# the gap between 1st city and 2nd city in your nation



## unoh (Aug 13, 2005)

In case of korea, The gap between 1st city and 2nd city is very large.

Seoul Incheon Airport


















Busan Gimhae Airport


----------



## Fallout (Sep 11, 2002)

There is quite large gap between Warsaw and other polish cities:
Speaking about the airports only:
Warsaw 7.5 million.
Lodz 18 thousands...

however krakow is only slightly smaller than Lodz and it, but it has 2nd largest airport in Poland with 1.5 million passengers last year.


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

Canada is in a unique situation. Toronto would be considered the "1st city" and Montreal the 2nd but at the same time you can think of Toronto as the centre of english Canada and Montreal the centre of french Canada. So they are both 1st cities in some respects. Overall Canada is very balanced with Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver along with the smaller powers of Ottawa and Calgary.


----------



## Joshapd (May 21, 2004)

Amsterdam Schiphol Airport:
42,5 mln
Rotterdam Airport Zestienhoven:
1 mln


----------



## hossoso (Oct 9, 2005)

is this thread about airports or cities?


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

In terms of pretty much everything, London is a long way in front of the other UK cities. Birmingham and Manchester are the closest (maybe Glasgow too)

Population

Greater London 7.5m (Metro 14-18m)
'Greater Birmingham' 2.5m (Metro 3.5-4m)
Greater Manchester 2.5m (Metro 3.5-4m)

Economy

Greater London c£250bn
Greater Birmingham c£55bn
Greater Manchester c£55bn

Airports

London (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton, City) c130m
Birmingham (Birmingham, Coventry) c10m
Manchester c21m


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2006)

POLAND

Cities population:
Warsaw: 1.6M
Łódź: 800k

Metro areas population:
GOP (Katowice+Bytom+Gliwice+other cities): +3M
Warsaw: 2.2M


----------



## Fallout (Sep 11, 2002)

There is no clear 2nd city in Poland. Lodz is 2nd largest in city population, Krakow is 3rd just little behind, but its richer and more important culturally. Another regional capitals Wroclaw and Poznan are not much behind, with Poznan being richest of polish big cites (after Warsaw). Gdansk alone may be too small (460 000) but Gdansk-Gdynia-Sopot conurbation (Trojmiasto) has similar population to Lodz and Krakow. And there is also a multipolar upper silesian metro area with 3 million+ people. All these 6 aglomerations make somethng like 2nd league of polish cities.

Some stats:

*city proper population:*
Warsaw 1 690 000
Lodz 770 000
Krakow 760 000
Wroclaw 640 000
Poznan 570 000
Gdansk 460 000
Katowice (upper silesia largest city)310 000

*urban agglomerations*
Upper Silesia 2 500 000
Warsaw 2 100 000
Lodz 1 000 000
Trojmiasto 900 000
Krakow 800 000
Wroclaw 700 000
Poznan 650 000

*metro areas*
Upper Silesia 3 900 000
Warsaw 2 800 000
Krakow 1 200 000
Lodz 1 200 000
Trajmiasto 1 000 000
Wroclaw 900 000
Poznan 900 000

*GDP (2003, billions of €)*
Warsaw 27.8
Upper Silesia 19.5 (data for NUTS-3 region of ca. 3 mio ppl)
Krakow 6.4
Poznan 6.4
Trojmiasto 5.9
Lodz 5.4
Wroclaw 5.2

*airports (passengers in millions)*
Warsaw 7.5
Krakow 1.5
Upper Silesia 1.1
Gdansk 0.7
Wroclaw 0.5
Poznan 0.5
Lodz 0.02

*Skyscrapers >75m(>100m)* 
Warsaw 27(18)
Upper Silesia 9(1)
Poznan 3(1)
Trojmiasto 2(1)
Wroclaw 2
Lodz 2
Krakow 1


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Birmingham tends to be thought of as the UK's "2nd city"... however, in recent years Manchester has been catching up.

Anyway, the gap between London and these cities is massive. London is a top tier alpha world city, whilst the other 2 are barely even gamma world cities.


