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.
First of all people are misinterpreting the question. It's not asking what city dominates its region most; it's asking what region is most dominated by one city. That said, this isn't debatable and it isn't a contest. The Northeast is so mindbogglingly obviously dominated by a single city compared to the other regions. Like it's not even close. The west has LA but SF and Seattle hold their own. The midwest has Chicago (my hometown) but also has enough other large cities so that Chicago doesn't completely dominate. The northeast has NYC and in population and relevance it absolutely dominates the region.
Only one of these "sentences" had a subject and verb. I don't really know what you just said.
If Chicagoans are obnoxious to you. If it was from experiencing the city's Core thru Wrigleyville ? So many are from other Midwest cities and rural areas. Then ALL the Midwest young professionals at least are obnoxious. Heck, it's other Midwesterners and tourist that fill a lot of the bleachers at Wrigley field.
It's like America's team.
First you conceded then take it back? Chicago Midwest win is in no way..... intended to slight or lessen NYC in this vote. *For'geta'bout'it
NYC? I'm not sure what your'e talking about there what I'm referring to has nothing to do with NYC.
This isn't another one of those NYC vs Chicago things is it? That has been discussed ad nauseum on here.
Chicago received twice as many votes because people feel that the influence is spread out in the Northeast and not so much in the Midwest. In the Northeast, you have cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and DC, with a very, very, strong identity so no NYC would not have the same influence over those other cities than Chicago would have over the Midwest. One would think anyway.
My argument, and the handful of others that see things similarly is that while you have cities in the Midwest a tenth the size of Chicago those cities do indeed have a strong identity of their own. For us, it is as strong as Boston, Philadelphia, and DC. To people outside of the region, not so much, but that is okay because we're not trying to convince anyone of anything.
For example Chicago has their own sound, and that's cool. But Dayton and Cincinnati also had their own sound. Detroit had their own sound, during the Motown days. Akron had it's own thing. Cleveland had a few artists. You can't say Chicago is everything, and then everything everyone else is doing artistically is a completely different take. New York influenced artists in every way. You can't say that about Chicago; you could talk about the blues. That does not seem to be the same thing in my opinion it really depends on who you ask.
Again, Chicago has the American Library Association, the Mercantile Exchange and other cool things but you don't see copycats of those things littered across the Midwest. That's all that I'm saying. Not that no one is inspired by Chicago or respects Chicago or anything like that but this is an incredibly huge region and every city appears to have their own thing going on. You have 47 cities with 100,000 people or more in the Midwest. Who else would know that but a Midwesterner? You only have one city over a million people. And that is all that anyone sees. There is no megalopolis like there is on the East Coast. No continuous development over several states.
Eventually the Midwest will have 3 cities with a population over a million. And we may even see a fourth in our lifetime. Is this the requirement for people to take the Midwest seriously (outside of Chicago)?
NYC? I'm not sure what your'e talking about there what I'm referring to has nothing to do with NYC.
This isn't another one of those NYC vs Chicago things is it? That has been discussed ad nauseum on here.
Chicago received twice as many votes because people feel that the influence is spread out in the Northeast and not so much in the Midwest. In the Northeast, you have cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and DC, with a very, very, strong identity so no NYC would not have the same influence over those other cities than Chicago would have over the Midwest. One would think anyway.
My argument, and the handful of others that see things similarly is that while you have cities in the Midwest a tenth the size of Chicago those cities do indeed have a strong identity of their own. For us, it is as strong as Boston, Philadelphia, and DC. To people outside of the region, not so much, but that is okay because we're not trying to convince anyone of anything.
For example Chicago has their own sound, and that's cool. But Dayton and Cincinnati also had their own sound. Detroit had their own sound, during the Motown days. Akron had it's own thing. Cleveland had a few artists. You can't say Chicago is everything, and then everything everyone else is doing artistically is a completely different take. New York influenced artists in every way. You can't say that about Chicago; you could talk about the blues. That does not seem to be the same thing in my opinion it really depends on who you ask.
Again, Chicago has the American Library Association, the Mercantile Exchange and other cool things but you don't see copycats of those things littered across the Midwest. That's all that I'm saying. Not that no one is inspired by Chicago or respects Chicago or anything like that but this is an incredibly huge region and every city appears to have their own thing going on. You have 47 cities with 100,000 people or more in the Midwest. Who else would know that but a Midwesterner? You only have one city over a million people. And that is all that anyone sees. There is no megalopolis like there is on the East Coast. No continuous development over several states.
