# Is Chicago at the same level as New York-London-Paris-Tokyo??



## gronier (Mar 2, 2005)

Chicago must be one of the most awsome cities in the world. It has 10 million people in it's metro area, the tallest building in the US, an evergrowing skyline, it's and Alpha City, and it's the second biggest financial center of the largest economy in the world by far, with a highest income per head than Paris, London and Tokio.
So, why isn't Chicago considered at the same level of these 4 cities??

Here I left you some pictures:


----------



## rt_0891 (Mar 13, 2005)

For one, it still lacks prominent International institutions. It is also overshadowed by NYC. Its downtown-CBD is comparably smaller than the big 4.


----------



## alex3000 (Oct 20, 2002)

Nope. Close but nahh...


----------



## gronier (Mar 2, 2005)

But the question is: If Chicago would be in England and London in Illinois, wouldn't Chicago be considered one of the big 4 and London overshadowed by New York??
Saying that the only reason that why Chicago isn't there is because of it's geographical position sounds silly.

And to my English friends, I love London, I think it's one of the best cities in the world, it was just an example.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

I think people tend to underestimate Chicago as just some second-class Midwestern city. In fact it has some of the world's best museums and its universities are top-notch in the US and World (Kellogg, UofC, etc.). It has many financial institutions as well as CBOT, the world’s oldest (and America’s largest) future’s market and the Merchandise Mart. Add to that the architectural gems and important architects of Chicago and its diversity, along with it being the transportation hub of America and home to many HQs (both downtown and metro) and a counter culture to NY (deep dish, Broadway West) as well as shopping that rivals other cities and it should be up there.

Yes, it does not have the history of London and Paris, and yes it is smaller than NYC and Tokyo, but it holds it ground as a distinctive world, full-service city that is clean, something you can't say NY is. It's just as easy to attack the "Big 4" (really 5 with HK) as it is to attack Chicago.


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

for the income per head, tokyo should be more than chicago


----------



## rt_0891 (Mar 13, 2005)

gronier said:


> But the question is: If Chicago would be in England and London in Illinois, wouldn't Chicago be considered one of the big 4 and London overshadowed by New York.
> Saying that the only reason that why Chicago isn't there is because of it's geographical position sounds silly.
> 
> And to my English friends, I love London, I think it's one of the best cities in the world, it was just an example.


Then London wouldn't be London, and all its landmarks and institutions would be up in smoke. There wouldn't even be the Big Ben, lol.


----------



## gronier (Mar 2, 2005)

Yes, but objectively, Chicago is more important for the world economy than London and Paris.


----------



## rt_0891 (Mar 13, 2005)

Well, the economy shouldn't be the single factor that determines a city's importance. There's also the influence and export of culture, trends, etc..


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

What else should we take about then? 

Music- home to many bands and musicians and to blues/jazz and House
Cuisine- like mentioned before, deep dish pizza, Eli's cake, hotdogs, etc.
Sports- two baseball teams, one NFL team, one NBA team, one NHL team, one soccer team
Stadiums- Soldier's Field was a magnificient stadium to begin with and with the modernization that I'm slowly liking, it has the best views in the league. I'd mention Comiskey but that's long gone, and Wrigley is just great, even if you don't like baseball. It's the second oldest in the league, the only pro stadium in the world to my knowledge that doesn't allow advertisements, doesn't use electronic signs and scoreboards, and for a long time didn't have stadium lights because Mr. Wrigley donated them to the war effort.
Candy capital of the world
Many national conventions are held in Chicago
NA's largest autoshow is in Chicago and CATA is larger than anywhere else in the US.
The Mayor of Chicago has long been considered the best in the country.
Chicago has more sister-cities than NY
Chicago is situated on Lake Michigan and is ranked higher than Paris, London, and Tokyo for skylines
Chicago is most likely #1 city for medical centers and schools
Chicago is featured in many movies and TV shows, and has/had large daytime audience shows like Oprah, Jerry Springer, and Jenny Jones.
Steppenwolf and Second City are just some of the more edgy theatre work Chicago produces, compared to NY.


I think that's quite impressive for a city in the middle of a country with less than 200 years of history (of course the Native Americans were there long before).


----------



## rt_0891 (Mar 13, 2005)

spyguy999 said:


> I think that's quite impressive for a city in the middle of a country with less than 200 years of history (of course the Native Americans were there long before).


It is impressive, but most of your criteria is US oriented.. e.g. skyline, car shows, professional American sports teams, stadiums, sister cities(?!?),mayor, candy capital, etc. Looks more like a NYC - Chitown comparison to me..
Your efforts are laudable though. IMO, Chicago's music and nightlife scene is a bit behind the top 4.

Rather than striving to be an International city like the top 4, what Chicago does really well is establishing itself as the true American city. Bet it's because you're right smack in the middle of the country.. in the Midwest.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

It's called the Big Four for a reason.


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

hngcm said:


> It's called the Big Four for a reason.


What cities are included in the Big Four? Let me rephrase.............what is the Big Four?


----------



## sean storm (Nov 18, 2004)

you must be living in la-la-land if you think chicago is on par with NYC, London, Paris or Tokyo.... 

it ain't. 

it's on par with LA, HK, Singapore, Milan, and Osaka. look at the brookings institute for world city ranking.

chicago might be the second biggest business city in the US but it lacks the international prestige and cosmopolitan, multi-cultural depth of places like nyc and london and paris. chicago's too american.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

gronier said:


> Chicago is more important for the world economy than London and Paris.


:hilarious :laugh: :hahaha: :lol: :laugh: :laugh: :hilarious :lol: :hahaha:


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

chicago doesnt have political power and international institutions


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Chicago is only a big, important american city, I'm exagerating, but, away from the US, who really cares about Chicago? It is much less renowed around the world, then the other 4 cities


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

^that's the usual ignorance of this whole board. A lot of cities are highly over inflated on this board because they are most important in given country. That doesn't make them more important than or even on the level of Chicago. 

Most interesting is that in this very post, Chicago is accused of certain things it is not, while said criteria can be used against those cities too. Those cities that are called the big 4 on this board are simply that. Instead of people just posting that Chicago isn't on the level, I'd like to see some actual evidence or criteria to compare Chicago to these other cities with. That's my challenge for this board. Prove that Chicago isn't on par.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

Is Chicago at the same level of New York-Paris-Tokio-London?? 

As the ultimate Chicagologist, I must answer this *"emphatically,no!!!"*

Chicago is at a much higher level.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

Okay then, below are some stats and info about London, taken from another thread.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*London*

has the largest foreign currency exchange market in the world, handling more money than New York and Tokyo combined. Average
daily turnover is more than $0.5 trillion.


Along with The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, there are more than 550 international banks and 170 global
securities houses which have set up offices in London. By contrast Frankfurt has around 280, Paris 270 and New York 250.


World's largest insurance market.


More billionaires live in London than any other city in the world (44, compared with New York's 34 and Moscow's 21).


has the most expensive neighbourhood in the world (Kensington Palace Gardens), where the average house price is $85 million,
compared with $5.6 million for the _next_ most expensive (Jupiter Island, Florida).


has the world's most expensive office space, far ahead of Tokyo and New York.


has the world's largest (by route kilometres) and oldest (1865) subway system.


is the world's busiest international airport hub.


300 languages are spoken in London, more than any other city in the world.


has more parks and green spaces than any other city of its size in the world. Almost 40% of its total area is green.


has an incredibly long and rich history, having been founded more than 2,000 years ago. Chicago by comparison is only 175 years old.