----------



## PB (Dec 2, 2002)

Look said:


> *urban agglomerations*
> Poznan 650 000
> 
> *metro areas*
> Poznan 900 000


30.11.2005
Urban - 853.887









Metro - 1,1 mln


----------



## Fallout (Sep 11, 2002)

wjfox2002 said:


> Birmingham tends to be thought of as the UK's "2nd city"... however, in recent years Manchester has been catching up.
> 
> Anyway, the gap between London and these cities is massive. London is a top tier alpha world city, whilst the other 2 are barely even gamma world cities.


UK and France are indeed among most drastic examples of 1st city domination. Mexico is another one.


----------



## Nacho_82 (Feb 13, 2005)

also Argentina, Chile, Portugal...


----------



## kids (Dec 12, 2004)

wjfox2002 said:


> Birmingham tends to be thought of as the UK's "2nd city"... however, in recent years Manchester has been catching up.
> 
> Anyway, the gap between London and these cities is massive. London is a top tier alpha world city, whilst the other 2 are barely even gamma world cities.


Manchester's a gamma world city? 'bout time.


----------



## CHI (Apr 17, 2004)

In USA, there is a huge difference; perhaps not quite as large as in the UK, but still huge.

The 2nd city is arguably either LA or Chicago. In terms of population, they are 3,500,000 and 3,000,000 respectively, compared to New York City's 8,000,000.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

In terms of _importance_, I'd easily rank Chicago as the US's second city---even though it's not in the same league as New York.


----------



## AcesHigh (Feb 20, 2003)

I dont think there is a huge difference between São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. 

São Paulo: 10 million (18 million metro)
Rio de Janeiro: 6.5 million (11 million metro)


----------



## coldstar (Jan 14, 2003)

Japan

Tokyo pref. (pop:12 million)
Osaka pref. (pop:8.8 million)

There is not such a big difference between Tokyo (& Yokohama) and Osaka (& Kobe, Kyoto).


----------



## spotila (Oct 29, 2004)

In New Zealand, Auckland has a 1.3 million metro at first place, while Christchurch has 365,000 at second. Wellington is a close 3rd with 330,000.


----------



## bob rulz (Oct 20, 2005)

How would Chicago easily outrank Los Angeles? I can understand barely, but easily? Not a chance. Los Angeles is the center of American culture, Chicago is the center of the railroads...which one is more influential? Sure, Chicago has more history behind it, but history does not necessarily determine which city is more influential, and yes, it does play a big part, but it's not everything. A city can establish influence relatively quickly.

Anyway, for the *United States*, these are the top 10 city centers and the top 10 metropolitan areas.

Based on latest estimates to the nearest 10,000:

*City Center* 

1. New York City - 8,100,000
2. Los Angeles - 3,850,000
3. Chicago - 2,860,000
4. Houston - 2,010,000
5. Philadelphia - 1,470,000
6. Phoenix - 1,420,000
7. San Diego - 1,260,000
8. San Antonio - 1,240,000
9. Dallas - 1,210,000
10. San Jose - 900,000

*Metropolitan Area* 

1. New York City - 18,710,000
2. Los Angeles - 12,930,000
3. Chicago - 9,390,000
4. Philadelphia - 5,800,000
5. Dallas-Fort Worth - 5,700,000
6. Miami - 5,360,000
7. Houston - 5,180,000
8. Washington - 5,140,000
9. Atlanta - 4,710,000
10. Detroit - 4,490,000


----------



## unoh (Aug 13, 2005)

I think s.korea is one of most centralized nation in world.
all(economy, culture, media, politics, finance, shopping etc) are centralized in seoul metro.
48% of nation's population
80% of money
95% of big company's hq

But the nations like Germany, Swiss are localized and developed characteristically
example) Gernamy : finance-Frank Furt, politics-Berlin, commerce and industry-Hamburg or Düsseldorf, culture-Munich etc.

I think Germany is an ideal model.


----------



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

Talking about visual recording only the Chi has Oprah


----------



## XCRunner (Nov 19, 2005)

bob rulz said:


> Los Angeles is the center of American culture, Chicago is the center of the railroads...which one is more influential?


Yes, but which one is more important? How are you going to ship those millions of DVD's, CD,s, posters, etc.? The rails.