Eventually the Midwest will have 3 cities with a population over a million. And we may even see a fourth in our lifetime. Is this the requirement for people to take the Midwest seriously (outside of Chicago)?
Very good points to make, though it is likely lost on the very ignornant posters who populate this board.
I honestly cannot even fathom how anybody can think that midwestern cities followed Chicago in the arts. It's just laughably dumb. You were talking about music- Cleveland is pretty well regarded for its metal scene and a lot of early indie bands like Pere Ubu and Death of Samantha. Maybe people don't recognize those names in places that think they are the bees knees and most important artistic cities, but historically these groups really laid a ton of groundwork. Not to mention Devo in Akron either. Motown? Are these posters seriously ignoring that? Chicago definitely had some nice musical developments, but you're absolutely right- no copycats in Cincinnati or Indianapolis. Thank you for being reasonable.
I voted Chicago, but that does not mean I disrespect the Midwest. I know the Midwest is a large, varied region with a lot of good mid-sized cities. They are not clones of Chicago -- but oh by the way, East Coast cities aren't clones of New York and West Coast cities aren't clones of Los Angeles. Every city develops in its own unique way -- in the historic cores at least.
It just so happens that Chicago is the only city in the Midwest that transcends its region in recognition and prestige. Every other region in the US has at least two cities that have broken through. That's not to say Midwestern cities aren't worthy of anyone's time or interest. They are great in their own right - they're just not on Chicago's level.
NYC? I'm not sure what your'e talking about there what I'm referring to has nothing to do with NYC.
This isn't another one of those NYC vs Chicago things is it? That has been discussed ad nauseum on here.
Chicago received twice as many votes because people feel that the influence is spread out in the Northeast and not so much in the Midwest. In the Northeast, you have cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and DC, with a very, very, strong identity so no NYC would not have the same influence over those other cities than Chicago would have over the Midwest. One would think anyway.
My argument, and the handful of others that see things similarly is that while you have cities in the Midwest a tenth the size of Chicago those cities do indeed have a strong identity of their own. For us, it is as strong as Boston, Philadelphia, and DC. To people outside of the region, not so much, but that is okay because we're not trying to convince anyone of anything.
For example Chicago has their own sound, and that's cool. But Dayton and Cincinnati also had their own sound. Detroit had their own sound, during the Motown days. Akron had it's own thing. Cleveland had a few artists. You can't say Chicago is everything, and then everything everyone else is doing artistically is a completely different take. New York influenced artists in every way. You can't say that about Chicago; you could talk about the blues. That does not seem to be the same thing in my opinion it really depends on who you ask.
Again, Chicago has the American Library Association, the Mercantile Exchange and other cool things but you don't see copycats of those things littered across the Midwest. That's all that I'm saying. Not that no one is inspired by Chicago or respects Chicago or anything like that but this is an incredibly huge region and every city appears to have their own thing going on. You have 47 cities with 100,000 people or more in the Midwest. Who else would know that but a Midwesterner? You only have one city over a million people. And that is all that anyone sees. * There is no megalopolis like there is on the East Coast. No continuous development over several states.
In short, I agree with the poll results and get why the votes went as it did. I guess you do not agree with the poll results. Your post still point to NYC to win for a region and the whole augment you make is Chicago should not win here as NYC was in the poll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofy328
I have to concede then. I guess for me, it was more about, of which definition for the word dominate, we're looking at. If you're talking about Chicago being the most conspicuous person or thing in, Chicago wins that hands down. My disagreement was with whether or not Chicago has a commanding influence, or exercises control, over the rest of the Midwest. Maybe it is something to be taken for granted. Maybe Chicago is that hidden hand directing everything and pulling the strings in the background, and everything just works. I never got the arrogant, "I'm the best city, you're all underlings, I'm your father" attitude from Chicago that you get from New York City. Then again I never get that from LA either.
I went by these comments too. It is this dominant influence you keep denying. I do believe Chicago is one city a bit misplaced in the Midwest? It is a city that really could be plopped down on the East Coast and not be seen as a Midwest city merely there? Maybe still because so many transplants are still from the Midwest?
