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.
m_r, I didn't even know that about Chicago until I visited and asked someone about it. That's when I found out what "Windy City" really meant!
Its not that windy! There are many cities in the USA that are far windier! The "Windy City" nickname has nothing to do with actual wind. Just thought Id clarify as thats one of the biggest misconceptions about Chicago.
This "windy" explanation is from the Freeborn County Standard of Albert Lea, Minnesota, November 20, 1892 (digitized citation available on Newspaperarchive.com}:
Chicago has been called the “windy” city, the term being used metaphorically to make out that Chicagoans were braggarts. The city is losing this reputation, for the reason that as people got acquainted with it they found most of her claims to be backed up by facts. As usual, people go to extremes in this thing also, and one can tell a stranger almost anything about Chicago today and feel that he believes it implicitly.
But in another sense Chicago is actually earning the title of the “windy” city. It is one of the effects of the tall buildings which engineers and architects apparently did not foresee that the wind is sucked down into the streets. Walk past the Masonic Temple or the Auditorium any day even though it may be perfectly calm elsewhere, and you will meet with a lively breeze at the base of the building that will compel you to put your hand to your hat.
Bah, Ill never believe that. Any city with skyscrapers will have that effect. Ive even experienced gusty winds walking amongst Seattle's buildings, but that doesnt qualify it as a "windy city". Chicago's average wind speed, while not ultra-low, is not near as windy as several other big cities.
Q: What is the windiest city in the USA?
A: According to the National Climatic Data Center's list of annual average wind speeds, the windiest U.S. city is Dodge City, Kansas, with an average speed of 13.9 mph. Other windy cities include Amarillo, Texas (13.5 mph) and Rochester, Minn. (13.1 mph.). The windiest "big" cities are New York City (LaGuardia Airport) and Oklahoma City, which both have an average annual wind speed of 12.2 mph.
The "windy city" of Chicago isn't as high on the list as you might think. It's average annual wind speed is 10.3 mph.
Our answers archive has more FAQ about wind speed averages and records.
(Answered by Doyle Rice, USATODAY.com weather editor., June 23, 2005)
IS CHICAGO THE WINDIEST CITY?
Chicago is nicknamed the "Windy City" but not because of its wind speeds. In fact, according to Tom Skilling in his "Ask Tom Why" column in the Chicago Tribune of March 11, 2004, the National Weather Service ranks Chicago seventy-sixth among 255 U.S. cities for which the agency tracks average wind speed.
The origin of the "Windy City" nickname is a bit obscure. It is thought to be based on loud and windy boosterism. A Chicago Daily News article from Sept. 22, 1969 gives this origin:
Blame it on John Stephan Wright and William (Deacon) Bross, two local boosters (windbags, some might say), who went up and down the East Coast yelling about the wonders of Chicago, according to Daily News library clippings.... Because of their loud boasts of the virtues of the city, Chicago was dubbed the "Windy City" after its "windy" citizenry in the 1850s, according to stories.
There are a number of examples of the "Windy City" nickname being used in newspaper headlines by the mid 1880s.
Examples include:
"Built in Fourteen Days, Aladdin's Wonderful Lamp Outdone in the Windy City" from the June 18, 1887 issue of the Brooklyn Eagle.
"From the Windy City—Judge Foote's Civil Rights (!) Decision" from the Sept. 19, 1885 Cleveland Gazette.
Later, Chicago and New York were competing to hold the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition. A widely repeated story is that Charles A. Dana, editor of the New York Sun, wrote an editorial advising against the "nonsensical claims of that windy city. Its people could not hold a world's fair even if they won it." This editorial is widely credited with popularizing the "Windy City" nickname.
As of yet, nobody has located the original editorial, and there is some doubt if Dana actually used the phrase "Windy City," but there is evidence that the world fair quest heightened awareness of the nickname. See the following snippet from the Washington Post, May 11, 1893, pg. 1:
Some of us thought Washington was the place for the Fair, and even New York had backers, but a wiser providence chose the Midway Marvel of the West, and she is going in to break the world's record from the start. Disappointed rivals may call her the Windy City, but what race was ever won without Wind? Wind is what we want....