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

Isn't people who live in chicago call Chicagoan?

Anyways... from another opinion for a chicagoan and Chicagoist...

Chicago isnt on the same level, because of Lack of media...
with media, Chicago is much higher rank than it is right now, maybe even rank on the same level as them...


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

I'd say no. It has assets that compare closely for the most part to the "big four", but it doesn't have nearly the global importance culturally or politically.


----------



## rt_0891 (Mar 13, 2005)

rantanamo said:


> ^that's the usual ignorance of this whole board. A lot of cities are highly over inflated on this board because they are most important in given country. That doesn't make them more important than or even on the level of Chicago.
> 
> Most interesting is that in this very post, Chicago is accused of certain things it is not, while said criteria can be used against those cities too. Those cities that are called the big 4 on this board are simply that. Instead of people just posting that Chicago isn't on the level, I'd like to see some actual evidence or criteria to compare Chicago to these other cities with. That's my challenge for this board. Prove that Chicago isn't on par.


Why should others be forced to carry the onus of proving Chicago's unworthiness to be in the top 4? 

This thread is started by an American Chicago-supporter, and it is up to Chicago to prove that it has the International importance and prestige to stand up to the big four. And don't give me US based criteria only like skylines, NBA, the mayor, or sister cities. They're not qualities that supports the designation of being one of the top four.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

The Chicago futures and options exchanges collectively dominate exchange-based derivatives trading in the U.S.
2003 U.S. Exchange-Traded Futures & Options
Chicago63%
New York16%
Philadelphia5%
San Francisco4%
Kansas City<1%
Minneapolis<1%

Top 2003 Global Derivatives Centers (by volume of trades)
Chicago1.38 billion
New York.59 billion
Frankfurt.48 billion
London.44 billion
Zurich.43 billion
Sao Palo.30 billion
Paris.28 billion
Mexico City.17 billion
Tokyo.13 billion
Philadelphia.11 billion

When it comes to scale, the U.S. derivatives market is still the biggest single market in the world and of course Chicago is at its center.
2003 Notional Value of Contracts Traded at Top 5 Exchanges ($ trillion)
Chicago Mercantile Exchange$334
EuronextLiffe$252
Eurex$80
Chicago Board of Trade$77
Chicago Board Options Exchange$5

Chicago's financial services sector added more jobs during the preceding business cycle than the other top U.S. finance centers.
1990-2000
Chicago+28,600 jobs (+23.1%)
New York-20,000 jobs (-6.1%)
Los Angeles-27,300 jobs (-21.3%)
-------


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

No, definitly not - although an impressive city but never has this influence on its continent as NY, LA, Sao Paulo, Hong Kong...

I think it's on the same Beta-city level as Frankfurt, Zurich, Osaka and Buenos Aires. Although it has the biggest airport in the world


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

Chicago is alpha not beta...


----------



## wickedestcity (Jul 23, 2004)

the question is , what would happen if chicago suddenly dissapeared, not destroyed nor anyone killed but the city just dissapeared along with all it contributions to the world in its econnomy its influences etc. try to comprehend the magnitude of that situation and the enormous loss the world would be at and impact that would have on the world and its economy then you might begin to understand the magnitude of the greatest city in modern history-Chicago. think of all the things chicago brings to the world and imaguin a world without it.then imaguin all the things that indirectly influenced buy chicago and that enormouse pool of things be it in music , finance, art or architectur,etc etc. etc. i could go on forever. idonno man id say chicgao has more influence and impact on the world than you might see on the surface. chicago is not a very boastfull city and loud city , were not like hey look at me with both arms waving over its head jumping up and down in a croud like these other "big 4" do.but if you look close enough youll see that chicago very quietly has more impact on the world than most any other city in the world.


----------



## Zarkon (Dec 22, 2004)

Mhhh why not?


----------



## kyenan (Mar 22, 2003)

In order for Chicago to be in the same league with New York, London, Paris, and Tokyo, it has to be:

Be larger--has at least more than 7 milion population in Chicago proper.

Be more culturally influential--have something like British Museum, Lincoln Center, and Kabukicho.

I think if Chicago meets the two conditions, it is enough to be another best cities in the world.


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

new york has uno, paris as unesco , ect.
what has chicago ?


----------



## *Sweetkisses* (Dec 26, 2004)

I think it is. I love chi town!!!


----------



## wickedestcity (Jul 23, 2004)

kyenan said:


> Be more culturally influential--have something like British Museum, Lincoln Center, and Kabukicho.


 how influential is it if iv never heard of any of those places


----------



## rt_0891 (Mar 13, 2005)

wickedestcity said:


> how influential is it if iv never heard of any of those places


Then you need to travel more. :no: They are world renowned institutions, like the Louvre and the MET.


----------



## NWside (Oct 1, 2003)

Chicago is on the same level of Toledo and Newark.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

Nope, Chicago is nowhere near the leavel of these four megacities. A great city in its own right, but a global heavy hitter it is not.


----------



## rt_0891 (Mar 13, 2005)

wickedestcity said:


> the question is , what would happen if chicago suddenly dissapeared, not destroyed nor anyone killed but the city just dissapeared along with all it contributions to the world in its econnomy its influences etc. try to comprehend the magnitude of that situation and the enormous loss the world would be at and impact that would have on the world and its economy ... think of all the things chicago brings to the world and imaguin a world without it.then imaguin all the things that indirectly influenced buy chicago and that enormouse pool of things be it in music , finance, art or architectur,etc etc. etc. i could go on forever. idonno man id say chicgao has more influence and impact on the world than you might see on the surface. chicago is not a very boastfull city and loud city , were not like hey look at me with both arms waving over its head jumping up and down in a croud like these other "big 4" do.but if you look close enough youll see that chicago very quietly has more impact on the world than most any other city in the world.



You're thinking mostly on the lines of economics. That alone doesn't dictate a city's greatness.



> then you might begin to understand the magnitude of the greatest city in modern history-Chicago.


:hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:


----------



## oshkeoto (Sep 21, 2004)

"Be larger--has at least more than 7 milion population in Chicago proper.

Be more culturally influential--have something like British Museum, Lincoln Center, and Kabukicho."

1. I'm not sure why there's some kind of set population minimum, or how that's anything but incredibly arbitrary.

2. Chicago does have world-famous cultural institutions--the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (a Japanese exchange kid who lived with one of my friends here demanded that the first thing he do was go to see the CSO), the Art Institute, the Field Museum, the Museum of Science and Industry...and our downtown is a veritable museum of modern architecture. Millennium Park is unlike anything else, and how many venues are there on Earth where you can hear a world-class symphony orchestra playing for free?

I'm not even saying Chicago's on a par with all these other cities, because I haven't been to most of them and I don't really care, but I'm just saying, don't sell this city short.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Chicago is great. Having lived in Chicago, and having Chicagoan relatives, I can definitely say it is my favorite US city. Chicago is strong economically, is a regional capital, and has some of the best global institutions. But, I still don't think the sum of these parts equal a first-level Alpha city, the same as NY, London, Tokyo and Paris. I don't think wiggling its way into the top 5 (btw Hong Kong has first dibs) will make the city any different (or for that matter, make me love it any more). I think the fact that it's in the same country as an Alpha first-tier city does make it harder to be a first-tier Alpha city. You can't have two Valedictorians, or two Formula 1 winners, or two Wimbledon winners (unless it's in pairs competition). A personal opinion like, I love Chicago, doesn't make it first-tier, but who cares about these labels anyway? I love Montreal, and it's not even a Beta city (mon Dieu!).


