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.
NYC has the quality and the quantity... sure it is unfair to compare Chicago.
Honestly Chicago and Houston is a better comparison... preferences aside, I think Chicago still wins, but that is Chicago's closest rival.
LA is out of Chicagos league already in population size and stature (as of 2008 LA is a 17.7 million CSA while Chicago is 9.7 million), if any city will give NYC a run it is LA...
For Chicago and Houston ...
They both have arts, symphony, business, the populations and level of cosmopolitan...one definitely being the midwest, one definitely being the south.
Sure Chicago is going to rip it in finance and architecture, but Houston will rip Chicago in other categories...
people on here are too caught up in skylines.
How are Chicago and Houston more proper to compare? Why would you compare the nations third city (arguably) to the nations seventh city (arguably)? The reason I put "(arguably)" in there is because there could be an argument to put DC in front of Chicago, and there is a very good argument to put DC, Boston, and San Francisco in front of Houston.
Sure both of them have arts, symphony, business, population and levels of cosmopolitan....all cities do. However, I don't think there's any argument that Chicago mops the floor with Houston in every one of those categories at this time.
What is it that Houston is going to rip Chicago in besides oil/energy?
Comparing Chicago to New York is like Milwaukee to Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milwaukee City
Okay so first off I'm not Bashing Chicago, I love Chicago and I think it's the only city worth comparing to New York, yes not even suburban LA, Okay cheap shot I admit. Let's run the the numbers....
Chicago City: 3 million
Chicagoland: 9 Million
New York City: 9 Million
New York Metro: 19 million
all figures including illegal aliens, b/c their people too. Now....
Milwaukee City 605,000
Milwaukee Metro 2.2 million
So does size really matter? is population like strength of schedule? vs the actual school?
You see Milwaukee's metro is near Chicago's city population actually off by 800,000 but if you look at NYC's city is equal to Chicago's metro almost like Milwaukee's metro to Chicago's city population.
So is it really fair to compare Chicago and NYC or is it NY and then everybody else? Say Chicago and LA should probably duke it out b/c that's more of a fair fight than NY -vs Chicago.
So I guess Chicago to NYC is like the San Diego to Chicago?
Here comes the age old question...quality or quantity? I think a lot of CD poster error more on the quantity side. Population being the most important factor. I disagree.
I think this is because Chicago is the one US city that can compete with the Manhattan skyline and depending on your opinion, win. Or at least be roughly equal.
I tend to put cities in categories. Like Charleston, Savannah, Saint Augustine and Wilmington. Or Vancouver, Seattle, Portland and San Francisco.
Same with New York, Chicago and Toronto. Obviously there are differences, including population size but I also see alot of similarities.
Ironically I also group New York with Boston and Philadelphia. This is because outside of Manhattan (10% of NYC's land area) many New Yorkers live fairly similar to other people in the dense Northeast cities.
Sorry they just share developing similarities to me... Chicago and Houston, and what Houston is becoming as a business center, cosmopolitan, arts district, etc... Houston also had a 21% population growth...from 2000-2008...
I do not see why this will stop, esp as more companies move to TX.
Again yes Chicago mops the floor with Houston but I think they are setting up to be rivals, they are both well rounded in what they provide... the other cities aren't so well rounded and are leading niche cities
I'm not a fan of Houston at all but I know what is going on...
I also think Houston is metro now 4th in u.s. in F500 companies, Chicago being 3rd...
GDP now Chicago is 4 and Houston is 7.
within the next decade or so I expect Houston to continue on its population trend upward, as well as things to shift.
I suspect the SF/SJ metro to hop over Chicago as #4, Chicago to move to #5... along with Houston going over Boston from #7, to #6...
note current gdp is San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA $508.418 Billion 4. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA $526.895 Billion 6. Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA $413.930 Billion 7. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA $403.202 Billion
Chicago and NY are the only cities I've been in (in the US) where I got that "wow" factor while I was in them. I'm not talking about the fun I had, the amenities, the food, or culture. I'm talking about the fact that it felt like you were in a massive city.
I just haven't gotten that feeling in other cities in the US. Not to put them down, but they just don't feel "massive." Which is not always a good thing by the way!
Chicago and NY are the only cities I've been in (in the US) where I got that "wow" factor while I was in them. I'm not talking about the fun I had, the amenities, the food, or culture. I'm talking about the fact that it felt like you were in a massive city.
