there is the 'City of Perth' but that really includes only inner Perth and has 30,000 people) but they still consider city size as metro size.

Back to topic. Canadian cities tend to be denser so feel bigger for their size. In Europe, there are cities with 200,000 that blow cities like Phoenix away for their downtown vibrancy and even the size of the city. They have the cultural institutions of a city 10 times the size in the US.
lol... I have made that argument for years on here... Homers still drop their jaw at this though, for some reason, then go on the attack, so I stopped trying to do it... it's true though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2012, 11:53 PM
 
Location: London, U.K.
886 posts, read 1,559,028 times
Reputation: 828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tortorella View Post
LOL. If he knew your real name, then you must have revealed it yourself on the board at some point in time. Which means anyone could have searched your post history and found out your real name themself if they wanted to. So what are you so upset about?
Rare programming tool SL shows you open source social networking accounts if you have multiple tabs open on the same browser and all social sites associated with your IP.

It's cool but it's basically a Firesheep on steroids
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2012, 06:41 AM
 
10,839 posts, read 14,664,479 times
Reputation: 7872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post

In Europe, there are cities with 200,000 that blow cities like Phoenix away for their downtown vibrancy and even the size of the city. They have the cultural institutions of a city 10 times the size in the US.
so true. Last time I was in Nice, France, I was completely blown away by the vibrancy on the streets, even at 11pm! Then I realize it has a population of 350k. Even the metro has only something under 900k, which put it in the same league as Tulsa, OK, or Albany NY. However, its street life probably beats or is at par with most cities in the US, including much larger cities like Chicago, LA, Boston etc.

I have no idea why Americans like their suburban homes 30km from the activities at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2012, 08:21 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista
2,471 posts, read 4,005,799 times
Reputation: 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
Canadian usually compare Toronto to Chicago - similar city population, geography, weather, but are they indeed close?

As a resident of Toronto and frequent visitor of Chicago, I don't think Toronto is already where Chicago is now, or even was 10 years ago. Chicago does have its own problems and is losing population, but it still is a much wealthier, more beautiful city with better infrastructure, especially transit and waterfront. I don't have exact numbers, but I would think Chicago has more financial jobs than Toronto as well. Chicago has a much larger downtown core as well. To me, Chicago just looks like a league ahead of us.

On the other hand, I tend to think Philadelphia is more of a closer peer to Toronto. Metro population is similar (5.6M), GDP is similar (3.8bn -Philly vs 3.2bn-Toronto). The "feel" of Toronto is probably closer to Philadelphia than to Chicago too. I know Philly has been decline (if I am not mistaken) and Toronto is kind of booming (construction everywhere), but Philly is a well established city for centuries and has been America's top 10 city since inception of the country. Plus, Toronto's largely gritty appearance in the core area does remind me more of Philadelphia than the much prettier and taller Chicago.

What do you think?
actually philly is gaining in population and there is a considerable amount of construction considering the economy. Also Philly has been a top 5 city since America's inception, the only other city that holds that distinction is NYC.

Don't exactly disagree with the comparison though, if anything the fact that philly is booming is simply another reason why the comparison makes sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2012, 09:33 AM
 
Location: NYC
2,546 posts, read 3,282,554 times
Reputation: 1924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
I'm not saying that people shouldn't bother visiting Chicago, I guess if you ask any international tourist...if they could visit only two cities in the US, distance was no barrier, what would they be? You would get NYC on most lists, and then they'd say things like NYC and SF, NYC and LA, NYC and Miami. Few would say NYC and Chicago. I hope that makes you understand my point.
I don't have an issue with that, as I've already made clear. But that was not the proposition. Your question was "if you've been to NYC, is there any compelling reason to check out Chicago?" And the answer is a resounding yes. Since you've never been to Chicago you should accept that and stop arguing...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
Aquariums, bahai temples, and Chicago's nabes can be found anywhere in the NYC. Again, you haven't presented me with anything Chi-town has except a big lake that NYC cannot match. Sears/Willis Tower? Sure it's a little taller than the ESB but the ESB is similar enough and much more handsome. And soon the Freedom Tower will exceed anything in Chicago.
... And yet you keep arguing. Do you even know what a Baha'i temple is? The one in Chicago is the only one in North America. And though we have an aquarium I hear its nothing like Chicago's which is reputedly the best in the country. And saying that Chicago's nabes "can be found anywhere in NYC" is ridiculous. That's like me saying that LA's "famous suburban areas" can be found anywhere in the US.

