The Times Square of Chicago? (Brooklyn: beaches, yard, palm trees)

[grapico]

B.S. response, but whatever, have fun being an internet tough guy ChiNaan.

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by grapico

B.S. response, but whatever, have fun being an internet tough guy ChiNaan.

"Internet tough guys" pick fights with imaginary enemies. Responses to things that weren't said are "B.S. responses." I don't think I need to point out which of us is more accurately fitting these labels.

Thanks for confirming that my response was warranted.

[It'sAutomatic]

This is boggling my mind... the city cultivates a specific entertainment area to extract the most money possible from visitors from the suburbs and Malaysia and Norway and wherever... and that's the center of the city? The hub of shopping and entertainment for the millions who actually live in the city? "Where the city intersects". as if all roads in NYC lead to Times Square.

[ChicagoMeO]

You cant compare chicago to NY in every way - because of many reasons - the geography of one place is different than another - i.e. we have a huge Lake Michigan whereas NY does not. People historically built up chicago because of the plan of Burnam, specifically that the lakefront was a treasure, i.e. not allowing buildings to be built too close to the lakefront, and so that the lakefront would be accessed to all the public.

If I am not mistaken though, Chicago was responsible for creating the skyscraper, with metal innards, I believe Chicago was the first to develop it or something like that, thanks to the Chicago Fire.

Chicago & NY even have differences in apartments/sizes. Not sure how that came about, but its more expensive, and NY renters are famous for 400 square feet apartments that are more expensive than many of chicago's larger aparments. NY tiny apartments - people use their ovens as dresser drawers and just go out to eat. I dont think thats a common occurrence here in Chicago.

but i think Lake Michigan and the beaches and parkland along is what is the epicenter of Chicago, its not flashy, but its attractive in a different way - more nature. it would be wrong to try to make NY like chicago, and vice versa. So each area has been built up for what was planned and for waht it is suited. NY has more entertainment hubs there i.e. NBC studios, the talk shows are done there that we see on the major networks, the Operas, the famous Broadway plays/theatres, etc. many of our TV programs are filmed or recorded there in NY. We have that but its more quainter and on a smaller scale than NY. NY has a flavor that we dont have to copy in order to be fabulous. We have fabulousness in many ways and you just cant compare the two. but i think the lakefront wins as to the OP's question.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by ChicagoMeO

You cant compare chicago to NY in every way - because of many reasons - the geography of one place is different than another - i.e. we have a huge Lake Michigan whereas NY does not. People historically built up chicago because of the plan of Burnam, specifically that the lakefront was a treasure, i.e. not allowing buildings to be built too close to the lakefront, and so that the lakefront would be accessed to all the public.

If I am not mistaken though, Chicago was responsible for creating the skyscraper, with metal innards, I believe Chicago was the first to develop it or something like that, thanks to the Chicago Fire.

Chicago & NY even have differences in apartments/sizes. Not sure how that came about, but its more expensive, and NY renters are famous for 400 square feet apartments that are more expensive than many of chicago's larger aparments. NY tiny apartments - people use their ovens as dresser drawers and just go out to eat. I dont think thats a common occurrence here in Chicago.

but i think Lake Michigan and the beaches and parkland along is what is the epicenter of Chicago, its not flashy, but its attractive in a different way - more nature. it would be wrong to try to make NY like chicago, and vice versa. So each area has been built up for what was planned and for waht it is suited. NY has more entertainment hubs there i.e. NBC studios, the talk shows are done there that we see on the major networks, the Operas, the famous Broadway plays/theatres, etc. many of our TV programs are filmed or recorded there in NY. We have that but its more quainter and on a smaller scale than NY. NY has a flavor that we dont have to copy in order to be fabulous. We have fabulousness in many ways and you just cant compare the two. but i think the lakefront wins as to the OP's question.

I guess I still have a problem in comparing a city of 2.6 million people (Chicago) to a city with 8.3 million people (NYC).

[It'sAutomatic]

Originally Posted by Kamms

I guess I still have a problem in comparing a city of 2.6 million people (Chicago) to a city with 8.3 million people (NYC).

The effective population of a city is that of its metropolitan area and not the city proper. City/suburb boundaries are arbitrary and mostly meaningless. Cicero, for example, is an area where you can't tell you left the city except for the street signs.

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

The effective population of a city is that of its metropolitan area and not the city proper. City/suburb boundaries are arbitrary and mostly meaningless. Cicero, for example, is an area where you can't tell you left the city except for the street signs.

Would you have felt better if he said he has a problem comparing a metro area of 9 million with a metro area of 19 million? His point still stands.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

Would you have felt better if he said he has a problem comparing a metro area of 9 million with a metro area of 19 million? His point still stands.

In the case of Time Square, I don't think it would matter. The area looks the way it looks because of intentional moves that were made. Also, Time Square is a rather small area that effects two avenues that cross over and a handful of side streets.

Time Square has a large collection of theaters, tv stations (though Rockefeller is outside of the Time Square area, so I don't count that), and a lot of retail with billboard and neon lights to go with everything.

If Chicago had an intersection where all the large chains and flagships opened up as well as theaters along with neon lights and billboards and hotels. It would naturally attract tourist like flies and create a Time Square like area, but I don't think there is any need to replicate Time Square. I also don't think NYC would build a Time Square like area if it were being done today, the area has existed for a long time, though not always as parent friendly as it is today.


I think it is important for Chicago to focus on things that are unique to Chicago, not something just because NYC has it.

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

I
I think it is important for Chicago to focus on things that are unique to Chicago, not something just because NYC has it.

That was exactly his point, and mine too. Not sure why the comment regarding city populations vs. metro populations was brought in, as it's totally irrelevant.

[Jandur]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

I think it is important for Chicago to focus on things that are unique to Chicago, not something just because NYC has it.

Agreed. Contrary to popular belief, Chicagoans generally don't compare our city to NYC. Similarities can be drawn but they are really two different places.