----------



## XCRunner (Nov 19, 2005)

svs said:


> Many of the more influential and wealthy Americans maintain homes in both Southern California and NYC, a phenomenon known as bicoastalism


Yeah, LA depends so much on NYC (as all cities depend on each other to a certain degree). But so much of LA is linked to NYC. All their production, music, fil, tv, media companies are HQ'ed in NYC. And these wealthy Americans are what, like .0001% of the population? THe only reason they have two homes is b/c of the weather in LA. Otherwise, they're all about NYC.


----------



## XCRunner (Nov 19, 2005)

Blackbelt Jones said:


> Yeah, it is interesting... I never really thought about it much before this thread. I would love to see some stats on US cities while the US was developing... and bet the patterns are really similar to upcoming nations today!


From my history book:

*1790*
Philadelphia.....42.520
New York........33.131
Boston...........18.038
Charleston......16.359
Baltimore........13.503

*1830*
New York........197.112
Philadelphia.....161.410
Baltimore........80.620
Boston...........61.392
Charleston......30.289

*1870*
New York........942.292
Philadelphia.....674.022
Brooklyn.........419.921
St. Louis.........310.864
Chicago..........298.977

*1910*
New York........4.766.833
Chicago..........2.185.283
Philadelphia.....1.549.008
St. Louis.........687.029
Boston............670.585

*1950*
New York........7.891.957
Chicago..........3.620.962
Philadelphia.....2.071.605
Los Angeles.....1.970.358
Detroit...........1.849.568

Plenty more where that came from, so don't hesitate to ask. All the years in here show the top 10 (except 1700) and there are lots more years.


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

XCRunner said:


> Yes, but which one is more important? How are you going to ship those millions of DVD's, CD,s, posters, etc.? The rails.


Air? :dunno:


----------



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

hahaha  

nice avatar mich ave


----------



## Diboto (Oct 20, 2004)

sebvill said:


> Gronier:
> Valaparaiso alone is much smaller, only 350,000 inhabitants. Anyway is a very beautiful port +cultural city. And chileans are very proud of her.
> 
> Well Medellin is indeed big, and it isnt the onlt big secondary city in Colombia.
> ...


That explains why Colombia is the second most decentralized country in Latin America after Brazil.


----------



## XCRunner (Nov 19, 2005)

RP1 said:


> Air? :dunno:


Well, that would be Chicago as well.


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

svs said:


> For the sake of the other posters, I have to explain that there is something in the water of Lake Michigan that causes a distortional psychosis in the good people who live in Chicago that affects them with a delusion that the center of the Universe is located just beneath the clock at Marshall Fields. They are so sincerely in love with their home town (It's actually kind of beautiful.) that they cannot help but over estimate its importance in the world. Many of them (including members of my family; I was born in Chi.) really believe Chicago has as much influence on the world as London or China.
> 
> The reality is that New York city is the cultural and population leader in the US. LA is second with the lead in visual and recording media. Chicago is way pack in the pack and fading except maybe as an architectural showcase. (It probably still has ther most impressive public architecture of any American city.) Many of the more influential and wealthy Americans maintain homes in both Southern California and NYC, a phenomenon known as bicoastalism. With more effective communications, teleconferencing, etc. I'm not sure this issue of number 1 vs. number 2 is very important any more.
> 
> ...


Great post! I happen to agree with you. :cheers:


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

XCRunner said:


> Yes, but which one is more important? How are you going to ship those millions of DVD's, CD,s, posters, etc.? The rails.


Most merchandise in the U.S. is produced in China... which is most likely to be brought through the Port of Long Beach/LA (which is the largest seaport in the U.S.), then put on a train to be distributed throughout the rest of the country... most likely taking a route via Chicago. So in terms of importance, its really a toss up, both are critically important to the country.


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

zaqattaq said:


> hahaha
> 
> nice avatar mich ave


Thanks. I'm surprised how many people have liked it, only took me a few minutes on paint.


----------



## PhillyPhilly90 (Aug 12, 2005)

sbarn said:


> Most merchandise in the U.S. is produced in China... which is most likely to be brought through the Port of Long Beach/LA (which is the largest seaport in the U.S.), then put on a train to be distributed throughout the rest of the country... most likely taking a route via Chicago. So in terms of importance, its really a toss up, both are critically important to the country.