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

wickedestcity said:


> how influential is it if iv never heard of any of those places


That's just awful.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

You have never heard of the British Museum???!!! Pretty much makes the Chicago Art Institute look like a preschool art exhibit!!! :runaway:


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

wickedestcity said:


> how influential is it if iv never heard of any of those places


The British Museum (along with the Louvre) is probably the most famous museum in the world...


----------



## crawford (Dec 9, 2003)

wickedestcity said:


> how influential is it if iv never heard of any of those places


That settles it, Chicago is most definitely not an alpha city. It appears to attract provinical types with no cultural knowledge. You've never heard of Lincoln Center or the British Museum? 

:eek2:


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 29, 2004)

no


----------



## crawford (Dec 9, 2003)

wjfox2002 said:


> The British Museum (along with the Louvre) is probably the most famous museum in the world...


I'd say the Met, the Prado and the Hermitage are equally well known. Anyone not from the U.S. ever heard of a Chicago museum?


----------



## rt_0891 (Mar 13, 2005)

oshkeoto said:


> 2. Chicago does have world-famous cultural institutions--the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (a Japanese exchange kid who lived with one of my friends here demanded that the first thing he do was go to see the CSO), the Art Institute, the Field Museum, the Museum of Science and Industry...and our downtown is a veritable museum of modern architecture. Millennium Park is unlike anything else, and how many venues are there on Earth where you can hear a world-class symphony orchestra playing for free?


I don't think CSO is up there with London or NY Philharmonic though. 

Museum of Science & Industry? ... doesn't sound like a world class institution to me. 

American Museum of Natural History trumps Field Museum. 

Millennium was quite attractive and new, but don't think it's particulary that special.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Museum


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

I wouldn't be so proud of the British Museum. I've only visited it once because it was disgusting to see how many artifacts were stolen or "legally" obtained from other countries.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

Also, don't take my comments the wrong way. A lot of the stuff is legitamtely theirs and the museum is great, but the excuses they make to keep things that the home country wants back are terrible.


----------



## wickedestcity (Jul 23, 2004)

Louvre iv heard of ! theres no comparison! you go to 10 people and 9 out of 10 will have heard of the Louvre but only mabey 3 out of 10 will have heard of the British Museum. basicly only the ones who are either interested in art or have lived or visited there. but the Lourve averyone heard of. 
also you made a coment about chicago and how it appears to attract provinical types with no cultural knowledge. i dont think you know who your talking to , ive lived in over 7 dif. cities, traveled over 60% of north america(u.s.,canada,mexico) and ive toured through about 80% of Europe, iv been to several countries in the Middel-East(also lived in israel for a while) ive seen more of the world in my short 23 years than most people do in a life time!


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

What about Chicago's shedd aquarium

or Lincoln Park Zoo...?

SOmeone have to know about those thingy..

C'mon...


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Did you hear that Dr Fox?

Only 3/10 people have heard of the British Musem...compared to 9/10 to the Louvre!

Icidently 

Louvre scores 2,310,000 hits on google

and the British Museum 50,600,000


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

WTF??????? come on guys, your obsessive pro-Chicago rants are forcing me to downgrade my impression of your magnificient, although not alpha, city. hno:


----------



## rt_0891 (Mar 13, 2005)

wickedestcity said:


> also you made a coment about chicago and how it appears to attract provinical types with no cultural knowledge. i dont think you know who your talking to , ive lived in over 7 dif. cities, traveled over 60% of north america(u.s.,canada,mexico) and ive toured through about 80% of Europe, iv been to several countries in the Middel-East(also lived in israel for a while) ive seen more of the world in my short 23 years than most people do in a life time!


And you've never heard of the British Museum? :eek2:



Azn_chi_boi said:


> What about Chicago's shedd aquarium
> 
> or Lincoln Park Zoo...?


San Diego zoo is more famous than Lincoln Park Zoo.. lol.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

Chicago is an alpha city so that doesn't matter 
We're discussing if it is top-tier or not though.

And someone said that pro-Chicago people should defend and prove why it is so great, so that's what we are doing.


----------



## wickedestcity (Jul 23, 2004)

Shedd Aquarium is the World's Aquarium. Opened in 1929, it is one of the oldest public aquariums in the world. The facility houses nearly 21,000 aquatic animals representing some 1,500 species of fishes, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, birds and mammals from waters around the world.Approximately 2 million guests visit Shedd Aquarium each year.Shedd has the oldest aquatic animal in a public aquarium in the world, an Australian lungfish named Granddad.Shedd Aquarium’s Oceanarium is the largest indoor marine mammal facility in the world.The Aquarium houses the largest public display of live corals in the Midwest.

lincoln park zoo-
And although it is among the oldest zoological gardens in the country (established in 1868), it also is among the most modern—a leader in wildlife conservation, community education and recreation.A premier Chicago attraction, Lincoln Park Zoo each year welcomes more than 3 million visitors, providing them with remarkable learning experiences as well as fun and enjoyment.As Lincoln Park continues to evolve into one of the finest zoos worldwide, the one element that will not change is its admission policy: Lincoln Park Zoo stands as one of the last free major cultural institutions in the United States and the only one left in Chicago.


----------



## crawford (Dec 9, 2003)

^
You think Chicago is alpha because of an aquarium? 
:runaway: 

Every city has an aquarium and zoo. Lincoln Park Zoo isn't even a major zoo. Shedd Aquarium is nice, but the National Aquarium is much better. Coney Island and the New England Aquarium are probably just as good. Fish tanks are amusements or educational, not cultural venues.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

There is no important political decisions token in Chicago, no important world institution is over there, and it is overshadowed by New York, its as simple as that


----------



## wickedestcity (Jul 23, 2004)

^i was just expounding on somones thoughts. 
anyways its not the aquarium or zoo alone that makes chicago so good, its the shear amount of things in chicago that are among the best in the world. it challange other cities on there status in these genres. the thing is we got so many that top out the charts that its hard to look the other way and say chicago is anything less than a "top-tier" city.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

(not my pics)

The Art Institute of Chicago:








































The Field Museum, housing Sue:








The Museum of Science and Industry: includes the Apollo 8 capsule, a U-505, and the Pioneer Zephyr
































The Shedd Aquarium:








The Adler Planetarium, first planetarium built in the western hemisphere:








Mexican Anthropology Museum, best collection of pre-Columbian artifacts in the world
Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies: (after renovation)








Millenium Park:

























And that's not including more of the lesser known museums or any theatres.

Seriously though, you guys go in circles. First you bring up economic importance, then someone says replies and you move on to cultural importance, then when someone shows examples of that you go back to economic institutions.

And for political weight, Chicago is basically the Democratic-machine.


----------



## tocoto (Jan 18, 2003)

I would say Chicago and Paris are on the same level. Chicago, NYC and London are not.


----------



## gronier (Mar 2, 2005)

high_flyer said:


> Fascinating Gronier......
> 
> But back to the conversation, I'm not knocking Chicago, it looks like a great city, *but its just not as big as LDN, NYC or Paris*. Can't really explain it, its just not as famous around the world. Lack of media exposure I guess


Actually, it is bigger than London and Paris.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

DonQui said:


> Chicago has always been a second city to NYC. NYC has the economic power of this country. People care about what happend on the New York Stock Exchange. NY is the seat of the United Nations.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, have any of you actually been to these cities to compare them? I have been to Chicago, live in NYC, and have visited London and Paris. And from what I have seen, Chicago occupies a lower rung of the global ladder from these three cities.


