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.
By the way, qworldorder, would you like to be accountable to your own claim that there are immigrant groups in New York City that are not in Chicago at all?
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.
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)
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.
That's YOUR opinion. For my taste (and apparently the taste of many others), Chicago is surrounded by wonderful scenery! Farm lands and beautiful green fields, corn fields, wheat fields, etc. and mysterious woodlands, lakes, and rolling green hills to the north. Not to mention Lake Michigan and the other great lakes are not too far. Lake Geneva, Cherry Beach, Mackinac Island... the upper Midwest has a subtle beauty to it that many on these boards fail to comprehend; many of you have spent little or no time up here or flat-out form your opinions based upon hearsay. City wise, Chicago suburbs themselves have cute little towns (Highwood, Lake Forest, St. Charles, Woodstock, etc) and it's 1.5 hours up to Milwaukee, one of the most underrated small/mid-size cities in the United States. Plus St. Louie, Detroit, Madison, and Minny are a weekend trip away, also cool cities, even Detroit, which gets major street cred in my book for hanging in there and beginning to blossom in recovery in the face of the granola-bar-eating haters.
I agree totally that Chicago was better planned urban layout and CLEANER... I've said that I'm many threads. A full alleyway system I think was a great decision, and all neighborhoods set-backs and each block has a uniform one, with green space and plenty of trees. So many they go over the homes...
Yep. You can thank the big fire that Chicago had at the turn of the century for the construction of the alleyway system. NYC is just pathetic when it's garbage day and the sidewalks are flooded with overflowing trash bags.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,197,977 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by srsmn
By the way, qworldorder, would you like to be accountable to your own claim that there are immigrant groups in New York City that are not in Chicago at all?
You still haven't found one....
You're playing word games and digging in the weeds now like a child, just to not be wrong. I've already stated that you can find someone from somewhere in pretty much any big city, if you want to try to twist the original intent of that claim. I know a couple from Nepal here in Smyrna ****ing Delaware. Is Smyrna now on the map for the Nepali American community? Lol.
When we say representation in a city, we're talking about a certain threshold here. If you wanna argue something, argue over what that threshold is. Quit being petty and harping on "at all" like we were being absolutely literal. 7500 Dominicans in a city of 2.7 million is abysmal, and especially when compared to NYC.
Is there a well represented group in Chicago that's poorly represented in NYC akin to Dominicans in the Chi? You've yet to provide one, but you pointed to these "inexhaustive" links and SAID "there are groups in Chicago's link not represented in New York". Translation: Chicago has groups represented that NYC does not according to the links I am providing to bolster my argument; I will say they are inexhaustive because I want to leave myself an out in case that's untrue.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,197,977 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by srsmn
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?
"there are groups in Chicago's link not represented in New York,"
Big boy reading skills
But we all know you're gonna play "the links said it, not me!" game.
This little bit is also not working in your favor.
"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"
The "inverse is not true" sure sounds like you are claiming Chicago has folks not represented in NYC. Because the opposite of an immigrant group not represented in Chicago that is represented in NYC would be an immigrant group represented in Chicago that is not represented in NYC. I think saying that the inverse is also true would be what you (supposedly) meant.
Last edited by qworldorder; 08-21-2015 at 04:57 PM..
You're playing word games and digging in the weeds now like a child, just to not be wrong. I've already stated that you can find someone from somewhere in pretty much any big city, if you want to try to twist the original intent of that claim. I know a couple from Nepal here in Smyrna ****ing Delaware. Is Smyrna now on the map for the Nepali American community? Lol.
When we say representation in a city, we're talking about a certain threshold here. If you wanna argue something, argue over what that threshold is. Quit being petty and harping on "at all" like we were being absolutely literal. 7500 Dominicans in a city of 2.7 million is abysmal, and especially when compared to NYC.
Is there a well represented group in Chicago that's poorly represented in NYC akin to Dominicans in the Chi? You've yet to provide one, but you pointed to these "inexhaustive" links and SAID "there are groups in Chicago's link not represented in New York". Translation: Chicago has groups represented that NYC does not according to the links I am providing to bolster my argument; I will say they are inexhaustive because I want to leave myself an out in case that's untrue.
I thought you were being literal. If you weren't, you should have said that a loooong time ago. Because I was.
"there are groups in Chicago's link not represented in New York,"
Big boy reading skills
But we all know you're gonna play "the link said it, not me!" game.
Did you read my clarification on that from SIX pages ago? There are groups in Chicago's link that are not mentioned on New York's. You are reading waaaay too much into that.
Try re-reading it again. I'm done with this nonsense.
PS. Still no groups in New York that you can't find in Chicago?
Thought so. Yeah, figures...
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.
