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.
I realize that Chicago doesn't "mimic" NY and has never aspired to. My point was Chicago is the closest urban setting in physical look and feel to Manhattan in the U.S. and it's undeniable. No other city has anything close to the volume, height, desnity and variety of architecture both historic and modern as Chicago. Thus, a major component of the "Second City" moniker that has survived for over a century.
It was Chicago's White City that inspired NY to build Penn Station, Washington Square Arch, Grand Central
Terminal etc.
New York basically cheated in this contest. Just by looking at a map, you can see that the five boroughs don't look like an organic, naturally occurring city.
With COL, I would give this to Chicago. As a matter of fact, if I ever "FLEE CALIFORNIA" for whatever reason, Chicago would be at the top of my list as a place to relocate to. You're getting a London level city on the cheap.
Without COL factored, I don't see an argument against Los Angeles. Its a trillion dollar GDP metro in a coastal setting with pretty much objectively perfect year round weather. There's nothing like it on this planet and the only other place something like that could even occur would be in latin America or Africa.
Chicago might be able to pick up a few points in the "overall vibe" category from what I hear and that's about it.
Comparing Chicago to London is pretty far-fetched, honestly .
New York basically cheated in this contest. Just by looking at a map, you can see that the five boroughs don't look like an organic, naturally occurring city.
Most people do not know the history between Chicago and New York. Most people think Chicago has tried to be New York throughout history and failed miserably. Chicago produced innovative public works projects, had far superior urban planners, architects, structural engineers and construction technology. It was outbuilding New York and outgrowing it being on pace to surpass it in less then a decade. You are correct, it wasn't organic growth. It was panic in direct response to Chicago rising to a legitimate rival.
New York annexed everything in site to balloon to a city of almost 4 million and Chicago regressed into Americas first NIMBY city that opposed shadows, density, height, extending subways, promoted suburbs and mid and high-rise residential was outlawed. This gave New York the ability to build freely to new heights unanswered for almost 70 years. It wasn't until the 1960's that Chicago removed restrictions off of mid and high-rise living and removed floor count maximums but it was far too late to rival that unreal volume and scale.
This is why Chicago's neighborhoods are smaller scale and less dense than NY with much different architecture. Chicago positioned itself to become the anti-NY model which is obvious with how the environments are structured through strict zoning laws.
Most people do not know the history between Chicago and New York. Most people think Chicago has tried to be New York throughout history and failed miserably. Chicago produced innovative public works projects, had far superior urban planners, architects, structural engineers and construction technology. It was outbuilding New York and outgrowing it being on pace to surpass it in less then a decade. You are correct, it wasn't organic growth. It was panic in direct response to Chicago rising to a legitimate rival.
New York annexed everything in site to balloon to a city of almost 4 million and Chicago regressed into Americas first NIMBY city that opposed shadows, density, height, extending subways, promoted suburbs and mid and high-rise residential was outlawed. This gave New York the ability to build freely to new heights unanswered for almost 70 years. It wasn't until the 1960's that Chicago removed restrictions off of mid and high-rise living and removed floor count maximums but it was far too late to rival that unreal volume and scale.
This is why Chicago's neighborhoods are smaller scale and less dense than NY with much different architecture. Chicago positioned itself to become the anti-NY model which is obvious with how the environments are structured through strict zoning laws.
So in other words, New York City, despite having every geographic advantage and head start imaginable, had to resort to the same tactics used by modern day mega-burbias in middle America because it was that afraid of being overtaken by a ragtag, upstart settlement in northern Illinois.
If I were a Chicago booster, I would be bringing this up all the time. No one ever brings up how awkward and unnatural it is that all five boroughs are incorporated into one city.
Los Angeles easily. Chicago is really just an oversized depressing drab city where the parking lots freeze over around this time of the season. IMO they feel like polar opposites just off visuals, LA is sunny, warm overall nice vibe to it while Chicago is a place you live long enough makes you want to shoot "opps". lol
Los Angeles easily. Chicago is really just an oversized depressing drab city where the parking lots freeze over around this time of the season. IMO they feel like polar opposites just off visuals, LA is sunny, warm overall nice vibe to it while Chicago is a place you live long enough makes you want to shoot "opps". lol
Hmmmm, I understand this point if you're referring to winter (Chicago is definitely drab and gray). But otherwise, Chicago. Chicago is green, lush and vibrant-- and frankly beautiful. LA is brown surrounded by desert and scrub hills. If you like the color brown, smog, unending sprawl with a less lush landscape, LA is your place. I know I am painting with a broad brush (some of the LA region is gorgeous, green and varied), but overall, LA is just depressing.
And to be fair, the Pacific Coast is beautiful, but it's not LA really, is it?
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,198 posts, read 7,671,235 times
Reputation: 5829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
Not really.
London is closer to Chicago than NYC in GDP and London's entire skyline could be a few city blocks in Chicago.
Please don't disrespect London like this again. London has only 1 city that comes remotely close to it in North America by comparison and that is New York City only.
Chicago is a wonderful urban city, but London runs laps around it as a city/metro. London is in the conversation for best city in the world.
Please don't disrespect London like this again. London has only 1 city that comes remotely close to it in North America by comparison and that is New York City only.
Chicago is a wonderful urban city, but London runs laps around it as a city/metro. London is in the conversation for best city in the world.
Please don't give stock, boiler-plate, conventional wisdom replies without any supporting data.
Los Angeles beats London in GDP.
Since when is Chicago out of the conversation for best city in the world?
Last edited by Losfrisco; 11-25-2020 at 10:57 AM..
This thread need not digress down a fox hole of jabs. No one is claiming Chicago matches London a city a couple thousand years old. Just as no one says Chicago is like NYC. One can only say aspects, degrees and global standings can place Chicago higher then other US cities to the elite.
This WEATHER slapping that keeps being brought up serves not purpose really. Much of the Globe and high population regions get real winters. Some act like only areas of less or no winters are vibrant and worthy of any credits or boast. Clearly, the legacy of our cities go way past weather to demonize them and hard to claim one city here even has a perfect climate with other issues it faces too......
Some seem too young and naive to see through it. Is there really something really being added here worthy of a post if it is to mock another or the opposing city and use getting a winter as the worst scourge a city can have?
Many of our cities have scourges they live with. Hurricane risk, tornados, floods, earthquakes, wild fires, droughts etc.
Whether one sees their city or favorite among the ones to choose .... wins bigly on weather alone or location? Seems some just abhor someone defending a city that still lost the poll. Yet does it need to be thrown off the cliff to keep this thread going nowhere good...... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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.
