CHICAGO IS THE BIGGEST SCAM!! (but let's keep it a secret) (Atlanta: tenant, income)

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Sears Tower does have an honor it won’t ever lose: the last US building to be the world’s tallest

Where is this "Sears Tower" you guys keep talking about? You mean the Willis Tower, LOL? Personally, I think the Hancock (which might be called something else now) has the most stately shape of Chicago's tallest, with the First National Bank Building coming in second (which might also be called something else today). But none are as beautiful as the Empire State Building or the Chrysler Building, both of which define the word, "skyscraper" in my mind.

For those who have never read the entire take on Chicago by Carl Sandburg:
https://poets.org/poem/chicago

He summed it up pretty well, at least for his day. Today, Carl would have to add a paragraph about the scum who essentially bankrupted the city.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

Where is this "Sears Tower" you guys keep talking about? You mean the Willis Tower, LOL? Personally, I think the Hancock (which might be called something else now) has the most stately shape of Chicago's tallest, with the First National Bank Building coming in second (which might also be called something else today). But none are as beautiful as the Empire State Building or the Chrysler Building, both of which define the word, "skyscraper" in my mind.

For those who have never read the entire take on Chicago by Carl Sandburg:
https://poets.org/poem/chicago

He summed it up pretty well, at least for his day. Today, Carl would have to add a paragraph about the scum who essentially bankrupted the city.

Willis Tower was never the tallest building in the world. Only Sears Tower was. Willis Tower when so named never had that honor.

And even if I were talking about the present, it would still be Sears Tower. and the Hancock Building. Comiskey Park. and even a place called "the store that used to be Marshall Field's"

hey, it is a Chicago thing.

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

Where is this "Sears Tower" you guys keep talking about? You mean the Willis Tower, LOL? Personally, I think the Hancock (which might be called something else now) has the most stately shape of Chicago's tallest, with the First National Bank Building coming in second (which might also be called something else today). But none are as beautiful as the Empire State Building or the Chrysler Building, both of which define the word, "skyscraper" in my mind.

For those who have never read the entire take on Chicago by Carl Sandburg:
https://poets.org/poem/chicago

He summed it up pretty well, at least for his day. Today, Carl would have to add a paragraph about the scum who essentially bankrupted the city.

This Willis Tower today. Will ALWAYS BE the "SEARS" Tower to most over 40 and especially 50. Sears deserves credit and was a Iconic Retailer of its day. It was the World's tallest as the "Sears Tower".

Sometimes I say "Big Willy". I surely know it is the "Willis Tower" today. But forever .... probably not.

I love the sleekness of Big John too. But Big Willy is a full city block and once its lower-floors redo is completed. It will continue its ICONIC status still. That bulk in supertalls won't be duplicated After all .... it was built as 4-buikdings clumped together basically. One of the few or only that will remain Black-skinned. Though Big John is dark ... but not a black glassy look.

[KoNgFooCj]

Originally Posted by CCrest182

I don't understand your argument. Chicago has the second largest and most prominent financial district outside of NYC. Chicago has (arguably) the second best and most extensive public transportation system in the nation (that could only possibly be rivaled by DC, but even so I think Chicago's is better). The only other skyline as diverse, big, and well laid out in America outside of Chicago is NYC. What is next? Philadelphia? Chicago is miles ahead of any other city there.

I don't at all see how Chicago can't be compared to New York. Yes, New York is Wayyyyy bigger and has much more going on, but in terms of the amenities I listed above as well as much more, Chicago is literally the only other city in America that could possibly rival NY in those categories. Chicago isn't known as "the Second City" for no reason.

Again, Chicago, LA, NYC, and SF are all world class cities. Those are the cities foreigners think of before literally any other city in America (if they think of any other cities at all). By saying "Chicago fits in more with Atlanta, Dallas, Houston etc", you're literally trying to say Chicago isn't world class, which is just patently false and there's no way you could possibly back that statement up with anything other than your own feelings. It almost sounds like you think Chicago can't be compared to coastal cities, literally because it's not on the coast.

Just to be clear, this is the ranking of cities in America in terms of urbanity

1. NYC
2. Chicago
.
.
.
.
.
.
3. Philadelphia?
4. SF?
5.DC

And in terms of world class recognition,

1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. SF
.
.
.
.
(sunbelt cities probably start at 11 here)

Chicago is also handily the third largest metro area in the country, that can't be rivaled by literally any of the cities you listed (and no, I would not at all count the DC/Bal as one whole metro. A bit of overlap there, but saying that entire region is a "metro" is utter nonsense).

