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.
You have a lot of very well thought-out, informative posts, so you are clearly a bright guy, but a few of your posts, I'm thinking . . .
Like you seem to be addressing some other questions entirely.
The poster asked "even if it were a city in the middle of nowhere?" and you responded that you hate small towns. If you don't like small towns that's fine, but it kind felt kind of derailed.
Well for one, it wasn't derailed since I made the criteria of comparison as flexible as possible, even made sure to say "compare on any factor." To which small towns surrounding these cities are a factor, I guess.
For the second point, it wasn't random if you followed my conversation with that poster from another thread. We were conversing on a subject that has carried over from another thread but yet pertains to this one by way of surrounding environs of these cities. That is why that poster had an emoticon with the tongue sticking out, it was an inside conversation between he and I.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
By "middle of nowhere" people refer to Chicagos relative isolation from other large cities of various sizes. No matter where you are on the Bos-Wash corridor, you are within an easy day trip of multiple large important cities (although Boston is on the north end, you are still a potential day trip to NY (although pushing it)).
Well unless a place is isolated like Perth, Australia or Denver, Colorado where it is absolutely hard to argue that it is not isolated, isolation otherwise is subjective.
Me personally, I approached this thread subjectively, that is why I made it this way -- as a personal choice. I also stated my personal opinion about Boston's relative isolation to the rest of the Northeast Corridor (look at the words in the context -- literally cannot be more clear than I am -- and people still miss points). Although that point is irrelevant at this stage, since Boston is not really the most isolated city in the country, it is just 250 miles north of New York and aside from suburbs in Greater New York, I wouldn't even describe one place between the two as a big city worth spending any relevant amount of time in (notice the difference between Washington D.C. to New York and Boston to New York; just within the Northeast Corridor itself). So in theory, it makes reasons going north of New York in the corridor less than appealing via car, especially if you live in the southern terminus of it like Washington D.C., which is where I used to live in the Northeast Corridor. Is this detailed enough? However if we compared isolation of Boston to Chicago, again it is subjective for everyone. I'll make my own personal argument below -- since it is a subjective thread after all.
How do you tell a person like me with friends and family, even more the closest friends and family members I have in the United States in (and reasons to constantly visit) California, Pacific Northwest, Texas, New York, Washington D.C. area, and Florida (where I live) that Boston's more East heavy location is a better fit for me given those particular geographies of interest? Chicago is cumulatively in between all of those places, like right in the heart of those places, if they had to find a middle ground. From Chicago, it is a standard 2 hours at most 3-3.5 hours to fly to each of those places since it is in the Midwest, which is located dead-center between those places. Making relative trips quicker if you go in every direction several times a year (and I do travel a lot within the United States -- mostly those same places I mentioned).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
It seems to be that if you only like large cities, and you want to go visit other large cities, then Philly or Boston should have the edge. If you "small towns" well then, thats almost ALL there is outside Chicago compared to Philly or Boston.
I don't like small towns period. I don't care if they are a Midwestern brand or a New England brand or a German brand or an English brand. To me it is basically s*** or s*** and that's it, to me. Very few small towns worldwide that I have ever actually liked. None of them in the eastern half of the United States. I think Boston has the edge on immediate locations on places to visit since New York and Washington D.C. aren't crushingly distant from it. However, taking into account all the places I like and/or have to frequent to in the United States, Chicago is more central to it all, as a cumulative of them all put together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
It seems to be that if you only like large cities, and you want to go visit other large cities, then Philly or Boston should have the edge. If you "small towns" well then, thats almost ALL there is outside Chicago compared to Philly or Boston.
That is assuming that I like the Northeast Corridor. To be clear, I like, actually love 40% of it, New York and Washington D.C. and that is about it. I have a neutral take on Boston, definitely enjoy visiting it, but I'm not sure if I would live there. That does it.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 05-04-2015 at 08:29 PM..
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,279,693 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John
Well for one, it wasn't derailed since I made the criteria of comparison as flexible as possible, even made sure to say "compare on any factor." To which small towns surrounding these cities are a factor, I guess.
