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.
What would you say if someone did that in Chicago or Milwaukee? You wouldn't find that at all odd? Tell the truth.
I posted pics of beauty and 3rd world looks. I have always done that, with any city I've photographed. Let's not all think that SF is without flaws...just like any other city, it's far from perfect.
Only difference is Chicago is 4 hours from peak auto industry Detroit...San Fran is 30 miles to Palo Alto
What’s also interesting is Philadelphia is basically as close to nyc as Milwaukee is to Chicago...if Chicago gets Milwaukee we could also give nyc Philly...
Chicago doesn't get Milwaukee. I think a comparison of MSAs is more meaningful...not combining cities that have, each, their own MSAs. San Jose gets no credit...SF is stealing it all (well, at least on this site).
So long as people refuse to accept reality, they will cling to this^ kind of regurgitated nonsense.
Nonsense because my point about this thread stands: Chicago is closer to SF in stature than it is to NY.
That's abundantly clear.
What's abundantly clear is I'm not arguing whether Chicago is close to New York or not.
I'm arguing that If I made the argument that Chicago was equal to New York based on an entire region of cities and suburbs with robust economies outside of Chicago it would be disingenuous at best.
Chicago's economy being diversified is important for obvious reasons. You call it stagnant but that's because the growth is offset by the hemmorhaging of manufacturing jobs that largely defined Chicago's economy as a blue collar industrial hub which is best seen by the devestation of Detroit which took it from the 4th largest city in the U.S. to outside the top 20. Chicago never suffered the same fate due to diversification, now it's transforming into a highly educated, white collar city. They call it the "Rust-Belt" for a reason while Chicago is 2nd in the U.S. in tourism and has the second largest urban core that's growing faster and building more than any place outside Manhattan and has led the U.S. in corporate relocations 7 years consecutively and also has a burgeoning tech start up scene.
Imagine the impact of just the steel industry collapsing in Chicago and having to replace the tens of thousands of jobs and economic output. It's not as simple as somebody creating the next app that's valuated at $10 Billion.
Only difference is Chicago is 4 hours from peak auto industry Detroit...San Fran is 30 miles to Palo Alto
What’s also interesting is Philadelphia is basically as close to nyc as Milwaukee is to Chicago...if Chicago gets Milwaukee we could also give nyc Philly...
San Jose is lumped in with S.F. too and is even further away. Point was imagine Detroit was 30-40-50 miles from Chicago, whatever. The point was it would be foolish to ignore Detroit's own identity and economic output and population and just label it Chicagoland to boost Chicago to tiers it doesn't rightfully belong on it's own.
If Naperville was a city of 1 million and capital of the airline industry with it's own skyscrapers, sports teams, world class universities, etc. do I get to use that in a Chicago vs New York City comparison?
Nobody I know when discussing New York, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia etc. etc, is ever talking about their metro area. It's really a tactic deployed by people from lower tier cities that can't stand on it's own when compared to cities in a different league.
If Notre Dame was built just 20 miles west it would have been a Chicago university. This is how ridiculous these arguments are.
Obviously we are comparing the Bay Area to the Chicagoland.
Again, the only metro in the country closer to NY than the metro behind it is LA. Lets move on.
Chicago remains the only top 25 metro area with a contracting population this decade as of the 2019 MSA estimates.
So you came into the thread with the purpose to lower Chicago as the only intention? No wonder others said you were a poster with a intent to downplay Chicago on C-D. Still I respect a boaster for a favorite city over one whose intent is merely downplaying one. You missed the post that had Chicago called stagnant already. I would add no one visits Chicago and sees the city as if stagnant. They see a Core that is top tier and is a feather in its cap and I could hype seeing old neighborhoods that look great despite the age of the era built. Clearly well built homes that exteriors needed no changes to its architecture to have that said. I actually loved the bungalow styles as a still urban form being very close-knot.
I sense a former Chicagoan that left with unresolved issues like losing money on a home and blaming racial change and politics? But really the city cannot help its Midwest location either as seen as a bad winter region that hurts it in this era of the metoo generation and others see mild winters as the choice today and the whole North in that boat. Yet I see a future that the region will have a new era in a future the region is again seen as a better one over the region least hyped.. Still Chicago's core shows no signs of stagnation you should be able to admit. I doubt it is going to happen.
LA wasn't in the topic and no one brought it in. We all know that LA city population alone is more then a million more people vs Chicago. In its own tier even. For this thread though population growth really is not a factor as NYC metro lost people too in case you did not realize that and NYC is in the topic though merely as addressing closeness by numerous factors vs SF for Chicago. I do think using the whole Bay are and 2 large cities plus the tech giant in Silicon Valley is a hard case for a one metro Chicago to have to defend for. But the case for a CSA will not stop in the fight here. Just
I see using a Whole Bay Area vs a Stand alone Chicago has a big disadvantage for stats like GDP. If only Chicagoland had coastal California weather. How different this stagnant declaration would be. Glad and surprised you accept Nortre Dame as a Chicagoland University. Yet technically.
So you came into the thread with the purpose to lower Chicago as the only intention? No wonder others said you were a poster with a intent to downplay Chicago on C-D. Still I respect a boaster for a favorite city over one whose intent is merely downplaying one. You missed the post that had Chicago called stagnant already. I would add no one visits Chicago and sees the city as if stagnant. They see a Core that is top tier and is a feather in its cap and I could hype seeing old neighborhoods that look great despite the age of the era built. Clearly well built homes that exteriors needed no changes to its architecture to have that said. I actually loved the bungalow styles as a still urban form being very close-knot.
I sense a former Chicagoan that left with unresolved issues like losing money on a home and blaming racial change and politics? But really the city cannot help its Midwest location either as seen as a bad winter region that hurts it in this era of the metoo generation and others see mild winters as the choice today and the whole North in that boat. Yet I see a future that the region will have a new era in a future the region is again seen as a better one over the region least hyped.. Still Chicago's core shows no signs of stagnation you should be able to admit. I doubt it is going to happen.
LA wasn't in the topic and no one brought it in. We all know that LA city population alone is more then a million more people vs Chicago. In its own tier even. For this thread though population growth really is not a factor as NYC metro lost people too in case you did not realize that and NYC is in the topic though merely as addressing closeness by numerous factors vs SF for Chicago. I do think using the whole Bay are and 2 large cities plus the tech giant in Silicon Valley is a hard case for a one metro Chicago to have to defend for. But the case for a CSA will not stop in the fight here. Just
I see using a Whole Bay Area vs a Stand alone Chicago has a big disadvantage for stats like GDP. If only Chicagoland had coastal California weather. How different this stagnant declaration would be. Glad and surprised you accept Nortre Dame as a Chicagoland University. Yet technically.
Chicago lowers itself.
What is it with Chicago boosters deflecting realities? Your city is segregated beyond belief, economically stagnant and population growth stagnant (though technically contracting). Those factors really make Chicago unique among the 6 or 7 largest Metros in the country.
Where did you see the OP asked about comparing to the Bay Area? I saw San Francisco.
Comparing the quite small SF city limits to the quite large Chicago city limits, I take Chicago, but IMO the gap between NYC and Chicago is greater than the gap between Chicago and SF.
Comparing the Bay Area to greater Chicago, I take the Bay Area straight up.
Is that clear?...
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.
How different this stagnant declaration would be. Glad and surprised you accept Nortre Dame as a Chicagoland University. Yet technically. 
