Chicago more like 3 biggest East Coast cities OR 3 biggest Midwest cities (Springfield: mall, manufacturing)

[EddieOlSkool]

Eh. Nowadays I am firmly convinced Chicago is a quintessential Midwestern city that could arguably even be moved to where Indianapolis is and nobody would think it is an outlier.

Maybe growing up it was more of an outlier but now I wouldn't even say that Chicago is specifically a Great Lakes city as opposed to a quintessential Midwestern one. I feel no different in Chicago now than I did when I was Indy a few weeks back. Things have definitely changed. Or maybe gone back to normal who knows.

[personone]

Chicago is definitely more like the Northeast cities.

[HumboldtBottle]

Neither. And since when is Kansas City one of the three biggest non-Chicago Midwest cities?

[MassVt]

Chicago has more "personal space" than Eastern cities. The streets are wider, and the homes within city limits have more separation (i.e lawns) than urban areas of the Northeast. The reconstruction of Chicago after the Great Fire of 1871, and the development of the Bungalow Belt, definitely contributed to all this..

[edsg25]

Chicago, I think, has a strong connection with Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. These four cities were the epicenters of the urbanization, industrialization, and immigration that took place after the Civil War and up to World War I. They were the four at the forefront of so much of what shaped our cities during those years: from Boston igniting the first US subway, New York developing in Central Park the concept of open public space in our cities, Chicago's Hull House setting the way for settlement houses in immigrant neighborhoods, Philadelphia being one of the first three US cities to go over a million in population (NY, Chgo being the other two). I taught US history at the middle school level and these four cities were the ones most seen as the laboratories for our growing cities.

i would say on the basis of the type of urbanization and density as the common era (again basically the second half of the 19th century) in which they developed true urbanization, the only two cities outside the northeast corridor that truly fits in with the type of cities along that line are Chicago and San Francisco.

[moneymkt]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Chicago, I think, has a strong connection with Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. These four cities were the epicenters of the urbanization, industrialization, and immigration that took place after the Civil War and up to World War I. They were the four at the forefront of so much of what shaped our cities during those years: from Boston igniting the first US subway, New York developing in Central Park the concept of open public space in our cities, Chicago's Hull House setting the way for settlement houses in immigrant neighborhoods, Philadelphia being one of the first three US cities to go over a million in population (NY, Chgo being the other two). I taught US history at the middle school level and these four cities were the ones most seen as the laboratories for our growing cities.

i would say on the basis of the type of urbanization and density as the common era (again basically the second half of the 19th century) in which they developed true urbanization, the only two cities outside the northeast corridor that truly fits in with the type of cities along that line are Chicago and San Francisco.

I would exclude Boston since their downtown area doesnt stand out that much compared to philly and new york

[HumboldtBottle]

If you were to change the Midwestern cities to, say, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and St. Louis (or possibly even Detroit), then I might see the similarities with Chicago in terms of history as major shipping ports, immigration patterns, architecture, infrastructure, etc. Kansas City arguably has something similar to that on a smaller scale, but Indianapolis and Columbus do not, IMO.

In other words, the Great Lakes cities and major river port cities have certain historical ties to east coast cities that other Midwestern cities do not have.

Or, if you prefer, think of the cities that had major league baseball teams before 1950 as a rough indicator.

[BuhbyeRham]

Originally Posted by EddieOlSkool

Yes. We all know that Chicago is just a big brother of the Great Lakes/Rust Belt cities. But those are deliberately left off because that answer is too easy.

So your question is "How does Chicago compare to other cities, not including the ones to which it clearly compares?"?

How does North America compare to other continents, not including the ones on Earth?

How does China compare to other countries, not including the ones that are large, or powerful, or run by a single party system?

Bizarre hypotheticals, man.

[BuhbyeRham]

Originally Posted by EddieOlSkool

Just going by size man. Not influence. That's it. Size of city not metro.

I'm curious, do you have a source showing Kansas City, MO (the larger of the two KCs, since you're not looking at metro areas) to be one of the three largest cities in the Midwest? I can't find one where it even comes close.

[BuhbyeRham]

Originally Posted by EddieOlSkool

People like to think that Chicago and New York have very few structural similarities. But honestly, I think that has been hugely blown out of proportion. Here are pics of Chicago and New York neighborhoods that look almost identical. These aren't trendy, strip mall Americana built up in the 21st century places.

Very well illustrated, and good points. I tried to give you rep points, but apparently I need to "spread it around" beyond the 20 or 30 people I've repped so far before I'm allowed to rep you again? Confusing.

























There are about an equal amount of Chicago to New York pictures. If you can figure out which city is which (outside of the obvious ones with the street signs and traffic lights) , you know both cities well.

If you took someone who had never been to either city, blindfolded them and magically transported them to the other within the same day, they most likely wouldn't know they even changed cities.[/quote]