For the second point, it wasn't random if you followed my conversation with that poster from another thread. We were conversing on a subject that has carried over from another thread but yet pertains to this one by way of surrounding environs of these cities. That is why that poster had an emoticon with the tongue sticking out, it was an inside conversation between he and I.
Well unless a place is isolated like Perth, Australia or Denver, Colorado where it is absolutely hard to argue that it is not isolated, isolation otherwise is subjective.
Me personally, I approached this thread subjectively, that is why I made it this way -- as a personal choice. I also stated my personal opinion about Boston's relative isolation to the rest of the Northeast Corridor (look at the words in the context -- literally cannot be more clear than I am -- and people still miss points). Although that point is irrelevant at this stage, since Boston is not really the most isolated city in the country, it is just 250 miles north of New York and aside from suburbs in Greater New York, I wouldn't even describe one place between the two as a big city worth spending any relevant amount of time in. So in theory, it makes reasons going north of New York in the corridor less than appealing, especially if you live in the southern terminus of it like Washington D.C., which is where I used to live in the Northeast Corridor. Is this detailed enough? However if we compared isolation of Boston to Chicago, again it is subjective for everyone. I'll make my own personal argument below -- since it is a subjective thread after all.
How do you tell a person like me with friends and family (and reasons to constantly visit) California, Texas, New York, Washington D.C. area, and Florida (where I live) that Boston's more East heavy location is a better fix? Chicago is cumulatively in between all of those places, like right in the heart of those places, if they had to find a middle ground. From Chicago, it is a standard 2 hours at most 3 hours to fly to each of those places since it is in the Midwest, which is located dead-center between those places. Making relative trips quicker if you go in every direction several times a year (and I do travel a lot within the United States -- mostly those same places I mentioned).
I don't like small towns period. I don't care if they are a Midwestern brand or a New England brand. To me it is basically s*** or s*** and that's it.
That is assuming that I like the Northeast Corridor. To be clear, I like, actually love 40% of it, New York and Washington D.C. and that is about it. I have a neutral take on Boston, definitely enjoy visiting it, but I'm not sure if I would live there. Rest like Baltimore or where ever else is not on the radar.
Well you sure stand YOUR GROUND as right. SMALL TOWN HATE? GUESS WE CAN ADD FARMS AND MOUNTIAN REGIONS. I sure hope you live in a city you have LEAST ISSUES WITH. As for you living in Florida? If it isn't Miami???? Isn't it just a small town? LOL . Guess you gave us your opinion of Philly too? As it is only NYC and DC. Anything else is SMALL TOWN?
That is assuming that I like the Northeast Corridor. To be clear, I like, actually love 40% of it, New York and Washington D.C. and that is about it. I have a neutral take on Boston, definitely enjoy visiting it, but I'm not sure if I would live there. That does it.
As it is only NYC and DC. Anything else is SMALL TOWN?
There are 5 "big cities" in the Northeast: New York, Washington D.C., Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.
In regards to living in, I like 40% of the total choices; New York and Washington D.C. but do like to visit Boston.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,279,693 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John
There are 5 "big cities" in the Northeast: New York, Washington D.C., Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.
In regards to living in, I like 40% of the total choices; New York and Washington D.C. but do like to visit Boston.
Like I said.... you said that in your previous post. The Choice of Philly for you.... even as a Big city? It may as well be a small town to you. Insignificant...... if not your preference... Why you included Chicago with Boston and Philly? I am not sure? You should have made it DC instead of Philly? If Philly to you IS TOTALLY WRITTEN OFF? Chicago at least you CONSIDER A BIG CITY AND APPARENTLY BOSTON AND DC. No use listing Chicago issues there too?
Like I said.... you said that in your previous post. The Choice of Philly for you.... even as a Big city? It may as well be a small town to you. Insignificant...... if not your preference...
I'll repeat this again for you, since there seems to be some sort of weird disconnect with you on my interpretation of a big city and small town.
The Northeast Corridor, in my eyes, only has 5 "big cities" and they are (in no particular order): New York, Washington D.C., Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.
