Does Chicago feel like the third largest city? (Roscoe, Nashville: park, area)

[reppin_the_847]

It would be a bit more like LA in Chicagoland if the entire metro area from Wisconsin border to Indiana border (maybe even including NW Indiana) had the density of Chicago's inner ring suburbs & the gridlock of Chicagoland's rush hour flowing closer to 24 hours a day. Good thing it's not like that, and fortunately the public transportation is superior in Chicagoland.

[Chicago South Sider]

Originally Posted by DavePa

This thread was on feel and perceptions. Also aspects of your facts were corrected by another.

Fact cannot be corrected because they are facts. The fact that you agree with that other woefully misinformed poster tells me neither one on you knows what you are talking about.

Chicago may feel like the second largest city inside some parts of the city limits but it does not feel like the second largest metropolitan area.

[Milwaukee City]

Originally Posted by reppin_the_847

It would be a bit more like LA in Chicagoland if the entire metro area from Wisconsin border to Indiana border (maybe even including NW Indiana) had the density of Chicago's inner ring suburbs & the gridlock of Chicagoland's rush hour flowing closer to 24 hours a day. Good thing it's not like that, and fortunately the public transportation is superior in Chicagoland.

I agree, however if you have ever flown in a smaller airplane say from Port Washington down and around to New Buffalo, it looks and feels like one giant metro area. The same can be done via car from Knellsville, WI drive hwy 32 to 41 to 20/12 all th way to New Buffalo, it is all developed. Not high density but it's all filled in. Ask a Trucker where the Chicago area begins and you will get an aswer of anything and hour away in any direction. I'm sure people in the city feel like Joilet is out of the Chicago area and somebody from Iowa might feel like Rockford is in the Chicago area.



Besides don't take any guff from these LA people, their nickname isn't the second city and yea well maybe they are technically ranked #2 in the country but we all know Chicago is the real number 2.



It's like baseball...Roid boy may have the most home runs but everyone knows who the Home Run King truly is...44.

[Need4Camaro]

Having lived in Chicago, traveled and saw Los Angeles, San Fran, also lived in Seattle - to me, 3rd largest in terms of metro size is accurate. Los Angeles is insanely huge. You can drive easily 100+ miles and still be within the metro but its downtown and its transit has absolutely nothing on Chicago.

[VA All Day]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee City

Besides don't take any guff from these LA people, their nickname isn't the second city and yea well maybe they are technically ranked #2 in the country but we all know Chicago is the real number 2.


It's like baseball...Roid boy may have the most home runs but everyone knows who the Home Run King truly is...44.

Perhaps you should do a little cursory research regarding the origins of "second city." It was never meant to be flattering.

Also, you're delusional if you think Sammy didn't take just as many roids. They all did.

[brodie734]

What does a third largest city "feel" like? Is there some kind of ineffable thirdness linking Munich, Vancouver, Brisbane, and Osaka?

[raleightransplant]

Originally Posted by Chicago South Sider

It doesn't look like you understand what the definition of an urban area is. It's based on continuous development down to a certain threshold, 1000 people per square mile I think. Anyway, you've obviously never been to LA. The development is uniform and continuous from the center of the city stretching all the way out to the suburbs for miles upon miles. It's a massive, continuous semi-urban area with gigantic freeways. Chicago, on the other hand, is a centralized area where the density drops off rapidly once you leave the inner-suburbs. New York is similar but just on a much larger scale.

I view Chicago as a mega-city even if falls a bit shy of the 10 million threshold. Besides New York and Los Angeles, it's the only other truly massive urban area in the United States.

This seems fairly accurate to me as well in terms of drop in density once you're past the inner ring suburbs. LA is uniformly middle density across more land area. That said-- Chicagoland is a pretty massive region in the sense that you have all these places sprawling in all directions that are connected to Chicago. The region feels massive when viewed that way to me. Looking at a Metra map around Chicagoland, and all the lines hitting hundreds of towns stretching an hour plus outside the city reveal this. I'm not sure how much commuter rail is a part of LA culture so I'd be curious to learn more.

[Nashville_Native]

Having lived in Chicago for 2+years, and now living in Los Angeles, LA still feels like the 2nd largest city despite the smaller downtown. Southern California is the largest urban area in the country, and the uniform population density in SoCal still trumps the numbers in Chicago across a similarly sized land area. Just because there are more skyscrapers doesn't mean Chicago feels bigger. All you have to do is spend time on the ground in LA for a few hours to get the gist of it. Not to mention, LA is still growing at a rapid clip, while Chicago has been experiencing stagnant growth for the past several years.

[Master Jay]

It sure did not when I was in the middle of the North Park Village Center. Even more so in summer when the trees have bloomed. You'd think you were in the middle of country area.

[BOBNCHI]

In regards to the question......who gives a rat's a**?