NO, I actually agree with you. I feel Chicago is really the only city that you can compare to NYC however you can't but help notice the difference in size.
Which brings me to my final point that just b/c let's say a city has a metro 3.5million doesn't mean that it is better than a city that only has 2million.
You see this a lot on CDF that just b/c a city has a million or two million more that it's automatically better than the city it is being compared to.
Just like I believe after many trips to Cincy, Twin Cities, Phoenix, St.Louis I believe Milwaukee is a better city overall. I know I will catch grief for including the Twin Cities b/c I think I' the only one here that thinks the twin cities are way overrated.
NO, I actually agree with you. I feel Chicago is really the only city that you can compare to NYC however you can't but help notice the difference in size.
Which brings me to my final point that just b/c let's say a city has a metro 3.5million doesn't mean that it is better than a city that only has 2million.
You see this a lot on CDF that just b/c a city has a million or two million more that it's automatically better than the city it is being compared to.
Just like I believe after many trips to Cincy, Twin Cities, Phoenix, St.Louis I believe Milwaukee is a better city overall. I know I will catch grief for including the Twin Cities b/c I think I' the only one here that thinks the twin cities are way overrated.
After living in both the Twin Cities and Milwaukee, Milwaukee can't possibly compare.
In terms of city feel, I don't get it as much in Milwaukee (Which isn't necessarily a bad thing). Milwaukee just works at a very slow place. Traffic, imposing buildings, and bustle are a notch down from the next level of cities, like Minneapolis/St. Paul...downtown MKE is deader than a doornail, and the most vibrant parts of the city have nothing on their comparable areas in the Twin Cities.
Arts, Culture, Sports, and people go to the Twin Cities, seriously speaking. Many people in Milwaukee aren't receptive to new ideas and new ways of thinking, there is a real lack of progressiveness and people are rather conservative (not to be confused with MKE being conservative politically).
Any discussion about Mpls/St.Paul vs. Milwaukee immediate turns into Milwaukeeans saying "We're close to Chicago" Your city should be judged on its own merits. Otherwise, y'all sound like an overgrown Waukegan.
In terms of city feel, I don't get it as much in Milwaukee (Which isn't necessarily a bad thing). Milwaukee just works at a very slow place. Traffic, imposing buildings, and bustle are a notch down from the next level of cities, like Minneapolis/St. Paul...downtown MKE is deader than a doornail, and the most vibrant parts of the city have nothing on their comparable areas in the Twin Cities.
I know this will sound weird but this is my number one complaint about the twin cities is that it feels slow and very spread out and the people also feel to conservative(not politically).
However I will say this, the Twin Cities and it's suburbs are the cleanest I have ever seen. Even the areas around the freeways are spotless. The Twin cities are very spread out and seem to have a lot of open grass areas all over and the freeways have huge areas of green trees whereas in Milwaukee everything seems more compact and I know the cities are the same in terms of density Milwaukee to me is just more urban. But wow a very clean state and city!!!
I know this will sound weird but this is my number one complaint about the twin cities is that it feels slow and very spread out and the people also feel to conservative(not politically).
However I will say this, the Twin Cities and it's suburbs are the cleanest I have ever seen. Even the areas around the freeways are spotless. The Twin cities are very spread out and seem to have a lot of open grass areas all over and the freeways have huge areas of green trees whereas in Milwaukee everything seems more compact and I know the cities are the same in terms of density Milwaukee to me is just more urban. But wow a very clean state and city!!!
Milwaukee's highways are compact because less people travel on 'em.
Hoods like Riverside (Where else can you get Somali culture in the U.S??), Dinkytown, Phillps, and Uptown in Minneapolis are some of the most vibrant places I've been to in the U.S, and I've been to a lot of places.
You'll see a lot more alternative people in the Twin Cities than Milwaukee, and the big corporations in the Twin Cities, such as 3M, Target, Best Buy, and Medtronic, foster a large creative class of people.
Environmentalism and other liberal causes are big politics in Minneapolis especially. From what I've seen and experienced, uptown and the warehouse distict in Mpls totally rip comparable areas of Milwaukee. Better bars in Milwaukee, but the Twin Cities are well rounded with more clubs and alternative types of entertainment.
Actually, Milwaukee seems more like Saint Paul than Minneapolis to me in terms of feel.
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.
Comparing Chicago to New York is like Milwaukee to Chicago.
Your city should be judged on its own merits. Otherwise, y'all sound like an overgrown Waukegan.