Again I find it comical that you keep arguing about the merits of visiting Chicago - and opining about the quality of its offerings - without ever having been there. That doesnt strike you as a bit silly? You love LA, fine, but you really need to expand your little box.

Last edited by Fitzrovian; 06-02-2012 at 09:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2012, 02:47 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,606 posts, read 55,881,767 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian View Post
I don't have an issue with that, as I've already made clear. But that was not the proposition. Your question was "if you've been to NYC, is there any compelling reason to check out Chicago?" And the answer is a resounding yes. Since you've never been to Chicago you should accept that and stop arguing...



... And yet you keep arguing. Do you even know what a Baha'i temple is? The one in Chicago is the only one in North America. And though we have an aquarium I hear its nothing like Chicago's which is reputedly the best in the country. And saying that Chicago's nabes "can be found anywhere in NYC" is ridiculous. That's like me saying that LA's "famous suburban areas" can be found anywhere in the US.

Again I find it comical that you keep arguing about the merits of visiting Chicago - and opining about the quality of its offerings - without ever having been there. That doesnt strike you as a bit silly? You love LA, fine, but you really need to expand your little box.

Sure there are reasons to visit Chicago. I even said I wouldn't mind checking it out. But like I said, after NYC, I don't expect to encounter much that is drastically different. I've been to many famous cities in the US, including Boston, DC, NOLA, Vegas, LA - all were unique in their own way. Chicago might be unique but it just seems less unique than those cities to me. Since I haven't been, though, I'll reserve judgement for when I do then.

There's a Baha'i temple in my very neighbourhood...although I don't know if it's called a temple as such. It's a sort of Middle eastern style building with some date palms and they call it the Baha'i centre. Whatever the case may be, I don't think a Baha'i temple is exactly high on most tourists lists. If you're using that as a 'compelling' reason to visit Chicago you must really be stretching.

What I'm saying is the qualitative nature of a place like Oak Park. It's nice and all, but I'm sure you can find neighbourhoods that are very SIMILAR in say Statten Island, Queens, Long Island or even the Bronx. Tell me if you can find anything remotely resembling Laurel Canyon in the NYC area. Of course not, California is totally different.

I've been to many aquariums. They are cool, and I'll give Chicago that, that might be one of the places I'd like to check out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2012, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
31,967 posts, read 34,502,290 times
Reputation: 15017
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Actually LA has a better theater scene (more theaters, more actors, more award winning productions, more writers) AND art scene (many more artists, including more galleries and museums, not that close actually). Chicago has some nice feature theaters in it's downtown, and the Art Institute and MCA are nice... but, yeah... no.
I never made a statement about any of those offerings being better. I simply said that they were "great." There's no weakness that Chicago has in any particular area with the exception of lesser international recognition than its coastal counterparts.

Los Angeles, on the other hand, has a number of important areas where Chicago simply outshines it. When it comes to knowledge vocations such as law, accounting, and banking, I think Los Angeles is clearly a tier beneath Chicago. The Chicago Board of Exchange, for example, is one of the world's largest options exchanges. Los Angeles does not have any institutions of that magnitude.

There's really nothing you can knock Chicago on. Again, great theater, opera, symphony, restaurants (it has a Michelin guide whereas LA does not), museums, public transit, and important educational and economic institutions. And as other posters have pointed out, it offers an urban experience the scale of which can really only be exceeded by NYC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top