People also care about the future's market and commodities, and that's why news channels have to switch to Chicago to cover those things.

Also, didn't NYC's mayor say that he wouldn't mind the UN leaving the city because the site the UN building sits on is very valuable? Hehe.

I've been to NYC, London, and Paris and have been meaning to go to Tokyo.


----------



## cncity (Feb 16, 2005)

LA is bigger than Chicago ..i guess..chicago is the 3rd city in US ? :cheers:


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

Population wise, yeah. Look at what country California borders. There's your reason.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

size actually makes Chicago look worse in relation to London and Paris. Chicagoland is a metropolitan area of 10 million in a country with a population of 270 million. Barely represent 4% of the population. London's metropolitan area, which is in fact larger that Chicago, holds close to 20% of the UK's population. While Paris and Chicagoland are approximately the same size population wise, Paris represents a similarly large percentage of France's population. Tokyo represents a full 25% of Japan's population. NY's metropolitan area represents about 10% of the country's population.

In short, Chicago is a drop in the bucket in terms of the US, whereas NY, Paris, London, and Tokyo are important centers for the entire country. This is in part one of the many reasons for NY's, Paris's, London's, and Tokyo's relative dominance worldwide.


----------



## high_flyer (Jan 30, 2003)

gronier said:


> Actually, it is bigger than London and Paris.


I didn't mean in literal terms, I meant in figurative terms :| 
Anyway this is boring, all very petty, you clearly can't seem to accept that LDN, NYC and Paris are more famous and more important then Chicago. If that's what you want to believe good for you, someone has to :runaway:


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

Good God, I hope that no one actually thinks that LA is better than Chicago? I do not care how much bigger LA is than Chicago, LA cannot compete with Chicago. Chicago is never second to LA.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

I think we're forgetting what this thread's purpose was. It was not asking if Chicago is better than the four mentioned cities. I think most people in this thread are tripping over that idea and are defending their cities, rightfully so. But what I do think it's asking is if Chicago is in the same field as these cities and just as competitive.


----------



## high_flyer (Jan 30, 2003)

Most rational people are saying Chicago isn't in the same field and isn't as competitive.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

How is it not competitive? It has the infrastructure, it has the location, it has the facilities and services, it has factories, it has the offices, it has affordable housing (something the other four do not have), and it has the attractions.


----------



## high_flyer (Jan 30, 2003)

Oh I don't care, are you really that bothered?!? If we do say yes, it is as good as those cities, are you gonna feel like a better person? Doubt it. Its a great city, enjoy it, don't waste your time worrying what others think of it


----------



## wickedestcity (Jul 23, 2004)

"Lack of media exposure I guess"
exactly , if your a sucker for what the media tells you and you let it tell you whats important and whats not and you let what the media says run your life then yes chicago doesnt have a huge face in the media. but the bottom line is whats in reality and if you measure things out properly then the reality is that chicago is extreamly dominant on the world sceen. i wouldnt say its better than any of these other cities but i feel it would be ignorant to say its any less


----------



## high_flyer (Jan 30, 2003)

So this is what its like to have a biased and warped view, I feel sorry for you


----------



## qwerty1324 (Jun 6, 2003)

spyguy999 said:


> Just proves my point. Either you complain that Chicago offer's nothing culturally or you make fun of whatever it has. Just makes NYC fit into its stereotype of harsh, unhospitable, and overall arrogant.


Crawford is from provincial Indiana or Michigan or something place like that.


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

gronier said:


> The thing is that the British can't accept that we have two cities that are more important than London.


Chicago is not even _as_ important as London, period. That is a plain fact. London is the economic, political and cultural capitol of the UK. It has put out more famous residents than probably any other single city in the world. It has been a major world cultural center for at least 500 years. Chicago is _not_ on that level, so let's just drop that idea shall we?

Is Chicago on the same level as NYC? Close, but probably not. The two are at almost the same level economically, but I think most would agree that NYC has an edge. That's about the only point where you could really argue, though. NYC is clearly more politically important, very clearly more culturally important and almost painfully more historically important. There is no point talking about the two being comparable in anything other than economics and skyscrapers.

Tokyo? C'mon. 

Paris? Maybe. I think Paris sticks out as slightly less important than NYC-London-Tokyo in the first place. I would be willing to hear an argument in favor of Chicago and Paris on the same tier. But beyond that, this discussion should be over already. Chicago is most emphatically not on the same level as NYC-London-Tokyo.


----------



## Q-TIP (Feb 14, 2005)

no


----------



## shibuya_suki (Apr 24, 2005)

honesty,chicago isnt the top4 cities
it just an international city and national centre of usa
for its size and world influence,it just as similar as hongkong or sydney....


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

Justadude said:


> gronier said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is that the British can't accept that we have two cities that are more important than London.
> ...


Justadude, everything you say here is true. :yes:


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

I've been to all and, I am biased, as Chicago is my hometown, and frankly I think Chicago is better, in many ways.

No it doesn't have the (puke) government institutions of a Londaon or Paris (thank god) or the UN (barf) of New York, but heck one woman in Chicago, Oprah, is just about as powerful. Every compny in the world is ready to fly to O'Hare to kiss her behind.

Chicago's influence is not of the high-falutin media self-congratulatroy variety. Being the city that is home to more Nobel prize winners might be important, but it doesn't captivate the masses.

Chicago has contributed more to world culture in the last 150 years than either London or Paris. That's for sure. 

Who cares if a bunch of confused Europeans can't imagine one country having more than one grand city. If Europe evolves into a country as it seems to be doing, which one European city will be at the highest level???

Because 300,000,000 Americans seem capable of only producing one city to rival the greats of the Old World. 

Just keep enjoying your house, blues, and jazz, keep admiring skyscrapers, keep enjoying food price stability, keep eating at fast food joints. and keep thinking of Chicago as a provincial American hick town.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

About the muesums: I would say, THIS is big point for Chicago. For an American city it's as educated and "cultured" as New York, Boston and Washington (the latter also has a few very good museums). We always say: if you want to see European art go to the states, they imported everything 

Population: this is not at all a factor: cities like Bruxelles or Geneva have less than 200k in the city proper and a metro of about 1mio and are very important. Vienna, Munich, Zurich, Stockholm, Copenhagen are well known all around the world and have all some 1.5-2mio metros. Do you know an American city of this size that can compete with these towns? And I don't mean Memphis or Nashville that are only famous because of one single thing...


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

Didnt you live an born in ROckford. ^

Anyways....









lol... feels like she is as big of a celebrity than any of LA's celebrities. 

Of course we can't forget about Chicago's monarch, one of, if not the most famous mayor in America.

Chicago could compare to Paris when you think of it, and Hong Kong who claims to be Top 5.


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

Rockford said:


> Chicago has contributed more to world culture in the last 150 years than either London or Paris. That's for sure.


Whaaaaa?!??!?


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

I'm not sure why Paris is part of this list, other than culturally. But that's fine.

Is Chicago part of the group of 3 (or 4) cities right now. IMHO, probably not.

That said, and as someone who knows Chicago intimately (and has known it for a long time, and thus been aware of its rate of change), my sense is that Chicago is very much heading into the direction of those the cities being discussed.