Also, I'm not saying Chicago EXCEEDS New York in necessarily anything. I'm just saying it IS on the same level in terms of urbanity and world class reputation, just not as much as NYC. Most Chicagoans accept that we're not as big and known as New York.

Umm... "2nd City" was just short for 2nd largest city. Chicago hasn't been the nation's 2nd largest city since 1984.

[smegmatite]

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

Umm... "2nd City" was just short for 2nd largest city. Chicago hasn't been the nation's 2nd largest city since 1984.

I thought it was the 2nd city since the first one burned down

[personone]

Originally Posted by smegmatite

I thought it was the 2nd city since the first one burned down

This is the correct meaning of the nickname.

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by smegmatite

I thought it was the 2nd city since the first one burned down

Chicago was often referred to as the “second city” during the battle with New York as the selection for the site of the Columbian Exposition also. At that time Chicago annexed a large portion of the south side in 1889 and the population was approaching New York levels. New York responded by combining all five boroughs and never looked back. So that was only 18-yearscafter the Great Fire of 1871.

So not sure if it is documented before this above? Maybe?

In the 1950s .... New Yorker magazine writer Abbott J. Liebling used the term as a title for his tongue-in-cheek book titled, -- Chicago: "The Second City". The book was not well received. But the moniker seemed to stay. The 60s seemed to have its use increased.

The Comedy Troop "Second City" started in 1959. So it had even more that went National.... as it grew and so many Comedians came thru it. Especially by the 70s 80s.

I think the term was penned 1800s. But took into the late 50s for it to start as a moniker nickname. Of course many others too over the decades.

But between "Windy City" and "Second City" .... both are in most common usage thru today. Chirac died with the failed movie quickly. "The Windy City" probably takes top honors a bit more.

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

Where is this "Sears Tower" you guys keep talking about? You mean the Willis Tower, LOL?

No, we mean the Sears Tower.

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

Personally, I think the Hancock (which might be called something else now)

Yes, its name is just an address on Michigan Ave. now. The John Hancock Insurance company, who had not been paying for naming rights since 2013, demanded that its name be removed from the building in 2018. In other words, they voluntarily gave up the free publicity of having their name associated with the building. That tells you about all you need to know about the prestige of Chicago skyscrapers these days. If only Trump would give up his naming rights, too, so they could take those ugly AF letters off the side of that tower.

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by SkylarkPhotoBooth

No, we mean the Sears Tower.

Yes, its name is just an address on Michigan Ave. now. The John Hancock Insurance company, who had not been paying for naming rights since 2013, demanded that its name be removed from the building in 2018. In other words, they voluntarily gave up the free publicity of having their name associated with the building. That tells you about all you need to know about the prestige of Chicago skyscrapers these days. If only Trump would give up his naming rights, too, so they could take those ugly AF letters off the side of that tower.

Honestly, I doubt that had anything to do with it. It is ridiculous to think it was about anything but money..... There was a new owner of the building.

From Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hancock_Center

From link:
-
In 2018, John Hancock Insurance requested that its name be removed and the owner is seeking another naming rights deal. The Insurance company ..... financed its construction in the late 60s. IT STILL IS ICONIC IN THE SKYSCRAPER REALM. No doubt the new owners wanted money to keep it. It is a Insurance Company so they don't need such rights today.

Why the negativity? Trump still owns.... or his company the hotel portion of the Trump Tower. He can claim the Name is on the hotel portion too. But he LOVES to charge for naming rights. Just not sure if Trump Tower Chicago is a example? You surely know the city passed a ordinance to prevent it happening again. But it holds the right to gent variances to the ordinance .... like it did îf Sales Force took the neatly 20-floors of that new River skyscraper going up.

It still gets called the John Hancock or formally. No one uses just a address. So they still get the name recognition totally free. Tourist vlogs on Youtube to in general . Will not go away fast the name recognition.

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by DavePa

In 2018, John Hancock Insurance requested that its name be removed

That's the key part of your quote.

Or if you prefer legitimate news sources:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...212-story.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-lose-its-name

The key is that it was the Hancock company that asked for its free naming to be removed. It wasn't the owner removing it.

No negativity intended (other than the obvious negativity of the reality of the situation), and certainly no politics intended. I don't even know the politics of the owners or former tenant.