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.
In 2011-12, KIHC began with its first project, a physical (and, in the future, online) archive of documents from early Internet history, and its first exhibitions, based around UCLA’s first ARPANET node, the network that became the Internet.
I'd argue that nowhere has a claim to the creative nuts and bolts. Creativity comes from everywhere, especially in STEM fields.
Yes, but as in any other category, there is a number 1 when it comes to invention.
The Bay Area is the most inventive place in the entire world-actually by quite a margin if we're talking about patents issued.
Quote:
Tops by a huge margin and no wonder: The San Francisco Bay Area is high tech's world capital. Apple, Google, Hewlett-Packard, and Intel are just a few of the trailblazing companies based there. The area also boasts a strong biotech sector as well as top-tier research universities and federal labs.
It's always either you or Fitzrovian that constantly try to spread this belief that Chicago is still the second city of the US. Sometimes its both of you together.
Why? What do you get out of it? What do you accomplish by defending a city neither of you have lived in or likely care about? Why try to knock LA with these arguments for why Chicago is more urban, important, etc?
Really, I would like to know.
Chicago is definitely not the U.S #2 city anymore, though in certain metrics, ones in which we are talking about global logistics/networks of businesses/corporate presence, globally connected economics, then yes Chicago is #2. If we want to talk about what city has the 2nd largest downtown, then yes Chicago is #2.
As far as culturally influential, politically influential, more to do, or anything like that... in 2012? Then no. I'd probably put Chicago at #4 behind nyc/dc/la. I'd put the Bay Area right behind it at #5. And I'd put an asterik on DC at #3 as it has the possibility to fluctuate the most.
It's always either you or Fitzrovian that constantly try to spread this belief that Chicago is still the second city of the US. Sometimes its both of you together.
Why? What do you get out of it? What do you accomplish by defending a city neither of you have lived in or likely care about? Why try to knock LA with these arguments for why Chicago is more urban, important, etc?
Really, I would like to know.
Chicago was the first great city I visited (as a teenager, long time ago) and it was an experience I shall never forget. Of course, having lived in NY now for over a decade it doesn't make quite the same impression on me nowadays, but it is still on a very short list of American cities where I would opt to live if I couldn't live in NY (Boston and Miami would be the others). IMO the people who dismiss Chicago as "just a great skyline" or "only strong in finance" have a fundamental misunderstanding of the city and what makes it great. It is a city of great heritage built on dizzying ambition and achievements in many different fields -- business, education, architecture, performing arts, etc. Chicago is no one trick pony. It's always looked to NY for competition and inspiration and, while it hasn't quite matched it, it hasnt done so bad for a city that's in the middle of nowhere (what you call flyover country) and was at one point almost completely destroyed. The fact that it is always ranked so highly in the various surveys is a testament to its continuing preeminence.
LA has its charms but it's not my kind of town. It is way too autocentric, doesn't have a proper urban core, has crappy nightlife, and a culture that is way too liberal for me. The climate and scenery are great, but climate and scenery don't make a great city. Its prominence is mainly a function of Hollywood and the city's explosive growth due to the massive Mexican immigration of the last 30 years.
Chicago was the first great city I visited (as a teenager, long time ago) and it was an experience I shall never forget. Of course, having lived in NY now for over a decade it doesn't make quite the same impression on me nowadays, but it is still on a very short list of American cities where I would opt to live if I couldn't live in NY (Boston and Miami would be the others). IMO the people who dismiss Chicago as "just a great skyline" or "only strong in finance" have a fundamental misunderstanding of the city and what makes it great. It is a city of great heritage built on dizzying ambition and achievements in many different fields -- business, education, architecture, performing arts, etc. Chicago is no one trick pony. It's always looked to NY for competition and inspiration and, while it hasn't quite matched it, it hasnt done so bad for a city that's in the middle of nowhere (what you call flyover country) and was at one point almost completely destroyed. The fact that it is always ranked so highly in the various surveys is a testament to its continuing preeminence.
LA has its charms but it's not my kind of town. It is way too autocentric, doesn't have a proper urban core, has crappy nightlife, and a culture that is way too liberal for me. The climate and scenery are great, but climate and scenery don't make a great city. Its prominence is mainly a function of Hollywood and the city's explosive growth due to the massive Mexican immigration of the last 30 years.
If you're a raging drunkard who needs booze past 2am at all costs, maybe.
Anyway, what a nice fluff piece on Chicago you wrote there. Very inspiring--I could almost here the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" playing in the background as I read it. Too bad it basically needs to add Philly's ENTIRE GDP to barely surpass Los Angeles. That's right folk, Los Angeles's Gross Domestic Product is almost equal in size to Chicago AND Philly. Any realistic attempts to paint it as the #2 city ended in the 80's.
If you're a raging drunkard who needs booze past 2am at all costs, maybe.
Anyway, what a nice fluff piece on Chicago you wrote there. Very inspiring--I could almost here the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" playing in the background as I read it. Too bad it basically needs to add Philly's ENTIRE GDP to barely surpass Los Angeles. That's right folk, Los Angeles's Gross Domestic Product is almost equal in size to Chicago AND Philly. Any realistic attempts to paint it as the #2 city ended in the 80's.
You are right Raymond. On my last visit to Chicago when I was admiring its architecture, taking the beautiful river cruise and visiting its world class museums and lively neighborhoods (all via public transportation or cabs, just like in NY) all I could think of was how disappointing it was that Chicago did not have another $300 billion of GDP. That's also what I thinking when I was in London and Paris (not to mention Madrid, Barcelona, Buenos Aires etc).
Seek help.
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.