I see Chicago as more its own Island. Still a huge draw in the Midwest and the vast majority of transplants there come from the Midwest. I agree with not getting that - arrogant best city boast in your face stand in Chicago, but few just claim Chicago is merely flyover between NYC and LA today.... I think that has diminished greatly for Chi-Town. But not so much for other Midwestern cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofy328
These are all great things. But I still don't see that as domination. I see it as a larger city with possibilities for greater diversity, not as Chicago is essential to the health and prosperity of the region. Maybe to Illinois. But I see Chicago as I do Atlanta. Largest in it's region, but the region would still grow were it not around. That isn't being articulated in this thread.
Not that I disagree.... But to New Yorkers? Atlanta is still flyover to South Florida to them.
Very good points to make, though it is likely lost on the very ignornant posters who populate this board.
I honestly cannot even fathom how anybody can think that midwestern cities followed Chicago in the arts. It's just laughably dumb. You were talking about music- Cleveland is pretty well regarded for its metal scene and a lot of early indie bands like Pere Ubu and Death of Samantha. Maybe people don't recognize those names in places that think they are the bees knees and most important artistic cities, but historically these groups really laid a ton of groundwork. Not to mention Devo in Akron either. Motown? Are these posters seriously ignoring that? Chicago definitely had some nice musical developments, but you're absolutely right- no copycats in Cincinnati or Indianapolis. Thank you for being reasonable.
A lot of foundation was laid in the Midwest. Just like a lot of foundation was laid in the South before then but no one likes to talk about that. A lot of people look to New York because they had so many different influences in music. Folk, Jazz, Punk, Doo Wop, Disco, Hip-Hop. Sometimes New York had an interesting contribution on something that was already established. Sometimes it was invented in New York. So it is easy to forget about what goes on in the rest of the country.
I'm sure you meant to quote and respond to someone else's post because there's nothing in mine that claims Chicago has a monopoly on "excellent health care in the Midwest."
You stated that your parents were referred to Chicago to see medical specialists, right? Why did you make this statement?
This thread is about what region is dominated by a single metropolitan region. It appears that you contend people in the Midwest have to go to Chicago to obtain better medical care or medical specialists- somehow bolstering the argument that Chicago somehow dominates the Midwest with respect to obtaining better medical care. Am I wrong? If so, please help me out with my analytical skills.
So, I am just merely reminding you that Chicago does not have a monopoly in excellent health care in the Midwest. That's all.
I voted Chicago, but that does not mean I disrespect the Midwest. I know the Midwest is a large, varied region with a lot of good mid-sized cities. They are not clones of Chicago -- but oh by the way, East Coast cities aren't clones of New York and West Coast cities aren't clones of Los Angeles. Every city develops in its own unique way -- in the historic cores at least.
It just so happens that Chicago is the only city in the Midwest that transcends its region in recognition and prestige. Every other region in the US has at least two cities that have broken through. That's not to say Midwestern cities aren't worthy of anyone's time or interest. They are great in their own right - they're just not on Chicago's level.
In short, I agree with the poll results and get why the votes went as it did. I guess you do not agree with the poll results. Your post still point to NYC to win for a region and the whole augment you make is Chicago should not win here as NYC was in the poll.
I went by these comments too. It is this dominant influence you keep denying. I do believe Chicago is one city a bit misplaced in the Midwest? It is a city that really could be plopped down on the East Coast and not be seen as a Midwest city merely there? Maybe still because so many transplants are still from the Midwest?
I see Chicago as more its own Island. Still a huge draw in the Midwest and the vast majority of transplants there come from the Midwest. I agree with not getting that - arrogant best city boast in your face stand in Chicago, but few just claim Chicago is merely flyover between NYC and LA today.... I think that has diminished greatly for Chi-Town. But not so much for other Midwestern cities.
Not that I disagree.... But to New Yorkers? Atlanta is still flyover to South Florida to them.
Interesting points. I wasn't suggesting that NYC was not a win for the region but merely stating that I could understand why NYC did not win by the same margin that Chicago does for it's region.
I was making that argument against Chicago but I have to respect why people feel the way that they do and perhaps reconsider why that is, as there are different ways of looking at the word dominate. Basically I was caught up on semantics.
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.
