Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Battle of "number three" US cities: Chicago, SF, DC, Houston or Boston?
Chicago 79 51.97%
SF 18 11.84%
Houston 18 11.84%
Boston 12 7.89%
DC 25 16.45%
Voters: 152. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-07-2009, 09:27 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,625 posts, read 14,456,812 times
Reputation: 4201

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57 View Post
Maybe it's the Chicago stress that's getting to you. Chicago was just named the most stressful and miserable American city!

According to the article, Chicago is characterized by "Sinking property values, high unemployment and prices, and poor environments" Ouch!
Wait, you're telling me that Chicago has had sinking property values!? What a hole! Good thing Southern California hasn't been facing anything like that!

Quote:
But, hey, at least Chicago is #1 in something (besides murder and parking garages).
And commodities trading...which you fail to recognize the importance of.

Quote:
Ah, so you want to disregard common practice and only compare city limits to city limits, even though it's completely nonsensical and arbitrary, and you just picked it because you think it improves Chicago's standing?

Fine, you win. The numbers show that Chicago is in the same league as Houston, and soon, Phoenix, and Chicago is totally outclassed by LA.
First you attempt to call out other posters for comparing only city-propers to one another...then you compare Chicago to Phoenix (and then later to San Antonio!?)? Let's take a look at the facts:

GDP:

Chicago $460B

Phoenix $156B

San Antonio $36.2B

SO, that means Chicago is well over double Phoenix and San Antonio's GDPs combined

Office Space:

Chicago 230,061,265

Phoenix 66,065,253

San Antonio 24,968,523

So Chicago is about 3 times as large as Phoenix and San Antonio combined for office space.

Quote:
According to the 2008 Census estimates, LA has nearly 3.9 million residents and is growing consistently, and Chicago has 2.7 million residents and, since 2000, has lost more population than any other city in the country.

So LA has nearly 50% greater population within city limits, and is MUCH bigger than Chicago. Not twice as big (which it is in reality), but, in your biased methodology, only 50% as large.
I don't think that anyone is denying Los Angeles is considerably larger than Chicago. However, Chicago is much closer than LA in importance than to places like Phoenix and Houston.

Quote:
So if you want to compare Chicago to LA, you DEFINITELY have to consider Chicago in the same league as Phoenix. No question whatsoever.
No question whatsoever that you're completely wrong.

Quote:
The real risk for Chicago is Houston. Houston has been a big gainer since 2000 and Chicago has been the biggest loser. It's quite likely that Houston surpasses Chicago in the next decade or so.
I suppose it's possible that Houston and their enormous borders could surpass Chicago in city proper population within the next decade, though I highly doubt it. But again, you're talking about city proper. Weren't you just chastising others for doing that?

Quote:
In fact, it isn't inconceivable that Phoenix surpasses Chicago in due time. If you look at the relative growth rates, it should surpass Chicago within 20 years.
Phoenix is the emptiest city in the country for a reason. 7.8% job losses doesn't come cheap. Conversely Chicago has 4.5% job losses, LA 4.3%.

Quote:
After that comes San Antonio. Could even San Antonio surpass Chicago?
Come on dude. Do you really think these absurd things?

Last edited by tmac9wr; 09-07-2009 at 09:44 PM..

 
Old 09-07-2009, 10:03 PM
 
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Well here on the East Coast (DC metro) to be exact, we don't hear about Chicago as much as people in the Midwest may unless it's related to weather or something. Now Chicago is definitely a world class city that is important to America, but i would say it's about 5th in importance to the function of this nation after NY, DC, LA & Houston.

My take is that those 4 cities each stand for their own single reasons of importance that are not replaceable anywhere else.

NY-financial/economic/Fashion/Everything else
LA- Entertainment/Movies
DC-Politics/Government
Houston-Energy/Oil...

If Chicago were to become non existent they would just move a lot of it's trading and financial institutions to NY, therefore diminishing it being as important as the top four which are the sole representative cities for their industries in the US.
 
Old 09-07-2009, 10:08 PM
 
Location: Chicago
721 posts, read 1,793,937 times
Reputation: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09 View Post
Well here on the East Coast (DC metro) to be exact, we don't hear about Chicago as much as people in the Midwest may unless it's related to weather or something. Now Chicago is definitely a world class city that is important to America, but i would say it's about 5th in importance to the function of this nation after NY, DC, LA & Houston.