The Washington Post and other papers also began to use the "Windy City" nickname on a much more regular basis during the 1890s.
SOURCES:
"Ask Tom Why." Chicago Tribune, March 11, 2004, p. 12.
Municipal Reference Collection Reference Files untitled question and answer sections from the Chicago-Sun, June 8, 1970, and Chicago Daily News, Sep. 22, 1969.
"Windy City" from the Encylopedia of Chicago. University of Chicago Press, 2004.
"Where did it come from? ; Did New York Sun editor Charles A. Dana coin the phrase, or is that legend just full of hot air?" Chicago Tribune, Dec 7, 2004.
This is a great call. Tulsa has GOT to be one of the more underrated cities in the US. Its downtown and natural water setting are both just very pretty.
Tulsa is a very nice mid-sized city and certainly very underrated.
Tulsa's downtown reminded me in some ways of Dallas. Though Dallas' downtown is much larger, Tulsa's downtown has the same lay-out...one or two very tall skyscrapers along with several moderate height ones....its downtown is much larger than you'd expect though...definitely a decent-sized one for a medium-sized city like it. What impressed me the most about it was how new it looked...that was where it reminded me of Dallas the most...it looked architecturally impressive and beautiful like a lot of its fellow Southern/Southwestern cities (I consider it to be both Southern and Southwestern). I wish I could've seen it up closer. Sadly, I wasn't the one in control at the time..my dad wanted to see the Mura building in OKC, so we just bypassed it. I-44 doesn't take you to downtown Tulsa (a violation of the interstate highway system...to my knowledge two-digit interstates have to take you downtown while the three digit ones bypass the city. this same phenomenon exists with Evansville, Indiana. You have to take I-164 to get to downtown Evansville. I-64 bypasses Evansville to the north by about ten miles. For I-44, it bypasses Tulsa to the South...had I had more time I would've taken I-244 into downtown Tulsa, maybe had a bite to eat there and just looked around for a bit before getting back on I-244 to meet I-44 on the southwestern side of Tulsa. I really wish they would've constructed I-44 to go to downtown Tulsa. In Chicago and Cleveland, Interstate 80 runs along the southern limits of the city metro areas. For Pittsburgh, Interstate 76 spawns a child route, I-376 to go downtown while it bypasses it. Interstate 70 once ran through Pittsburgh, now it doesn't even come close to it, bypassing it a good 30 miles to the south, although Pittsburgh is not really along the path of I-70 anyway, too far north. In any case, I was taught that the rule regarding two digit interstates was that when an interstate passes through a metro area, it goes downtown. In general this is the truth.
Same goes for Denver. Nice areas and complete Hell-hole areas. Denver, while decent, certainly has MANY problems, same as Pittsburgh. So before you go bashing Pittsburgh and Chicago (again), look no further than your hometown.
All I said is Chicago is flat. I did not bash it. And I could tell you stories about Denver that would curl your hair, absolutely. Not to mention that I don't live there. Just as you don't live in Chicago.
I'd have to say Chicago and New Orleans (pre-Katrina).
I expected Chicago to be ugly, windy, and crowded, and wound up loving it. Very cool, diverse place with great people and terrific food! Had a great time there and would love to go back.
I fell in love with New Orleans immediately. IMO, it's one of the few "larger" cities that has such a distinct identity that if someone took me there blindfolded, I'd know where I was as soon as I took the blindfold off without being told. Rich in culture and history, all walks of life to meet and visit with, very open minded and "live and let live" attitudes, and beautiful to look at.
Plus, you can walk down the street drinking a Hurricane!
Great places, both, that I was very impressed with.
Yes, New Orleans was a great city, hope it becomes so again. I thought I'd lie it, but wound up liking it even more than I thought! Best city in the South!
I wish I went to NO before Katrina
But It was still a great city when I went. I hope one day I can go back and explore a lot more!
i agree, NO is (one of) the best cities in the South
Location: The land of sugar... previously Houston and Austin
5,429 posts, read 14,846,008 times
Reputation: 3672
Houston.... prior to my move I had heard all these bad things. It turned out to be so, so different and so much better than expected.
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.
Just thought Id clarify as thats one of the biggest misconceptions about Chicago.
