NYC vs Chicago - best city? (map, beautiful, state, better)
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.
Hey guys. I thought this would be an interesting discussion.
Which city do YOU think is better? This is just a general discussion, no specific reason.
I've spend more time in Chicago - I'm from Michigan. Chicago was like our pride that it is in the middle west. I always loved the club scene and the beaches, but super cold.
NYC - I've unfortunately only been a couple times. I liked it. It had a awesome club scene and a lot of things to do. BUT way more expensive than Chicago.
I've always had the thought to move to Chicago for law school after I graduate undergrad.
I prefer Chicago because it offers just as much for a fraction of the price. It is also conveniently located so you can get anywhere else in the country without an epic journey. Chicago also has better architecture and planning.
Even now you're contradicting yourself and saying the same thing I just called you out on. Which is it? There are either groups in Chicago not in NYC, or NYC has the same groups as Chicago. Easy.
You saying Chicago has groups NYC doesn't, but only in the LINK you provided is a cop out. Why use that LINK at all as a source to raise the point if you're just gonna disown it? And yes, saying the LINK isn't exhaustive is weirdly disowning it at the same time you try use it to show certain group exclusivity for Chicago.
But I didn't say that. You still haven't shown me where I said that.
The link that I provided was meant to illustrate that there are some groups in Chicago that are represented in higher numbers than in New York, not meant to illustrate that those groups did not exist in New York at all.
"Those links both have over twenty groups represented. There are groups in New York's link not represented in Chicago, there are groups in Chicago's link not represented in New York, and in neither case is the link exhaustive."
Your words. If you're gonna post a LINK that supposedly shows some groups in Chicago not represented in NYC, you're trying to prove a point.
Problem is, by just pointing to a LINK and not telling us what groups specifically, you're making your argument look suspect. Why not just tell us which groups along with the link? Hell, I even threw you a bone with the Assyrians, which is the closest I could find to not being in NYC significantly. And by claiming that that link isn't exhaustive (i.e. it's probably wrong), you're effectively disowning it. Ok...
We can do these semantic gymnastics or get nitpicky all day, but BLUF, you've made a claim (Chicago has some folks NYC doesn't) certainly as audacious as the one you're railing against (Chicago isn't even in the discussion).
I didn't make that claim.
I can't....I can't even....I'm DYING. Please....I can't, anymore....
I prefer Chicago because it offers just as much for a fraction of the price.
Then by logical reasoning you prefer Indianpolis over Chicago because it offers just as much for a fraction of the price. And you would prefer Toledo, OH over Indy because it offers just as much for a fraction of the price. Obviously smaller, less desirable cities always have cheaper real estate than bigger, more desirable ones.
Only real estate is cheaper in Chicago, and it's only because of less demand. It isn't like anything else is cheaper. All that means is you get less return on a RE investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1984
It is also conveniently located so you can get anywhere else in the country without an epic journey.
Chicago is surrounded by the most boring part of the U.S. It's very central, but surrounded by nothing, and close to nothing. Even Detroit, which sucks, is at least five hours away. Minneapolis is even further. NYC is surrounded by tons of natural beauty, loads of cute, historic towns, and a number of top-tier cities roughly equal to Chicago (DC, Philly and Boston)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1984
Chicago also has better architecture and planning.
Chicago is far more master planned, if that's your thing. It's certainly more organized. But that isn't what makes cities great. The greatest cities are those that aren't master planned. Suburbs are always master planned, which should tell you a lot about the virtues of govt.-planned cities.
And architecture, hell no. Chicago has some great architecture downtown and in suburban Oak Park, and is a must-see for Mies and FLW architecture enthusiasts. but the average Chicago architectural typology is the same as everywhere else in the Midwest. Bungalows, three flats and the like. NYC's architecture is unsurpassed in North/South America.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,193,606 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by srsmn
But I didn't say that. You still haven't shown me where I said that.
The link that I provided was meant to illustrate that there are some groups in Chicago that are represented in higher numbers than in New York, not meant to illustrate that those groups did not exist in New York at all.
Get it yet?
I mean....I just....I can't....I just can't....
I can't even put this any simpler....
"Those links both have over twenty groups represented. There are groups in New York's link not represented in Chicago, there are groups in Chicago's link not represented in New York, and in neither case is the link exhaustive."