Chicago is literally rebuilding itself in the most spectacular way. That redevelopment is not only taking place downtown, not only on the North Side, but all over the city.

This is pure speculation on my part, but in ten years, nobody will be able to recongize the place. Issues of distance between power cities has been raised as a issue here, but the closeness of London and Paris negates much of the argument. IMHO, Chicago and New York could, at some point, be a similiar relationship.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

DonQui said:


> size actually makes Chicago look worse in relation to London and Paris. Chicagoland is a metropolitan area of 10 million in a country with a population of 270 million. Barely represent 4% of the population. London's metropolitan area, which is in fact larger that Chicago, holds close to 20% of the UK's population. While Paris and Chicagoland are approximately the same size population wise, Paris represents a similarly large percentage of France's population. Tokyo represents a full 25% of Japan's population. NY's metropolitan area represents about 10% of the country's population.
> 
> In short, Chicago is a drop in the bucket in terms of the US, whereas NY, Paris, London, and Tokyo are important centers for the entire country. This is in part one of the many reasons for NY's, Paris's, London's, and Tokyo's relative dominance worldwide.


all of which is negated by the sheer power of the US. The size of the nation is irrelevant. Besides, in a global age, cities can operate as power centers irrespective of national boundaries.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Rockford said:


> I've been to all and, I am biased, as Chicago is my hometown, and frankly I think Chicago is better, in many ways.
> 
> No it doesn't have the (puke) government institutions of a Londaon or Paris (thank god) or the UN (barf) of New York, but heck one woman in Chicago, Oprah, is just about as powerful. Every compny in the world is ready to fly to O'Hare to kiss her behind.
> 
> ...



Chicago did not, whatever you might say more contribute to world culture in the last 150 years then London or Paris, sorry dude, and by the way what is world culture?

London is the pop culture capital of the world, both have high history in terms of classical music and opera, both where home to many many world famous writters for the last 150 years. I mean, Paris is the house of the institut of the arab world, the world's biggest museum, many more museums that could easily compet with what Chicago has to offer, France has the biggest (I didn't say the best, because that is personnal) film industry in Europe and Paris is the center of most of these films, London is also home to many important cultural icons. Chicago is a cool city, and is very interesting culturally, but to say it has more contributed to "world culture" (which does not mean a thing) then those two is just chauvinism


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

Ok, I've recovered from my shock at that statement enough to form a response to that one. I'm not going to go into a long detailed explanation. I'll just throw out some names and we can all ponder how Chicago compares.

London:
T.S. Eliot
The Beatles (Abbey Road Studio)
Alfred Hitchcock
Charles Dickens
The Communist Manifesto
George Orwell
The Tube
Virginia Woolfe
Sherlock Holmes
Harrod's
Oscar Wilde
Charlie Chaplin
David Bowie
Salman Rushdie
The Clash

Paris: 
Lumiere brothers
Degas
Monet
Jules Verne
Proust
Debussy
Rodin
Dumas
Hugo
Van Gogh (significant works)
The Eiffel Tower
Impressionism
Expressionism
Deconstructionism
Ravel
Daguerre
Paris Peace Conference (1919)



> keep thinking of Chicago as a provincial American hick town.


Well, your argument above didn't do much to help that situation did it?


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

Rockford said:


> Chicago has contributed more to world culture in the last 150 years than either London or Paris. That's for sure.


Sorry, but that is a frankly laughable statement to make.

I don't deny for a moment that Chicago is a great city. It's a fantastic city. In fact, it's one of my favourite cities in the world, and would easily be in my Top 10 (see this thread).

But ............... to say it has influenced world culture more than London and Paris over the last 150 years is just plain wrong.

:uh:


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

by the way, if you google for "London Authors", you'll get 677 "Chicago authors" gets 798 hits among some of the well-known
Ernest Hemingway
Saul Bellow
Nelson Algren
Studs Terkel
Gwendolyn Brooks
Theodore Dreiser
Ray Bradbury
Upton Sinclair

Improv Comedy
Poetry Slams
House Music
Electric Blues
Lotsa of Big Band Jazz 
Benny Goodman swing swing 
(check out http://jazzinstituteofchicago.org/)
Skyscrapers
Frank Llyod Wright/Prairie School
and about a million contributions to the Industrial and business economy
such as futures, options and other derivitives in finance
and catalog sales (Sears) and mosern fast food (McDonald's in retailing/marketing

trust me, the list goes on and on

and if you are a fan of communism (someone listed Marx)

May Day has its roots in Chicago May 1, 1886.

How many cities have created a global holiday at age 50?


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

wjfox2002 said:


> Sorry, but that is a frankly laughable statement to make.
> 
> I don't deny for a moment that Chicago is a great city. It's a fantastic city. In fact, it's one of my favourite cities in the world, and would easily be in my Top 10 (see this thread).
> 
> ...


whatever. Contain your shock. Prove me wrong.

Heck, just with skyscrapers and house music and McDonald's Chicago has made a more visible and audio impact on the cities of the world than has London or Paris.

Hell, Oprah alone is broadcast in 111 countries and arguably has more global influence than any Frenchman or Brit alive. Seriously. At least with the double X chromosome set.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

What a pity I know only 2 people on your list and all the ones from the Paris/London one :lol:


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

Rockford said:


> whatever. Contain your shock. Prove me wrong.
> 
> Heck, just with skyscrapers and house music and McDonald's Chicago has made a more visible and audio impact on the cities of the world than has London or Paris.
> 
> Hell, Oprah alone is broadcast in 111 countries and arguably has more global influence than any Frenchman or Brit alive. Seriously. At least with the double X chromosome set.


Hmm ... this is starting to sound like trolling to me... :sly:


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

And a little education here. No Chicago doesn't have the UN or the British and French governments, but it is home to the WORLD"S LARGEST ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT company, Smith Bucklin. Here's a list of some of what they manage(run). Again, this is typical Chicago.
Client Organizations
SmithBucklin provides full-service management and function/project-specific services to more than 185 trade associations, professional societies, technology user groups and government institutes/agencies. Following is a list of SmithBucklin client organizations:

Business Trade Industry Practice
Health Care Industry Practice
Technology Industry Practice
Government Institutes/Agencies, Corporations
and Other Non-Profit Organizations
Business Trade

Full-Service Management
American Bearing Manufacturers Association
American Health & Beauty Aids Institute
American Ladder Institute
American Spice Trade Association
American Zinc Association
Association of Steel Distributors
Battery Council International
Business-Higher Education Forum
Center for Exhibition Industry Research
Check Payment Systems Association
Chicago Estate Planning Council
Cosmetologists Chicago
Cremation Association of North America
ICPA, An Association of Insurance and Financial Services Conference Planners
Illinois Cosmetology Association
Institute of Management Consultants USA
International Association of Airport Duty Free Stores
International Business Brokers Association
International Carwash Association
International Customer Service Association
International Formalwear Association
International Reprographic Association
International Special Events Society
Managed Funds Association
Metal Framing Manufacturers Association
Monument Builders of North America
Museum Trustee Association
National Association for County Community and Economic Development
National Association of Floor Covering Distributors
National Association of Independent Fee Appraisers
National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies
National Cosmetology Association
National Institute of Pension Administrators
National Organization for Competency Assurance
North American Building Materials Distribution Association
North American Building Materials Distribution Association- Education Foundation
Pet Food Institute
Popcorn Board
Popcorn Institute
Regional Airline Association
Society of Incentive & Travel Executives
The International Forum
Wallcoverings Association
Wallcoverings Council

