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.
The OP's intent of "most fascinating but not necessarily the best" keeps getting overlooked in favor of traditional city data back and forths.
I chose L.A. but between Chicago and NYC I pick Chicago. I"m planning my first trip there next month. The fact that a city like that could exist in what is not exactly the most urban area of the country is really interesting to me.
Can't wait to ride that train around Chi town and take in some improv and Chicago food!
I really enjoy Chicago..I’ve noticed a similar thing as you mention though.. the city is obsessed with skylines and architecture..I mean it should be- the Architecture is fabulous and that’s what it’s known for...everyone is looking at the bean and I ask what’s the significance behind this?? There is nothing but architectural significance of course...New York icons certainly have more significance historically, culturally etc ..Central Park vs millennium park, the bean vs the Statue of Liberty etc
Just on comparing Central Park and Statue of Liberty to Millennium Park and the Bean is in size and National importance .... not what anyone really would or should do.
Millennium Park is less then 20-years old as addition to Grant Park there much longer. Next to Grant and Millennium is also another addition in Maggie Daly Park. That park is there since the underground garage was rebuilt in 2014.
One could use all 3-parks as one and still Central Park is bigger. Now a couple miles North is larger Lincoln Park. Having the city's free zoo, harbors and Beach. Bigger then Central Park. But no one is going to boost it over Central Park.
The only thing one can note is Millennium Park gets massive tourist influx today .... and all want to see "The Bean" on that it reached being a Top 10 destination in the Nation and #1 in the Midwest. Top 10 does make a list with Central Park and the Washington Mall. But still another type of animal.
On the Statue of Liberty vs the Bean..... NO ONE should even say such a thing as anything alike in symbolize and to the Nation. The Bean is merely a sculpture PURCHASED by the city. The Statue of Liberty WAS A GIVT TO THE NATION FROM FRANCE. IT IS NOT EVEN MERELY NYC'S. WE ALL OWN A PIECE AS OUR HERITAGE AND PRIDE AND HISTORIC IMPORTANCE.
Seems the Island is in NJ. But a pact between the states gives jurisdiction to NY. Yet it still is a Federally owned island too. No comparison to the Bean and not solely NYC's. It is National.
I'm sure you know this all. But then why even mention them together? Only reason still is to point out a MUCH LESSOR Chicago in this thread. Despite claiming to like the city too. But still recognition factor the Poll outcome was expected as it is.
I think everyone knew what the poll outcome would be also. Still it is to Chicago's credit this Park it built and the recognition and popularity of this sculpture called "The Bean" though officially titled "Cloud Gate" by the Artist.
NYC needs no boost all know its status. LA with Hollywood and size and it California dreamin' still in the world. Still is expected to ne as the Second largest city metro today.
But as the previous poster notes ..... the thread also ask? about more fascinating to them more and added to the conversation.
East Coast bias is present when people say San Francisco is more urban than LA, even though at the same area, San Francisco basically is a portion of LA, but posters are hung up on the traditionally East Coast features in SF. Don't act like people on here havent actually said "I prefer SF because it looks more like an East Coast city". Posters have actually said this, even though in function, SF isn't actually "more" urban...
I don't think the West Coast is equal to the East Coast. I don't think LA is equal to NY but I think it's a hell of a lot closer than people think, and I think it is clearly ahead of everyone else on the East Coast. But I havent ever argued otherwise to the specific point you made in the quoted post...
The East Coast bias is present almost any time LA is a topic of conversation, and not just with LA. We'd be here all day listing examples of when East Coast bias is used versus other cities, too. Now I don't disagree with your above statements at all, the nation was developed from the East so all of those things are in the East's favor. But I have never argued otherwise on that point...
I see east coast bias the most in situations like "well, L.A. sure has made some improvements, but they need to do x,y, and z" as if there is some big correct answer that is being strived for. The fact is that L.A. could leave everything as is now and still be less congested traffic wise than some of the east coast sacred cows that we're all supposed to be studying as paragons of urbanity.
San Francisco rides to the top of many C/D polls on the wave of east coast bias. Even though they are small and fall far short of other west coast cities, they are "correct" in the way they appear. East coast bias.
I see east coast bias the most in situations like "well, L.A. sure has made some improvements, but they need to do x,y, and z" as if there is some big correct answer that is being strived for. The fact is that L.A. could leave everything as is now and still be less congested traffic wise than some of the east coast sacred cows that we're all supposed to be studying as paragons of urbanity.
San Francisco rides to the top of many C/D polls on the wave of east coast bias. Even though they are small and fall far short of other west coast cities, they are "correct" in the way they appear. East coast bias.
Well, it’s a question of what you’re striving for. If it’s a more walkable city where living without a car for the most part is convenient, then certainly some cities, whether East Coast or otherwise, do a better job right now. The core of LA is pretty good compared to the vast majority of US cities, but that’s because there have been a number of important changes made to LA in the last couple decades. Those steps like more mixed-use zoning, denser construction around transit, and an expanded rapid transit network are things LA did and the East Coast of the US doesn’t have a monopoly on that—we just associate it with the East Coast more because they often had been built in a different era where that was prized, and for this forum, other US cities are usually the point of reference.