Your original quote...again. It's that simple. There's nothing there that says anything about having higher numbers, only group representation. Quit trying to backtrack and weasel your way out of what you clearly said and meant to imply ("the LINKS said that, not I!"). Lol. You didn't clarify your original post and are only doing so now because me and NOLA are calling you out for it. Just chalk it up as a mistake and move on
"Those links both have over twenty groups represented. There are groups in New York's link not represented in Chicago, there are groups in Chicago's link not represented in New York, and in neither case is the link exhaustive."
Your original quote...again. It's that simple. There's nothing there that says anything about having higher numbers, only group representation. Quit trying to backtrack and weasel your way out of what you clearly said and meant to imply ("the LINKS said that, not I!"). Lol. You didn't clarify your original post and are only doing so now because me and NOLA are calling you out for it. Just chalk it up as a mistake and move on
I clarified that post six pages ago:
"Those links both have over twenty groups represented. There are groups in New York's link not represented in Chicago, there are groups in Chicago's link not represented in New York, and in neither case is the link exhaustive."
Notice that I said that there are groups in New York's link not represented in Chicago, but I should have been a bit more specific: there are groups represented in New York's link that are not represented in Chicago's link. And vice versa.
My statement never meant what you are presenting it to mean. The higher numbers/better represented thing is apples to apples. I mean the exact same thing by saying both. There are groups listed in the source for Chicago, that have BIGGER numbers than they do in the link listed for New York City, and there are groups listed in the link for New York City, that have BIGGER numbers than they do in the link listed for Chicago. Neither link is exhaustive, so that does not mean that none of those groups are represented in the other city AT ALL. It only means that they are represented in one city in LARGER numbers than they are in the other.
This is the last time I am going to try to make this explicitly clear to you. If you are still unwilling to use your big-boy reading skills, then I can't help you.
By the way, here is the original post-- from SEVEN pages ago-- in its entirety, no editing (NOLA's comments in red, my own in black):
He named Dominicans. There isn't a notable Dominican community in Chicago. So that's one, but there are many others. But the fact remains, they are there.
Chicago doesn't really have any major Latino groups outside of Mexicans (and arguably Puerto Ricans, but the PR community is pretty small). It doesn't have any major communities from Africa. It doesn't have many from the West Indies, or Western Europe, or Central America, or the Middle East, or South Asia outside of India.
NYC has huge representation from South America. Big populations from Ecuador, Peru, Guyana, Brazil, Colombia. Chicago has none of that. NYC has gigantic representation from the Caribbean (basically every country in the Carribean). Pretty much none in Chicago. NYC has a big Central American population. NYC has a huge West African population. It has a big North African population. It has a big Middle Eastern population. It's #1 or #2 in basically every Asian population except for Filipinos (and even there it has far more Filipinos than Chicago).
Chicago doesn't have many foreign-born outside of Mexicans, Poles and some Indians/Chinese. The vast majority of foreign born are Mexican. In NYC, not only are there many times more immigrants, there is no dominant immigrant group. NYC gets immigrants from everywhere, not just Mexico.
And NYC immigrant numbers are so huge that even minor groups outrank major groups in Chicago. There are even more Polish immigrants in NYC than in Chicago. In Chicago, the number of Poles is a huge deal. In NYC, it isn't even a particularly notable community, because of the scale of immigration.
NYC has more immigrants than any other city on earth. Chicago gets a decent amount of immigrants, but more on the level of Houston, Dallas, DC, and Boston.
Here are the numbers (Chicago's link is 12 years old):
The Chicago area in 2003 had more Poles NUMERICALLY than New York did in 2011. Never mind percentages. Same deal with Filipinos. Chicago had more Indians in 2003 than New York did in 2011 (by a very small margin). It had a Greek population that was immeasurably smaller. It had a Guatemalan population that appears to be larger. It had more Germans, more people from the former Yugoslavia...
Those links both have over twenty groups represented. There are groups in New York's link not represented in Chicago, there are groups in Chicago's link not represented in New York, and in neither case is the link exhaustive.
And, the link for Chicago is, remember, twelve years old. I know for a fact that there are about 7,500 Dominicans in the Chicago area now. There is a small but growing Senegalese population. Yes, New York has more immigrants....it also has more people. I still have not found evidence that there is an immigrant group represented in New York that is non-existent in Chicago, and that the inverse is not true, which was the original claim.
Can you point to where I said anywhere in there-- anywhere at all-- that there are immigrant groups in Chicago that don't exist in New York, the claim you find so contentious?
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.
