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.
That's an easy one. Anywhere a few miles south of the Loop feels like the "sticks", especially once highways 94 and 57 split.
Take the Dan Ryan southbound, and it looks like you're in Rust Belt Indiana starting around 5 miles south of the Loop. There are empty fields, giant grain storage facilities, and a general sparse feel. It's no different from Hammond, IN, even though you're only a few miles from the Loop.
Head 7 miles west of manhattan and it is no better than much of the south side of Chicago.
Ok, but the estimates contradict the claims. They're the most recent and best info we have.
Something tells me if these estimates said something different, you would be singing a different tune.
No. Chicagoland growth is probably slow, but the estimates versus the actuality of the 2010 census was pretty stark. Clearly the estimates over a 2 yr period should be taken with a grain of salt. The claim was accurate using the latest census data.
Because the present day numbers are for only two years, it could just be a short-term fluctuation. Ten years of change is more meaningful.
They're the current numbers. How is the current situation not more relevant than the past?
Using your logic, why don't we take the 1900 numbers, and compare to the 1800 numbers? Then we have 100 years of data, instead of a measly 10 years from 2000-2010?
Obviously this discussion is concerned with the present, not the past. Therefore, it makes sense to look the most current numbers. Obviously Chicago was the clear #2 U.S. city in population and economy if you go back into the past.
No. Chicagoland growth is probably slow, but the estimates versus the actuality of the 2010 census was pretty stark. Clearly the estimates over a 2 yr period should be taken with a grain of salt. The claim was accurate using the latest census data.
So, fine, we shouldn't look at the present numbers, we should only look at the past. You win.
In 2010, using your preferred data, the city of Chicago had the second worst population loss in the nation to Detroit, and Cook County and the second worst county population loss in the nation to Wayne County (Detroit). All the population growth in Chicagoland was in the outer exurban area.
So this is the argument for Chicago? The core is rotting, while the sprawl 40 miles out provides all the growth?
They're the current numbers. How is the current situation not more relevant than the past?
Using your logic, why don't we take the 1900 numbers, and compare to the 1800 numbers? Then we have 100 years of data, instead of a measly 10 years from 2000-2010?
Obviously this discussion is concerned with the present, not the past. Therefore, it makes sense to look the most current numbers. Obviously Chicago was the clear #2 U.S. city in population and economy if you go back into the past.
That's stupid. Of course you wouldn't use the 1900 numbers. The point is that the 2010 data *are* the most current data. The 2012 numbers are just estimates. And despite the large loss in Cook county, the 2010 numbers (which are the most current verified data) showed that Chicagoland grew at a faster rate than its congeners LA and NY. And of course, the 2010 data painted a mixed picture in Chicago: growth in the exurbs as well as downtown and the south loop, but loss in the middle class neighborhoods and the areas that already have lots of trouble in the city. We're all well aware of this fact; still, the 2012 numbers are just estimates. I'd hesitate to make a mountain out of a molehill seeing as how the estimates for the previous decade were so inaccurate.
I'm familiar with Chicago and consider the area cohesive IMO. And remember we are speaking about Toronto, LA and Chicago here. I think everyone knows LA is a joke. This leaves Chicago and Toronto for cohesiveness.
What is the most urban of three in your opinion?
I don't think it is a joke, it is just a different type of urban. Yes it is more car centric and is slightly lacking in rail transit (for now), but is still intensely developed and intensely used (i.e. transit lines are busy, streets have lots of pedestrians, most neighborhoods have a vibrant center).
And like someone mentioned before, Toronto is struggling to expand its rail system, Chicago is resting on its laurels (and in the past few decades, actually decreasing in service level) while Los Angeles is plowing ahead at breakneck speed. The rest of this decade should see 4 new transit lines / extensions put into place, while 3-5 new lines will start construction. Los Angeles just elected what many are calling its first "urban" mayor - would love to see what he can do to top Tony V, who I thought was a fairly "urban" mayor.
Honestly a ton of the criticisms of Los Angeles can be directly applied to Chicago and Toronto. Perhaps it is at its worst in Los Angeles, but these cities are all in the same league.
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.