My take is that those 4 cities each stand for their own single reasons of importance that are not replaceable anywhere else.

NY-financial/economic/Fashion/Everything else
LA- Entertainment/Movies
DC-Politics/Government
Houston-Energy/Oil...

If Chicago were to become non existent they would just move a lot of it's trading and financial institutions to NY, therefore diminishing it being as important as the top four which are the sole representative cities for their industries in the US.
If Chicago were non existent, the country would collapse. The Top four cities are NYC, L.A, Chicago, and D.C. Houston doesn't even produce enough energy to keep the entire nation running. If it did, it would be THE most important.
 
Old 09-07-2009, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,625 posts, read 14,456,812 times
Reputation: 4201
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09 View Post
Well here on the East Coast (DC metro) to be exact, we don't hear about Chicago as much as people in the Midwest may unless it's related to weather or something. Now Chicago is definitely a world class city that is important to America, but i would say it's about 5th in importance to the function of this nation after NY, DC, LA & Houston.

My take is that those 4 cities each stand for their own single reasons of importance that are not replaceable anywhere else.

NY-financial/economic/Fashion/Everything else
LA- Entertainment/Movies
DC-Politics/Government
Houston-Energy/Oil...

If Chicago were to become non existent they would just move a lot of it's trading and financial institutions to NY, therefore diminishing it being as important as the top four which are the sole representative cities for their industries in the US.
And if New York City no longer existed, they would just move all its trading institutions to Boston and Chicago. If DC didn't exist, they'd move the National Capital back to Philadelphia or New York City. What's your point? The fact that Chicago does exist, and it's extremely important, mostly because of its role in financial services.
 
Old 09-07-2009, 10:13 PM
 
378 posts, read 1,288,723 times
Reputation: 193
If any trading institutions disappeared, it would be an absolute crisis. That is more true for Chicago's than any other places.
 
Old 09-07-2009, 10:22 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,625 posts, read 14,456,812 times
Reputation: 4201
Quote:
Originally Posted by sittingduck41 View Post
If any trading institutions disappeared, it would be an absolute crisis. That is more true for Chicago's than any other places.
Well, New York and London are more important in that respect, but if Chicago fell, the world would fall into chaos.
 
Old 09-07-2009, 10:24 PM
 
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Sheesh!! you Chicago heads are quick to defend...I'm not bashing Chicago as a city of major importance to the country. I am just simply stating when you think of those industries I mentioned, which I would argue are of most importance for the nation to function properly, NYC, LA, DC and Houston would rank 1st in each of their respective categories. In terms of importance to the financial sector Chicago would rank 2nd after New York. DC does not rank 2nd to any city in terms of government or politics, LA does not rank 2nd in Entertainment, Houston does not rank 2nd in energy, catch my drift?
 
Old 09-07-2009, 10:26 PM
 
378 posts, read 1,288,723 times
Reputation: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
Well, New York and London are more important in that respect, but if Chicago fell, the world would fall into chaos.
I have to respectfully disagree. New York has stocks for the most part, London stocks and some futures. Futures are more important, especially those derived from interest rate products. London trades those, and Chicago does too. Chicago also has energy, agriculture, currency, and meats. Not to mention, heavily traded futures based on the major stock indexes. So I'd say Chicago, London, then NYC as far as trading importance goes.
 
Old 09-07-2009, 10:49 PM
 
116 posts, read 245,431 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito57 View Post
Maybe it's the Chicago stress that's getting to you. Chicago was just named the most stressful and miserable American city!
Sucks for Chicago, but I don't live there. Why would I fly to Chicago every November if I lived there?

Not really going to read the rest of your post if you never bother reading mine.
 
Old 09-07-2009, 11:01 PM
 
116 posts, read 245,431 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakal View Post
Why is it that can't you ever provide data, but instead choose to use exaggerations and feelings?
I notice that too. When I actually posted US Census data he doesn't even believe it and then changes the numbers. Now Chicago is at 2.7 million (magically lost 150,000 people) and LA is at 3.9 million (magically gained 50,000). And saying weird stuff like "parking garages at the base of every building" and making fun of a very transit oriented city for using cars and having strip malls, coming from a resident of LA, the king of auto centricity and strip malls, is kind of a sick joke. You can't really trust someone who is willing to lie to you so I'd just ignore him. You certainly haven't seen the last of him though. The guy is totally obsessed with Chicago clearly.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top