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.
BigLake,Numbers dont lie smart guy but keep in mind how long N.y has been around before Los Angeles....
Los Angeles is a top 5-6 city in the world already, Metro is top 3 already, the state it's located in has 7th highest economy in the world & you expect L.A to back down to N.y like it's not a super power lol
Maybe N.y can do that to Chicago but pound for pound Chicago is better than any N.y borough except Manhattan tbh ,And the only reason N.y is a global powerhouse is because it's a city of combined counties like ive said before, Why didnt Nyc just stay Manhattan if it was so powerful ?
Serious suggestion here: Perhaps you should read up on the history of New York City, and learn a little bit, because it is comical how little you actually know, about anything related to New York City. Your understanding of Los Angeles and the way it functions City/County seems to be off as well.
You do realize cities are not people and actually have no feelings, right?
Also, the term county is used differently in New York City than elsewhere. The "Counties" really yield no power in the traditional County model, and are more similar to Wards than Counties. Each Borough has a "president", but really they are similar to an Alderman in their authority.
Far East, Maybe you should read up on past threads & see that I've been saying the same thing your saying now lol
I know the Counties are different on each coast so it made no sense to compare,but you can't tell me that Brooklyn or the Bronx or Queens cant function on their own .
My point is if you feel Nyc is so powerful than why can't Manhattan stand alone ? I don't care about what changed 100 years ago because it's pretty clear any city with 5 counties as a single city will be hard for any single city to go against, Things work different in New York & things work different in Los Angeles,Los Angeles is a city & also a County at the same time. Might sound confusing but like we're both saying things are different in each place.
BigLake,Numbers dont lie smart guy but keep in mind how long N.y has been around before Los Angeles....
Los Angeles is a top 5-6 city in the world already, Metro is top 3 already, the state it's located in has 7th highest economy in the world & you expect L.A to back down to N.y like it's not a super power lol
Maybe N.y can do that to Chicago but pound for pound Chicago is better than any N.y borough except Manhattan tbh ,And the only reason N.y is a global powerhouse is because it's a city of combined counties like ive said before, Why didnt Nyc just stay Manhattan if it was so powerful ?
Kobe25, LA is certainly a world city (I would say top 7, not top 3, metro or otherwise). I think you are overestimating its global importance.
Far East, Maybe you should read up on past threads & see that I've been saying the same thing your saying now lol
I know the Counties are different on each coast so it made no sense to compare,but you can't tell me that Brooklyn or the Bronx or Queens cant function on their own .
My point is if you feel Nyc is so powerful than why can't Manhattan stand alone ? I don't care about what changed 100 years ago because it's pretty clear any city with 5 counties as a single city will be hard for any single city to go against, Things work different in New York & things work different in Los Angeles,Los Angeles is a city & also a County at the same time. Might sound confusing but like we're both saying things are different in each place.
What do you mean stand alone? In what regard? New York consolidated once the Brooklyn Bridge was built as it was easier to travel between the two boroughs and consolidate Fire Dept.; Police Dept; and Taxes.
Maybe this is an analogy that will resonate with you: Chicago is a city made up of 77 Community Areas, if the Chicago Planning Commission got together tomorrow and said we are changing the name from "Community Area" to "County" and Chicago is now a city of 77 Counties would that then make Chicago a "city hard for any single city to go against"? it is completely irrelevant that NYC names each Borough a county.
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.
You're nitpicking just to be contrarian, and as a result, you're contradicting yourself. If you're going to ride me for claiming that Chicago doesn't have groups represented by pointing to miniscule numbers as proof that it in fact does, you can't turn around and do the same thing with NYC ("there are groups in Chicago's link not represented in New York "). At the absolute lowest level of representation, every single group on Earth is represented in NYC and Chicago (and pretty much every major city). There just HAS to be a Bhutanese American community of at least 5 in each of these cities.
See my point? Chicago lacks SIGNIFICANT representation of different ethnicities when compared to NYC. Again, 7,500 out of 2,700,000 isn't significant. Chicago is essentially a non Hispanic white, African American and Mexican town.