Well actually I agree...both are definitely neck-to-neck but according my personal research and knowledge Chicago is a teeny bit ahead of L.A. I'm not trying to start something but people are underestimating Chicago when compared to L.A. The fact that Chicago has more air traffic, more freight truck traffic, and more freight train traffic tells me Chicago is much more a bustling city than Los Angeles. Chicago is also slightly more connected worldwide than Los Angeles. Think about it...Chicago has a big industry and a big business district, it's economy is diversified. Chicago is a major industrial center (the freight traffic explains it) and a major player in the world economy. Chicago's location can be connected to the Atlantic Ocean via the St. lawrence Seaway and to the Gulf Coast via the Mississippi River. Most of America's industry is within a one day truck delivery from Chicago and it is between the European and Asian Markets. Chicago offers nonstop flights to Asia and Europe (both are within a 10 hour flight). Soo keep in mind...

Anyways in the U.S., the population gap is pretty large...New York at 8.1 million and L.A. at 3.8 million...a 4.3 million difference. But in metro area...New York at 21.8 million and L.A. at 17.5 million...L.A. isnt far behind.

In terms of economy...New York and L.A. are the biggest economy and the difference isn't big but significant.

In terms of overall city importance...New York is significantly ahead with Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. having a chance of reaching that #2 spot (Chicago in my opinion).


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^Chicago has the second largest financial sector in North America, too.


----------



## Quickdraw (Dec 2, 2005)

bob rulz said:


> How would Chicago easily outrank Los Angeles? I can understand barely, but easily? Not a chance. Los Angeles is the center of American culture, Chicago is the center of the railroads...which one is more influential? Sure, Chicago has more history behind it, but history does not necessarily determine which city is more influential, and yes, it does play a big part, but it's not everything. A city can establish influence relatively quickly.
> 
> Anyway, for the *United States*, these are the top 10 city centers and the top 10 metropolitan areas.
> 
> ...


You serious. Chicago is America's second biggest business town. Los Angeles JUST has a lot of people but not the substance. The second richest urban neighborhood in America is also in Chicago, it also has the biggest art orientated neighborhood outside of NY. So you cant compare LA to CHI, there arent even 1,000 high rises in LA. CHI actually has substance and statistical importance. LA is mostly Hollywood movie exaggeration saved by its large population.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^LA has _tons_ of substance and statistical importance. 

But let's turn this discussion towards something else, because this certainly isn't going to go in a nice direction.


----------



## gaucho (Apr 15, 2003)

Brazil is quite decentralized

Sao Paulo - economy

Rio de Janeiro - popular culture

Brasilia - Politics

The good thing is that both Sao Paulo and Rio r losing their power and other major brazilian cities are rising and becoming more independent from those 2 cities


----------



## Quickdraw (Dec 2, 2005)

Gold Coast = second wealthiest urban hood in America behind Upper Eastside in Manhattan (la not up there)
River North = second largest concentration of urban art galleries in the nation outside of Manhattan (la not up there)
Chicago's laboring poll = second largest in America (la not up there)
Chicago's tranportation system = biggest in America (la not up there with CHI)
Chicago's health care system = biggest in America (la not on CHI's level
Chicago's CBD = second biggest cbd in America (la lost again to CHI)
Chicago's law enforcement = second biggest in America (la cant touch CHI even in cop numbers, thats awful its more people down there)
Chicago overall = shits on LA on fact sheets, not population, real substance
Important Racial Minority Groups
Chicago's Puerto Rican Population = Second largest in America (la not up there with CHI and NY
Chicago's Black Population = one of the biggest in America (la not up there with CHI
Chicago's Asians population = third biggest in nation (la not on CHI's level)
Most of the important minority groups in America arent even touching down in LA, they going to Chicago first. And this is all facts, no movie fantasies. They cant even touch Chicago's cop numbers, thats pathetic so no way they have the CHI beat on anything of real importance.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^You should probably quit, Quickdraw. 

And some of your statistics are just wrong; LA has a larger Asian population than Chicago, and Chicago doesn't have the nation's largest transportation system; New York does (rapid transit, alteast), Chicago is 2nd.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Yeah the Chicago vs LA thing is getting kinda old.