Function- or Project-Specific Services
American Gas Association
American Inns of Court
American Records Management Association
American Resort Development Association
Association of Legal Administrators
Association of Meeting Professionals
Association of Millwork Distributors
Commercial Real Estate Women
Food Equipment Manufacturers Association
Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting
International Baking Industry Exposition
International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
International Magnetics Conference
International Tanning Association
Interstate Hotels & Resorts
KEHE Food Distributors
Magnetism & Magnetic Materials Conference
National Association of College and University Business Officers
National Association of Graduate Counselors
National Biodiesal Board
National Board of Certified Counselors
North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers
Peter Hannaford & Associates
Pressure Sensitive Tape Council
Professional Convention Management Association
Project Management Institute
Society of the Plastics Industry
United Soybean Board
UTAM, Inc.
Wheat Industry Partners

[Back to Index]
Health Care
Full-Service Management
Academy of Dispensing Audiologists
American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry
American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry- Educational Foundation
American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation
American Association of Legal Nurse Consultants
American Society for Bone and Mineral Research
American Society of Hand Therapists
American Urogynecologic Society
The Certifying Board of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates
International Bone and Mineral Society
International Society for Experimental Hematology
Lamaze International
National Association for Healthcare Access Management
National Association of Orthopaedic Nurses
Orthopaedic Nurses Certification Board
Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates
Society of Gynecologic Oncologists
Southwestern Surgical Congress
Special Care Dentistry
US Breastfeeding Committee

Function- or Project-Specific Services
Alzheimer's Association
American Health Information Management Association
American Pharmacists Association
American Society of Healthcare Engineers
American Society of Hematology
American Society of Nephrology
Assocation of American Medical Colleges
Association for Healthcare Resource & Materials Management
Child Care Consortium
Co-op National Vision Rehab
Coordinating Committee on Continuing Education in Thoracic Surgery
Healthcare Financial Management Association
International Conference on Structural Genomics
Medical Care for Children Partnership
Medical Transcription Industry Alliance
Society for Thoracic Surgeons
World Parkinson Congress/2006

[Back to Index]
Technology
Full-Service Management
Americas' SAP Users' Group
Assistive Technology Industry Association
Association of IT Professionals
Catia Operators Exchange
Chemical Industry Data Exchange
EDGE, a Computer Associates Users Group
Information Users Association
InSight Users Group
International Nortel Networks Users Association
International DB2 Users Group
International Oracle Users Group
International Tandem Users Group (The International HP Nonstop Users Group)
Joint Users of Siemens Technology- US
Professional Association for SQL Server
SHARE, an IBM Users Group
Society for Information Management
SSA Global Users - North America

Function- or Project-Specific Services
ACM - Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics
ACM - Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interface
Ciyasoft Corporation
Financial Services Technology Consortium
Hewlett-Packard User Group Online Advocacy
IEEE Magnetics Society
International Systems Security Engineering Association

[Back to Index]
Government Institutes/Agencies, Corporations and Other Non-Profit Organizations
Function- or Project-Specific Services
Alliance to Save Energy
American Association for Adult and Continuing Education
Applied Power Electronics Conference & Exposition
Economic Club of Washington, D.C.
Environmental Assurance Company, Inc.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fuel Cell Seminar
Illiana Financial Credit Union
International Oil Spill Conference
International Solid-State Circuits Conference
International Test Conference
Joint Intermag/MMM Conference
Merchandise Mart Properties, Inc.
National Institutes of Health
National Space Club
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
Test Technology Technical Council
Training Officers Conference
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Meetings
U.S. Public Health Service


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

^ Fine.

Well, that's very impressive, but London is even more impressive.

I can only repeat what I've already posted ......

(and no doubt I'll get a dismissive/sarcastic reply from you, along with an attempt to deny everything below)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

*London*

has the largest foreign currency exchange market in the world, handling more money than New York and Tokyo combined. Average
daily turnover is more than $0.5 trillion.


Along with The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, there are more than 550 international banks and 170 global
securities houses which have set up offices in London. By contrast Frankfurt has around 280, Paris 270 and New York 250.


World's largest insurance market.


More billionaires live in London than any other city in the world (44, compared with New York's 34 and Moscow's 21).


has the most expensive neighbourhood in the world (Kensington Palace Gardens), where the average house price is $85 million,
compared with $5.6 million for the _next_ most expensive (Jupiter Island, Florida).


has the world's most expensive office space, far ahead of Tokyo and New York.


has the world's longest (by route kilometres) and oldest (1865) subway system..


is the world's busiest international airport hub.


300 languages are spoken in London, more than any other city in the world.


has more parks and green spaces than any other city of its size in the world. Almost 40% of its total area is green.


has an incredibly long and rich history, having been founded over 2,000 years ago. By comparison, Chicago is only 175 years old.


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

wjfox2002 said:


> Hmm ... this is starting to sound like trolling to me... :sly:


???

Just because I believe that Chicago has affected world culture in the last 150 years more than London makes me a troll???

I ACTUALLY BELIEVE it to be TRUE. Really, I do.


----------



## defi (Jul 30, 2004)

Rockford said:


> whatever. Contain your shock. Prove me wrong.
> 
> Heck, just with skyscrapers and house music and McDonald's Chicago has made a more visible and audio impact on the cities of the world than has London or Paris.
> 
> Hell, Oprah alone is broadcast in 111 countries and arguably has more global influence than any Frenchman or Brit alive. Seriously. At least with the double X chromosome set.


McDo is a rather bad example. I mean, it is just a company and McDo would probably be the same company if it was headquatered in LA or Miami. So I do not think that McDo exports the 'spirit' of Chicago into the world. Let me give an example: one could consider NYC to be the birthplace of hip hop music. We all know that teens all over the world listen to hip hop, dress like hiphoppers, etc. Now that is what I call a cultural export. Not to mention that the cultural influence of house music is ridiculously small compared to hip hop. 
Furthermore, being home of Oprah doesn't make Chicago a A-class city. London might not have such a big TV star, but do talk shows make cities 'grand'? I don't think so. 
Don't get me wrong. Chicago is certainly a cool city, but the examples you've mentioned are just not of the same importance or influence as the stuff NYC or London have to offer.


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

Kuesel said:


> What a pity I know only 2 people on your list and all the ones from the Paris/London one :lol:



It is a pity. And it just goes to show how culturally myopic certain parts of the world can be.

I'm wondering which 2...Hemingway? Frank Lloyd Wright?

That would mean you've never heard of Benny Goodman or Studs Terkel or Saul Bellow, Nobel Prize Winner for Literature 1976???


----------



## defi (Jul 30, 2004)

never heard of this smith bucket co. and I never heard of all those ppls except hemingway. And I do think I am not the only one who never heard of the things you've mentioned.


----------



## defi (Jul 30, 2004)

That might exactly be the reason, why Chicago's not one of the big cities in the world. Nobody ever heard of this stuff, for whatever reason. Maybe it is not enough influential, maybe Chicago has a marketing problem, or it is just not of interest for the rest of the world.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Rockford said:


> It is a pity. And it just goes to show how culturally myopic certain parts of the world can be.



What you just proved was that Chicago was an important city in the world, but didn't make it to the top 4. It does not get enough tourists, no important political decisions are token over there and whatever you might say it is not culturaly as important as Paris or London


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Is it an alpha city - yes.
Is it a top tier city - no.