However you want to slice it, NYC and the NYC metro are FAR more diverse than Chicago/Chicagoland. This isn't one of those metrics where Chicago has a dog in the fight.
Last edited by qworldorder; 08-19-2015 at 03:49 PM..
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,188,871 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by srsmn
Japan is different, though. From the perspective of global privilege, Japan might as well be white European.
I apologize for not making that distinction clear.
When you mean global privilege, what are you referring to? "White privilege"? I'm not seeing how Japan is white European even from the perspective of strictly development/QoL standards. Are Qatar or Kuwait white European as well, based on global privilege?
You're nitpicking just to be contrarian, and as a result, you're contradicting yourself. If you're going to ride me for claiming that Chicago doesn't have groups represented by pointing to miniscule numbers as proof that it in fact does, you can't turn around and do the same thing with NYC ("there are groups in Chicago's link not represented in New York "). At the absolute lowest level of representation, every single group on Earth is represented in NYC and Chicago (and pretty much every major city). There just HAS to be a Bhutanese American community of at least 5 in each of these cities.
See my point? Chicago lacks SIGNIFICANT representation of different ethnicities when compared to NYC. Again, 7,500 out of 2,700,000 isn't significant. Chicago is essentially a non Hispanic white, African American and Mexican town.
However you want to slice it, NYC and the NYC metro are FAR more diverse than Chicago/Chicagoland. This isn't one of those metrics where Chicago has a dog in the fight.
Not at all, and in fact, you are taking my quote out of context. The quote in context is as follows:
"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.
Also notice that I said that neither link is exhaustive. I fully expect that New York City has more than 25 (or however many) immigrant communities represented, just as Chicago does.
Regarding your link, I don't think that it is fair to compare large cities like Chicago (or New York) with much smaller ones, but that's tangential...
...Of the large cities outranking Chicago there, you have a lot of the usual suspects in terms of diversity (Los Angeles, San Francisco...) I guess what this debate boils down to, then, is can a city like Los Angeles or San Francisco compare with New York in terms of diversity? I get the impression that you would say that they cannot, and that's perfectly alright. I would say that the comparison would be unfavorable to Los Angeles or San Francisco in the end, but I don't think that they are so far behind that the comparison is not so much as worth making.
See my point? Chicago lacks SIGNIFICANT representation of different ethnicities when compared to NYC. Again, 7,500 out of 2,700,000 isn't significant. Chicago is essentially a non Hispanic white, African American and Mexican town.
That's fair, but it depends entirely on the ethnicity. My point is that, sure, New York City has the larger Dominican community....but one can easily flip that on its head and point to the fact that Chicago has larger communities of other groups. New York has more communities of a certain size (as you mentioned before....let's say, over 100,000 people). But in terms of having more groups represented, period?
But we have established that I misread your earlier posts (or at least misread your intentions). Read them too literally, you could say. You are right that we could go back and forth on this. I'm perfectly willing to do that, since I like this debate...
When you mean global privilege, what are you referring to? "White privilege"? I'm not seeing how Japan is white European even from the perspective of strictly development/QoL standards. Are Qatar or Kuwait white European as well, based on global privilege?
If we look at a "culinary cannon," we have to recognize-- as with all cannons, literary, poetic, artistic, etc.-- that certain people hold disproportionate leverage/power/influence based on who they are, that the cannon acclimates to their tastes because they get to define the cannon.
I would say that Japanese cuisine falls within that cannon, readily accepted by the people that make the rules. I suspect that this is because Japan has sustained 70 years of close association with the West. Japan is-- by Asian standards-- an incredibly "westernized" society as well.
As for Qatar and Kuwait, if they have Michelin 3 star restaurants, my suspicion is that those restaurants cater to Western tastes, but I do not know that for a fact.
My point is that anybody could have a meal in a Michellin 3 star restaurant and hate it, then go to a fast-service hole-in-the-wall and love the meal there. Yes, the people that award Michellin stars do have an *academic* or *professional* authority to do so, but they do not nor have they ever represented a good cross-section of global cuisine.
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.