LA can certainly have a lot of these attributes and even improve upon them much more rapidly which it has. I think much more of the bias is because people’s impression of LA lags behind those rapid changes. There are a lot of innate advantages that LA can leverage such as the wide streets being able to better incorporate a mix of uses, the year-round fairly nice temperatures, the flatness of the basin being easier for walking and bicycling, a polynodal layout that can make more efficient use of rapid transit infrastructure, and even the preponderance of surface parking lots and strip malls which are ready grounds for quickly developing denser mixed-use construction
Choosing which city is “most fascinating” is just a matter of opinion..not that that is a problem. Comparing the nation’s three largest cities is totally legitimate
But there is something that must be kept in mind in the matchup: New York and Los Angeles are both far larger than Chicago. They are both megacities which Chicago for the present is not
NY and LA are happy to be the only US megacities. That’s obvious. Less obvious (although it should be) is that Chicago is happy, very happy about it too and Chicago would stop being Chicago if it grew in both population, density and height
Strange as it might seem here on City Data where the biggest, the most, the highest, the richest all count and where ranking is more of a way of life then it is for US News
For far, far more reasons than I can list, Chicago is incredibly comfortable with its size Like Goldilocks and the three Chicago Bears, baby bear (or Chicago Cub) is “not too big, not too small, but just right” if you want to realize the absurdity of size mattering so much, consider Chicago and San Francisco, two cities whose respective size fits them like a glove
As a Chicagoan, I consider New York and Los Angeles to be the truly great cities they are. Love them both
But to me, the most fascinating, and certainly the most enthralling is Chicago which is the apex of urbanity. No city stirs me like Chicago and Ive lived here all my life. The Great American City in the heartvof America’s core.
Chicagoans, very much me included, are the ultimate homers, often obnoxiously so. We think we are great, fantastic but believe it or not, we are not in competition with you: NY, LA, any place we operate that we think the place is so special, not about what outsiders thing. Our love of city is not competitive because it is so internal we see Chicago’s greatness by seeing Chicago: we hardly need to compare with anybody that we are an alpha global city. The facts on the ground prove it.
Choosing which city is “most fascinating” is just a matter of opinion..not that that is a problem. Comparing the nation’s three largest cities is totally legitimate
But there is something that must be kept in mind in the matchup: New York and Los Angeles are both far larger than Chicago. They are both megacities which Chicago for the present is not
NY and LA are happy to be the only US megacities. That’s obvious. Less obvious (although it should be) is that Chicago is happy, very happy about it too and Chicago would stop being Chicago if it grew in both population, density and height
Strange as it might seem here on City Data where the biggest, the most, the highest, the richest all count and where ranking is more of a way of life then it is for US News
For far, far more reasons than I can list, Chicago is incredibly comfortable with its size Like Goldilocks and the three Chicago Bears, baby bear (or Chicago Cub) is “not too big, not too small, but just right” if you want to realize the absurdity of size mattering so much, consider Chicago and San Francisco, two cities whose respective size fits them like a glove
As a Chicagoan, I consider New York and Los Angeles to be the truly great cities they are. Love them both
But to me, the most fascinating, and certainly the most enthralling is Chicago which is the apex of urbanity. No city stirs me like Chicago and Ive lived here all my life. The Great American City in the heartvof America’s core.
Chicagoans, very much me included, are the ultimate homers, often obnoxiously so. We think we are great, fantastic but believe it or not, we are not in competition with you: NY, LA, any place we operate that we think the place is so special, not about what outsiders thing. Our love of city is not competitive because it is so internal we see Chicago’s greatness by seeing Chicago: we hardly need to compare with anybody that we are an alpha global city. The facts on the ground prove it.
I don’t think Chicago would mind being a megacity and being such for the Upper Midwest isn’t necessarily a bad thing for Chicago. It’s close to the megacity mark now and an addition of a half million people within Chicago city limits and mostly gainfully employed in growing industries is very much doable without kicking people out and I would actually like that for the city.
I don’t think Chicago would mind being a megacity and being such for the Upper Midwest isn’t necessarily a bad thing for Chicago. It’s close to the megacity mark now and an addition of a half million people within Chicago city limits and mostly gainfully employed in growing industries is very much doable without kicking people out and I would actually like that for the city.
No one is being kicked out of Chicago. It is not a coastal city struggling with high prices. People are fleeing because half of the city is literally more dangerous than doing a tour with the Marines in Afghanistan.
No one is being kicked out of Chicago. It is not a coastal city struggling with high prices. People are fleeing because half of the city is literally more dangerous than doing a tour with the Marines in Afghanistan.
Stop trying to take the thread to insults and below the belt post. No one is bringing in LA's homeless issues etc.
Chicago is not in a major Go-to region. Seen as having severe winters and hurting middle-class in rising taxes. But Corporate America IS maintaining its Global ranking. It is also a city in transition to more highly educated professionals.
Sadly its greatest losses are in high gangland crime neighborhood. But eventually these area will be ripe for spreading gentrification already entering some. But generally its the ones that turned Latino first.
Tourism keeps climbing as its recognition and positive feedback keeps increasing. Yes it lacks the International visitor numbers of the Coastal elite cities. But with TV how's set and filmed there and a top-tier Core and Skyline. It population is not hurting it whatsoever.
But the thread is not intended to throw low-blows and strife to demean any city as you try.
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.