----------



## Horace Lanando (May 21, 2004)

Quickdraw said:


> Chicago's Asians population = third biggest in nation (la not on CHI's level)


*coughSanFrancough*


----------



## TheKansan (Jun 22, 2004)

XCRunner said:


> From my history book:
> 
> *1790*
> Philadelphia.....42.520
> ...


This is probably the least helpful list of statistics so far in this thread, So by your logic Chicago is more important because 60 years ago it was bigger than LA???? Well by the same logic Charleston is one of the most important cities in the US.....lol

Im sorry but based purely on population it is obvious which city in the US is second largest. Unless the Chicago metro has grown by 3 million people since the last census.

Imagine being born in a city and within your lifetime it growing to be 4 times as large as when you were a kid. I live in a city that has declined in population for decades, so it isn't even imaginable to me.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Horace Lanando said:


> *coughSanFrancough*


*coughNewYork, actuallycough*


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

TheKansan said:


> This is probably the least helpful list of statistics so far in this thread, So by your logic Chicago is more important because 60 years ago it was bigger than LA???? Well by the same logic Charleston is one of the most important cities in the US.....lol
> 
> Im sorry but based purely on population it is obvious which city in the US is second largest. Unless the Chicago metro has grown by 3 million people since the last census.
> 
> Imagine being born in a city and within your lifetime it growing to be 4 times as large as when you were a kid. I live in a city that has declined in population for decades, so it isn't even imaginable to me.


Did he ever say those stats made Chicago more important? No. :weirdo:


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

Blackbelt Jones said:


> I don't mean to break the flow of this thread (I am learning quite a lot about other nations and their "seconds"), but the ignorance passed as fact in some of these posts relating to US cities is beyond astounding.
> 
> You know, I really thought that gem would take the cake for this thread... until I stumbled upon this beauty...So, now we have railroads and architecture on our side. Thank God we also have indoor plumbing.
> 
> ...


Posts like this only prove what I said about the water in Lake Michigan in my earlier post, and I am from Chicago! Ease up boy. Chicago is a nice city. I like it. I've always liked it. My mother lives there. Stop overcompensating with selective statistics. Things are what they are.


----------



## Horst (Jan 22, 2006)

Sorry friends, from international view Chicago has nearly no importance. 
Washington or Los Angeles compete for US' 2nd city.


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

Horst said:


> Sorry friends, from international view Chicago has nearly no importance.
> Washington or Los Angeles compete for US' 2nd city.


In my travels in Europe, Asia, and Oceana, I find this to be the general opinion also. If Europeans think about Chicago at all it is usually in the context of Al Capone, or maybe deep dish pizza. This is a shame, because Chicago is a very charming city with much to commend it to the traveler who wants to know the United States.


----------



## cityhater (Jan 4, 2005)

In my travels in Europe, Asia, Oceania and Africa, I find New York to be the *only* city they think about. Hollywood has about as much importance in world affairs as Ikea.


----------



## Bikkel (Jun 8, 2005)

In NL, the lead of Amsterdam over Rotterdam is getting bigger:

Amsterdam 2004: 739 104; 2005: 742 783
Rotterdam 2004: 598 923; 2005: 596 407


----------



## blue79 (Nov 16, 2005)

For Bulgaria

1.Sofia-capital-1.45m
2.Plovdiv-350000


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Horst said:


> Sorry friends, from international view Chicago has nearly no importance.
> Washington or Los Angeles compete for US' 2nd city.


Are you speaking solely of the perception of Chicago overseas, or it's _actual_ importance? 'Cause seriously, it's pretty crazy either way. 

It's such a misunderstood city. But so is LA; it's much more than Hollywood.


