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.
Quote:
I don't think that you are quite understanding the point that FIGHTFORLOVE is making. He is not referring to the particular neighborhoods within the Cty of Chicago proper nor even its nearby or surrounding suburbs and what they themselves (the neighborhoods or suburbs) are proximate to. He is referring to Chicagoland AS A WHOLE being a megalopolis surrounded by a whole region (the Midwest or Upper Midwest or Plains states) that nearly all consist of cities, towns, villages, hamlets and rural jurisdictions that are not quite the equivalent of what New York City and San Francisco has proximate to them (i.e., within less than a day's drive from Chicagoland). He is saying that Chicagoland taken as a whole is an oddity (an oasis), being a global alpha city within the midst of a vast stretch of territory (the central U.S.) that is very unlike Chicagoland in so many ways.
As stated by others and expanded on here by myself:
(a) If you live in SAN FRANCISCO, you have the whole rest of the world-famous Bay Area (including Oakland, Berkeley, et al) + the Silicon Valley, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, San Diego, Portland, Seattle, Las Vegas and Reno all a car ride away. You also have the Pacific Ocean, mountains, deserts, wine country, Yosemite National Park, Lake Tahoe, Las Vegas, Reno, and so much more . . . with ALL these mentioned places being world magnets that people from all over are drawn to.
(b) If you live in NEW YORK CITY, you have Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C., + the Atlantic Ocean, mountains, and many other big and medium cities and amenities in all directions within less than a day's drive from New York City.
As FIGHTFORLOVE said (somewhat re-phrased by me), NEW YORK CITY and SAN FRANCISCOare like big ritzy houses surrrounded by many other big ritzy houses for many miles around, whereas CHICAGOLAND functiions more like a single big ritzy house surrounded for many miles around by ho-hum working class and lower class neighborhoods. He was using a figurative analogy, not a literal description. In other words, having reasonable driving distance to Milwaukee, Madison, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Detroit, Springfield, Peoria, the Quad Cities, the Twin Cities, and so on (and with NO OCEANS, NO MOUNTAINS, et al but just all flatlands . . . and most of those other municipalities, at best, have a river going through them but no major body of water such as a Lake Michigan or Atlantic Ocean or Pacific Ocean) is not really quite the same as being proximate to all that New York City and San Francisco are within a reasonable drive of.
In my mind, CHICAGO is still a highly desirable place and holds its own (I personally lovelovelove Chicagoland) and yet I can understand how much of the U.S. and world population-at-large would view both NEW YORK CITY and SAN FRANCISCO are being more proximate to a greater bulk of magnet attractions and locales that interest them than Chicago is.
In summary, FIGHTFORLOVE is saying that Chicago functions more like a nice provincial capital in the heart of the U.S. (i.e., sort of like an oasis in the middle of a vast desert of sorts) . . . compared to New York City and San Francisco. It is not a judgement on Chicagoland itself and what is inside Chicagoland itself but rather on what Chicagoland is reasonably proximate to as well as what it is not reasonably proximate to.
While I agree with you in principle that Chicago tends to lack in the department of drivable day/weekend trips in comparison to NYC or San Francisco, I find your definition of what counts as a drivable day/weekend trip for San Francisco to operate on a ridiculous double standard.
You claim that LA (6 hour drive), Las Vegas (8 hour drive), Portland (10 hour drive), and Seattle (12 hour drive) all count as cities you can take a driving trip to from SF. If that is so, why can't I count Toronto (8 hour drive), DC (11 hour drive), Philadelphia (11 hour drive), and yes, even New York City (12 hour drive) as drivable trips for Chicago? Not to mention, Montreal is a 13 hour drive, which isn't much above that.
My point is that though San Francisco definitely has a huge advantage over Chicago in terms of natural beauty that is nearby, I'm not sure you can really claim it has much of an advantage in terms of nearby major cities unless you apply some strange double standard where a 10 hour plus drive on the West Coast is shorter than a 10 hour plus drive in the Midwest/on the East Coast.
EDIT: You're not the only person I've seen on these forums to make this claim that San Francisco has easy access to other cities, and frankly, I've never understood it. I love San Francisco, and I love driving down the California coast, it's beautiful; but the simple fact of the matter is that if you limit yourself to actual major cities, there isn't really one within anything less than a 6 hour drive from San Francisco.
Last edited by WinsingtonIII; 02-22-2013 at 12:10 PM..
Isn't chicago's existence built out of being a railroad hub? Also I believe it's airport is well connected (last I knew only chicago and new york had non-stops to new delhi).
While I agree with you in principle that Chicago tends to lack in the department of drivable day/weekend trips in comparison to NYC or San Francisco, I find your definition of what counts as a drivable day/weekend trip for San Francisco to operate on a ridiculous double standard.
You claim that LA (6 hour drive), Las Vegas (8 hour drive), Portland (10 hour drive), and Seattle (12 hour drive) all count as cities you can take a driving trip to from SF. If that is so, why can't I count Toronto (8 hour drive), DC (11 hour drive), Philadelphia (11 hour drive), and yes, even New York City (12 hour drive) as drivable trips for Chicago? Not to mention, Montreal is a 13 hour drive, which isn't much above that.
My point is that though San Francisco definitely has a huge advantage over Chicago in terms of natural beauty that is nearby, I'm not sure you can really claim it has much of an advantage in terms of nearby major cities unless you apply some strange double standard where a 10 hour plus drive on the West Coast is shorter than a 10 hour plus drive in the Midwest/on the East Coast.