There are 5, count it and make sure that we're on the same scale, math wise, 5 cities total. Well here's the second part of my statement now: I would only live in 2 of them -- New York and Washington D.C. Now that we have covered that and I have explained myself for like the third time in just this thread, lets drop Washington D.C. and New York as they are not apart of this discussion and lets drop talking about me since this thread isn't about me in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steeps
Why you included Chicago with Boston and Philly? I am not sure? You should have made it DC instead of Philly? If Philly to you IS TOTALLY WRITTEN OFF? Chicago at least you CONSIDER A BIG CITY AND APPARENTLY BOSTON AND DC. No use listing Chicago issues there too?
I don't even know what on Earth this even means, so I don't know how to respond to this.
I'll give it a try though. I made the thread about Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia because these are all legacy cities in the United States. Older, more established, denser, and more urban pedestrian oriented cities.
Also while I wouldn't live in ALL three choices in this thread, I am understanding enough to know why someone else would.
Yes, I am a very hard headed and stubborn person. Someone can be dying on the ground with a knife wound bleeding away and begging me to say something nice about their hometown, but if I don't like the place, I wouldn't say anything nice even in a situation like that and would opt to talk about something else.
Here's a list of top 5 things I hate the absolute most in life:
1. Yogurt
2. Draymond Green
3. Sydney, Australia 4. Small towns
5. Television (all of it)
Honorable mentions: Popcorn, any sort of Chemistry science, Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Lenin, BMWs.
Never expect anything nice said about those things from me, ever.
Yes, I am a very hard headed and stubborn person. Someone can be dying on the ground with a knife wound bleeding away and begging me to say something nice about their hometown, but if I don't like the place, I wouldn't say anything nice even in a situation like that and would opt to talk about something else.
Here's a list of top 5 things I hate the absolute most in life:
1. Yogurt
2. Draymond Green
3. Sydney, Australia 4. Small towns
5. Television (all of it)
Honorable mentions: Popcorn, any sort of Chemistry science, Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Lenin, BMWs.
Never expect anything nice said about those things from me, ever.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,279,693 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John
Yes, I am a very hard headed and stubborn person. Someone can be dying on the ground with a knife wound bleeding away and begging me to say something nice about their hometown, but if I don't like the place, I wouldn't say anything nice even in a situation like that and would opt to talk about something else.
Here's a list of top 5 things I hate the absolute most in life:
1. Yogurt
2. Draymond Green
3. Sydney, Australia 4. Small towns
5. Television (all of it)
Honorable mentions: Popcorn, any sort of Chemistry science, Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Lenin, BMWs.
Never expect anything nice said about those things from me, ever.
You did make it clear. I don't have much good to say of my 15,000 pop. hometown. Row homes, decline, tore down places it should have preserved. But it has Cheap housing because of low demand and good schools, low crime, but for drugs. My second adopted hometown is Chicago. Though my small hometown I MIGHT still defend a bit? My adopted one I REALLY will defend .
Uhh. While the tongue emoji was supposed to be slightly inflammatory, I actually wasn't trying to throwback to any specific thread. My point was the one that tx?il? said: that Boston and Philly are closer to more big cities than Chicago.
I took a four-day-long trip to Montreal last weekend so I wasn't really paying attention to this forum. My bad. If I'd clarified sooner a lot of confusion and conflict could probably have been avoided.
It was an awesome trip, though. And (to go back to my original point) I was able to drive there from Boston.
*wasn't sure if I wanted to revive this thread, but figured I should follow up and clarify my original post..*
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.
As for you living in Florida? If it isn't Miami???? Isn't it just a small town? 
. Guess you gave us your opinion of Philly too? As it is only NYC and DC. Anything else is SMALL TOWN? 
Why you included Chicago with Boston and Philly? I am not sure? You should have made it DC instead of Philly? If Philly to you IS TOTALLY WRITTEN OFF? Chicago at least you CONSIDER A BIG CITY AND APPARENTLY BOSTON AND DC. No use listing Chicago issues there too?