And whoever thinks Chicago is more populous than London must be living in la-la land

*City Proper Population's*
London - 7,421,228 (2005)
Chicago - 2,869,121 (2003)
Paris - 2,142,800 (2003)

It should be noted however that Paris is constrained by historical city boundaries and Paris' skyscraper cluster: La Défense, is actually not located in Paris, but within one of the communes bordering Paris (hence why Chicago is 5.7x larger in land area and London close to 15x in land area).


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

and food.....of course there is the famous Chicago Polish, Chicago Gyros, Chiago Deep Dish, and a million artery-clogging food industry creations (twinkies), but according to the New York Times....



August 8, 2001, Wednesday 

In American Cooking, Chicago's the Kitchen 

By REGINA SCHRAMBLING 
AMERICA has never really had a cuisine. We went straight to ''new American'' without ever having determined how all the regional styles from New England to New Mexico came together to form a national philosophy of food. And what we wound up with was a smorgasbord. 
But there may be hope yet. A new generation of young chefs in Chicago, working far from the constant jangle on the two coasts, is melding well-grounded Midwestern values with highflying global ingredients to produce consistently smart food that is both daring and coherent. Chicago is emerging as a cradle of the first truly adult American cooking. 

Paul Kahan's celery soup at Blackbird is a great example. It could not be a more distant cousin of Campbell's -- a bright green purée enhanced by a mound of peekytoe crab and a drizzle of hazelnut oil -- but anyone who grew up on cream of celery would understand it by the second spoonful. Celery goes with seafood (crab salad); nuts go with celery (Waldorf salad). The texture and the celery flavor are the surprises. And they make you see how familiarity breeds comfort and creativity in kitchens here. 

After shaking off all the clichés of steak and deep-dish pizza, Chicago today knows that it stands shoulder to shoulder with any major city as a serious dining destination. The cooking is positively American, not all over the map like New York's or San Francisco's. Sitting firmly in the middle of flyover country, in thrall to neither Europe nor Asia, Chicago quietly developed an identity all its own. 

Charlie Trotter and Rick Bayless first put the city on the high end of the national radar screen, as did a few top-rated restaurants in the suburbs, like Trio in Evanston and Le Francais in Wheeling. But the new wave of chefs have both more modest aims and an urban attitude. They take their cues not just from the local heroes but also Alice Waters and especially Curnonsky (''cuisine is when things taste like themselves''). With the straightforwardness that has always been a hallmark of Midwestern cooking, they easily combine local asparagus and beets with Spanish Manchego cheese and Italian black truffles. 

Eating here is like assimilation at microwave speed. Because of its climate, Chicago has never had the luxury of using only local ingredients. But thanks to huge improvements in airfreight, chefs here can now buy anything from anywhere in the world. They can serve it to an audience willing to pay a little more for Maine lobster or Alaskan halibut rather than settle for the inevitable beef. But they can never forget that their wildest international ideas still have to speak English. If a candied kumquat is lying up against a scallop, it had better be communing with the tomato and basil on the other side. This is, after all, the heart of the heart of the country. 

''Chicago is not like New York,'' said Paul Kahan. ''Chicago people are much pickier.'' 
The city has long been a culinary incubator, with no shortage of adventurous eaters. A national restaurant convention alone brings 125,000 determined diners to the city every year. Right now it is in the noisy midst of a residential building boom, with condo towers seemingly going up on every third corner downtown. Run-down neighborhoods like Bucktown and Wicker Park, northwest of downtown, are being revived by chefs and young people who don't want to waste hours -- valuable hours that could be spent in a restaurant -- commuting from the suburbs. Hotels are overbooked, and more are opening. Restaurateurs are clearly emboldened. 

One of my lunch partners, who has lived here more than 20 years, sees it all as Chicago becoming chefed up. And it does have all the hallmarks of a heat-seeking city: open kitchens; bathrooms so designed they should be open; a full-blown infatuation with grüner veltliner; competitive bread baskets; and menus that almost beg for a gazetteer (duck eggs from Swan Creek Farms, Yaquina Bay oysters, Bay of Cortez diver scallops). 

But the new Chicago restaurant is still more 71 Clinton Fresh Food than it is Jean Georges. The service is consistently polished but relaxed, the décor is spare to spartan and entrees rarely touch $30. 

In a city with such a strong immigrant traditions, the little ethnic touches on most menus seem natural. But there is whimsy as well, playing off American classics. The ''grilled cheese sandwich'' at Rushmore is a tweaking of the usual chevre with mesclun, with Point Reyes goat cheese in toasted bread under a lively herb salad. Mod serves ''ham and eggs'' (serrano ham on ciabatta with a poached duck egg), and Nomi does ''like pizza'' (a plating of shrimp, mozzarella, fava beans and peppers). Chicagoans can take a joke. 

Virtually every chef I met credited Paul Kahan with leading the war for independents in a city long known for the extremes of high-end places like Charlie Trotter's, the Dining Room at the Ritz-Carlton and Spiaggia and the gotta-have-a-gimmick outlets developed by Richard Melman's Lettuce Entertain You (Cafe Ba-Ba-Reeba, Big Bowl). 

''Paul is a true individual,'' said Kelly Courtney, chef and partner at the year-old Mod in Wicker Park. ''He was the first one to really get the ball rolling who wasn't doing Trotteresque food.'' In his hands, something as simple as a fish sandwich is an architectural wonder: seared local walleye dressed with lemon and herb aioli and layered with sweet roasted tomatoes in good bread grilled to a crunch but still pliant. As Mr. Kahan said: ''I don't fancy myself as a technique guy. I get good ingredients and don't try crazy combinations.'' It could be the Chicago anthem. 

Mr. Kahan, a native son and veteran of Rick Bayless's renowned Topolobampo, opened his 62-seat place with partners four years ago in what was then a run-down neighborhood just beyond the Loop. (Today it's known as the Market District, even though the longtime butchers and produce purveyors are mostly gone, and it is blossoming with ambitious restaurants like Rushmore and One Sixty Blue.) Blackbird's stripped-down but sleek white room caused a stir, as did Mr. Kahan's vision. 
''When we opened, Chicago décor was ferns and dark wood,'' he said. ''But we think we started a trend: fine dining without stuffiness.'' The waiters, the menu notes, are dressed by Joseph Abboud; soft rap reverberates in bathrooms draped with billowing orange curtains. 

But Blackbird was also meant to combat the Lettuce life, Mr. Kahan said. ''For 15 years Melman's concept was feed 'em and feed 'em a lot, let them go home with a doggy bag. Chef-driven restaurants have changed that.'' 

Ms. Courtney agreed. ''People here are finally starting to come out of that fog of concept restaurants,'' she said . We started having artisan chefs emerging who were cooking for the same money but putting so much more effort and love into what they did.'' 
These new, smaller restaurants are dressed down by design. ''I wanted a restaurant my friends could come to every week, not every six months,'' said Shawn McClain of Spring, which is in a converted bathhouse in Wicker Park. ''Competing at a four-star level means so much more than food: it means the wine glasses and the linens and the room.'' 

Even One Sixty Blue, the elegant and expensive restaurant backed by Michael Jordan, seems to recognize that polished American food doesn't fit in a fake French chateau. Its sprawling dining room could have been airlifted from Los Angeles. A new chef, Martial Noguier, is turning out foie gras and tian of lamb but also Lake Superior whitefish and roast beef. 