----------



## Shanghai City (Jan 22, 2006)

China biggest Metro`s
Shanghai: 22.000.000 (in city 14.000.000)
Beijing: 15.000.000 (in city 9.000.000)
Chongqing: 13.500.000 (in city 7.000.000)
Shenzhen: 11.000.000 (in city 2.000.000)
Guangzhou: 10.000.000 (in city 6.000.000)
Tianjin: 10.000.000 (in city 7.000.000)
Shenyang: 8.500.000 (in city 6.000.000)
Harbin: 7.000.000 (in city 6.000.000)
Nanjing: 6.500.000 (in city 3.500.000)
Xian: 6.000.000 (in citx 3.000.000)


----------



## Danish_guy (May 18, 2005)

Shanghai City said:


> China biggest Metro`s
> Shanghai: 22.000.000 (in city 14.000.000)
> Beijing: 15.000.000 (in city 9.000.000)
> Chongqing: 13.500.000 (in city 7.000.000)
> ...


where is Hong kong?
Hong kong is 6.700.000 in city and is the same as Shenzen in metro area

edit: 

Copenhagen: 500.000 in city. And allmost 2.000.000 in metro (only danish side)

Århus: 291.000 in city. a bit over 400.000 in metro.


----------



## XCRunner (Nov 19, 2005)

TheKansan said:


> This is probably the least helpful list of statistics so far in this thread, So by your logic Chicago is more important because 60 years ago it was bigger than LA???? Well by the same logic Charleston is one of the most important cities in the US.....lol
> 
> Im sorry but based purely on population it is obvious which city in the US is second largest. Unless the Chicago metro has grown by 3 million people since the last census.
> 
> Imagine being born in a city and within your lifetime it growing to be 4 times as large as when you were a kid. I live in a city that has declined in population for decades, so it isn't even imaginable to me.


Did you even read the quote in my post? Obviously not. He said he would like to see some stats of US populations of citites while America was growing to compare them to current developing countries. I wasn't posting it to show that Chicago was better than LA, I was posting it b/c he said he would like the stats and I had them.

Show me the place in my post where it says that I posted that to show that Chicago was better than LA.... well?... I'm waiting... go ahead and show me you jack ass. Oh, can't find it? Maybe that's b/c I NEVER SAID THAT! Try not putting words in other people's mouths, and then maybe we can have an intelligent argument here.


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

Danish_guy said:


> where is Hong kong?
> 
> edit: Hong kong is 6.700.000 in city and is the same as Shenzen in metro area


It's always a problem how to define the metropolitan areas of HK and Shenzhen.Neither of them wants to be a metropolitan area of the other.


----------



## Shanghai City (Jan 22, 2006)

i have HK include in the Shenzhen Area, but i can change Shenzhen into Hongkong. But it is same Area!!??


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

> Los Angeles is the center of American culture,


If that were the case (and I don't believe it is), wouldn't LA actually lose points? One could make an argument that "American culture" is an oxymoron. To prove it, consider the real center of American culture is Paris (Hilton, that is).


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

svs said:


> The reality is that New York city is the cultural and population leader in the US. LA is second with the lead in visual and recording media. Chicago is way pack in the pack and fading except maybe as an architectural showcase. (


True about Chicago. We actually shut down last week. But we weren't important enough to have that noticed by the media.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

In the United States, there is a huge gap between our top tier, super- major global city and the others. Our # 1 does tend to leave other cities in its dust. However, I do think that New York and LA have gotten realistic about it and realize they never will reach Chicago's lofty status, and have thus become more comfortable accepting their own.  :bash:  :bash:


----------



## cityhater (Jan 4, 2005)

I tend to see that this practice of "bringing Chicagoans down to earth" is often followed by hypocrisy in overstating LA's importance. Of course, in our little world, entertainment is everything. 

In reality, the two cities are as overinflated in their importance as they are in what they bring to the table. 

LA the cultural capital. Hilarious.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

svs said:


> The reality is that New York city is the cultural and population leader in the US. LA is second with the lead in visual and recording media.


Alright, I know I was the one trying to put a lid on this at first, but looking back at svs's post(s), I can't help but say something.

You say that Chicagoans overestimate the importance of their city, and use _visual and recording media_ as your reference?! :lol:


----------



## muckie (Mar 14, 2006)

Although Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are huge metropolis
All of Rio's importance, bank headquarters, industry headquarters, cultural events, etc, were forced to move to Sao Paulo. So Sao Paulo grows richer everyday concentrating Brazil's efforts and sucking what is left of Rio's economy; while Rio's grows thinner and poorer.


----------