EDIT: You're not the only person I've seen on these forums to make this claim that San Francisco has easy access to other cities, and frankly, I've never understood it. I love San Francisco, and I love driving down the California coast, it's beautiful; but the simple fact of the matter is that if you limit yourself to actual major cities, there isn't really one within anything less than a 6 hour drive from San Francisco.
+1
I pretty much came here to post this. Well done.
The list of car rides for SF they mentioned was hilarious.
Seattle is 12 hours from SF.
Guess whats 8-12 hours from Chicago? About every other city worth seeing (DC, Toronto, Montreal, Boston, NYC, Philly)
SF is isolated. Flat out. Its surrounded by great natual scenery, but again, its isolated. SF does not have proximity advantage for cities.
Oh, and Reno. Wow, what proximity. Its good to know America's best meth labs and trailer parks are only 3 hours away.
Isn't chicago's existence built out of being a railroad hub? Also I believe it's airport is well connected (last I knew only chicago and new york had non-stops to new delhi).
Weirdly enough, Chicago's boom can also be attributed to the fire in the 1870s. It was starting to boom before that, but it went even above that after the fire. Between 1880 and 1890, the population jumped up almost 600,000 people. 1890 to 1900, almost the same growth.
It's one of those things where the location dictated what was there. For the railroads, it was a good logistical location. Much like some areas in Texas/Oklahoma are great for oil, but have now gotten beyond it with a more diversified economy.
hmmm interesting. Either that table isnt current or I have been getting ripped off. I looked up my cc statement and I paid 110 last year, which Im guessing was 85 for the sticker and 25 for the permit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
That grid is genuinely bizarre and thoroughly incorrect. I don't know if there's a database error or what but that grid is FOS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91
I think that link is out of date, I just paid $110 last week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlajos
A city stikcer for a car below a certain weight is $85 per year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico
it was higher than that even 8 years ago I think I paid around 75+zone parking sticker, I think it's 110 now.
Heh. This, people, is why you don't freaking GOOGLE responses to everything all of the time, as if Google is a substitute for actual knowledge. People ask questions here, then some who shall remain unnamed, scurry off to Google and post their findings, this despite an egregious and often obvious lack of any actual experience with the matter. Cracks me up the most when people who have only been in Chicago for 6 months will offer definitive statements on the experiences of a Chicagoan, or will somehow seem to have been everywhere in the entire city, though really recommending based on Yelp reviews or Google results, as if the rest of us don't have access to a search engine. It's like "(In a Samuel L. Jackson voice) Mother******, have you ever been?" No? Well then shut up. This happens a lot, and is annoying every time. Makes asking questions here sometimes useless due to the Google Warriors.
"Lorie, you sure seem grumpy today. I mean, like, grumpier than usual." Sorry, sorry, it's 2pm and I haven't had anything to drink yet. I'll get on that.
So, anyway, I don't really care much for the SF vs. Chicago debate, though it is worth pointing out you can drive to LA in something like 6 hours. This is true. I have made the drive many times. I did not look this up on Google maps. But aside from that, in general, yeah, I'd say you get the most bang for your buck in Chicago. When you think of the most desirable American cities to live in, they're all really freaking expensive except Chicago. Why is that? The only guess I have is it's in the Midwest. Nobody wants to live in the Midwest. It's a fine city in flyover country. No, the existence of O'Hare does not bar it from being flyover country. If you can dig the Midwest and all that comes with it -- the isolation, the weather, the "Midwesternyness" of the people (need to get that word in the dictionary) -- you're all good.
Last edited by SOON2BNSURPRISE; 02-25-2013 at 12:06 AM..
I agree about the Google, and it was me. I guess I was being optimistic that the City of Chicago would actually keep their government websites up to date with pertinent information. Apparently they don't for everything. You can't blame someone for Googling an official source (which is apparently out of date now). If the source is up to date though, as in this situation, I will gladly admit I am wrong.
I agree about the Google, and it was me. I guess I was being optimistic that the City of Chicago would actually keep their government websites up to date with pertinent information. Apparently they don't for everything. You can't blame someone for Googling an official source (which is apparently out of date now). If the source is up to date though, as in this situation, I will gladly admit I am wrong.
As someone else said previously, the current fees on the City's website reflect the price of a sticker TODAY. Not the annual June for full year sticketer price.
As someone else said previously, the current fees on the City's website reflect the price of a sticker TODAY. Not the annual June for full year sticketer price.
Okay. Duly noted. I almost never do the Google for information bit (unless it's an official statistic like population or demographic percentage, or finding prices of actual apartments in an area). It was a mistake. We can move beyond it now.
Isn't chicago's existence built out of being a railroad hub? Also I believe it's airport is well connected (last I knew only chicago and new york had non-stops to new delhi).
Chicago first rose to prominence as a transportation hub when a canal was completed that connected the Great Lakes to the inland waterways. Chicago is at the mouth of that connection. That made it possible to ship goods from Chicago to pretty much all of the major population centers in the country at the time, plus Toronto and Montreal. The railroads then followed suit and connected Chicago to the Western population centers too. And yeah, O'Hare is still the world's second-busiest airport, and much of that is because of the volume of freight that flies in and out of here.
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.