There are, of course, exceptions that prove the trend. Naha, in the space that the old Gordon's made famous downtown, looks like a W hotel restaurant (dark wood, white curtains, greenery) with a grocery list of a menu that reads as if it were written by a Todd English on speed: open-faced sandwich of prosciutto, Gorgonzola, black mission figs and port syrup on walnut bread with a salad of arugula and red Belgian endives. Tru, opened downtown by the celebrated chefs Rick Tramonto and Gale Gand, is like London on Lake Michigan. What I remember most from an eight-course dinner last October was partly the caviar presentation, on a specially designed glass staircase, but mostly the tab: $527 for two, with wine and tip. 

Nomi, in the new Park Hyatt, is also not for the once-a-week diner (lunch for two was $170), but Sandro Gamba, a French veteran of Joël Robuchon and Alain Ducasse, is showing his new heartland roots. He favors direct combinations like a peekytoe crab napoleon with avocado: instead of puff pastry, he uses bagel chips. (Next summer he is going to install barbecue grills on the terrace.) You would know you were eating in Chicago even if the room did not overlook the river of shoppers on Michigan Avenue and Lake Michigan beyond. 

''I come from a small village,'' Mr. Gamba said, ''and I'm trying to bring that village to this big building. I didn't want a lot of froufrou on the plate. I see my food as what's in season, what I like to eat and what I know. I keep it as simple as possible so the customer understands.'' Yet, Mr. Gamba, like most of the chefs I met, would never underestimate his public. ''I think our customers are very, very knowledgeable,'' he said. ''They love food and ask questions.'' 

But educated eaters are not the only factor compelling chefs to locate their inner American. Chicago has always been a pass-through point for much of the food bound for other Midwestern cities and beyond. Now, ''with FedEx and U.P.S., we're all networked,'' Mr. Kahan said. Mediterranean rouget is as accessible as Mississippi quail, Old Chatham sheep's milk cheese from New York State as close as Maytag blue from Iowa. Mr. McClain of Spring says he has access to overnight fish from six or seven purveyors. Mr. Gamba sometimes gets fish deliveries twice a day. 

Chicago can now cook anything Boston or Seattle can. But this time of year chefs here think less globally. Most of the menus I saw cited Green City Market, a three-year-old enterprise founded partly by local chefs to sustain small farms. Ms. Courtney of Mod says she works closely with it in all but four months of the year, when ''I pull hard from organics and California.'' In summer and fall, though, ''what I'm seeing from our market is far and away better than what I get from California.'' 
On the Wednesday morning I set out in the rain, the tiny market, near the Chicago Historical Society, had stands selling buffalo meat from Kansas, Niman Ranch pork, local beef and baked goods from Red Hen Bread in Wicker Park along with the ripest, most ready-to-eat peaches I've ever had outside Italy. There were eight types of potatoes, nine types of onions, designer greens, delicate herbs, berries, peppers and more, all of it sold by farmers from Michigan, Wisconsin and other nearby states. (By contrast, the public farmers market on Saturday had tomatoes grown in Kentucky.) 

The emphasis on decidedly local produce makes Chicago seem more like Berkeley, at least this time of year, but it shows how California cuisine is evolving into American cuisine. Ms. Courtney worked in San Francisco for Jeremiah Tower at Stars and Joyce Goldstein at Square One, which she said reinforced the ''connection between farm and table'' in her mind. ''I'm not the greatest chef,'' she said. ''My strong point is getting food from these farmers and doing my best by it.'' 

Mod is almost hyperdesigned, with glass tables and other ear-shatteringly hard surfaces, and a futuristic look, but Ms. Courtney said she had insisted from Day 1 that her cooking must retain its farm links: ''If the food was really crazy, there would be no balance to this place.'' She deep-fries fresh Blue Lake green beans, the kind you usually see behind the Del Monte label, and makes an indoor picnic of grilled grouper with a potato salad and lobster-avocado cream. Her idea of a petit four is a big cone of pink cotton candy. 

Two very different restaurants also show how Chicago cooking is developing into American cuisine. Eric Aubriot, at Aubriot in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, says he deliberately opened around the corner from Charlie Trotter's, but his menu is more grounded than his neighbor's high-wire act. Some of his creations sound downright dull (sautéed halibut), others like the ramblings of an immature chef (oysters wrapped in cucumber with caviar, smoked salmon and truffle vinaigrette). Both characteristics have held back American cooking. 

Deconstruct the halibut, though, and its almost a plate out of ''Joy of Cooking,'' with white fish, simple sauce and three vegetables. Put together with a chef's touch, it's a harmonious partnership of halibut, spinach, caramelized onions and a zucchini curry emulsion. And the oysters are simply an exercise in sophistication, with one flavor building on another, the familiar and the unexpected. The dish is as assuredly grown-up as Mr. Kahan's celery soup. 

At Spring, Mr. McClain is causing a stir with his take on fusion, but even he hasn't lost sight of American sense and sensibility. His lemon grass and coconut soup with cellophane noodles might be straight out of Bangkok, but striped bass set over truffled corn chowder with smoked bacon would be at home in New England, and a roasted peach tart was really just a gussied-up deep-dish pie (that happened to be laid alongside salsify ice cream). 

The meal that really brought home the notion of Chicago as the first true melting pot that really cooks, though, was brunch at Lula, a tiny, quirky, be-prepared-to-wait cafe in the Logan Square neighborhood, just beyond Bucktown and Wicker Park. 

Brunch is the most American of meals to begin with; a chef can get away with a smorgasbord. At the height of the ''new American'' craze, there was more of an effort to put together dishes from different regions to make a menu -- New England flapjacks, New Orleans pain perdu -- but it actually had an equal-but-separate effect. Every dish was still a regional conceit. 

At Lula, Amalea Tshilds and Jason Hammel have moved beyond that. Their cheesy, eggy spinach strata was like a marriage of quiche and bread pudding made in Italy. And their tamales were actually grilled polenta topped with eggs and chevre, black beans, corn and a poblano sauce. 
This was not Ellis Island but the mainland, not fusion but food that blurred boundaries. 

Heartland Restaurants 
These are some of the new restaurants that best exemplify Chicago's approach. Price ranges are for main courses at dinner. 
BLACKBIRD -- 619 West Randolph Street, (312) 715-0708, $16 to $29. 
MOD -- 1520 North Damen, (773) 252-1500, $17 to $26. 
AUBRIOT -- 1962 North Halsted, (773) 281-4211, $16 to $28. 
LULA -- 2537 North Kedzie Boulevard, (773) 489-9554, $12 to $18. 
SPRING -- 2039 West North Avenue, (773) 395-7100, $19 to $23. 
ONE SIXTY BLUE -- 160 North Loomis, (312) 850-0303, $23 to $29.50. 
NOMI -- Park Hyatt, 800 North Michigan Avenue, (312) 239-4030, $25 to $39. 
RUSHMORE -- 1023 West Lake Street, (312) 421-8845, $15 to $29.


----------



## defi (Jul 30, 2004)

Rockford said:


> and food.....of course there is the famous Chicago Polish, Chicago Gyros, Chiago Deep Dish, and a million artery-clogging food industry creations (twinkies), but according to the New York Times....


Never heard of those dishes


----------



## Spotter (Feb 10, 2004)

Chicago n'est même pas le centre de l'anglophonie, où Paris est constitué "le coeur pour le monde francophone" :horse:

haha, just kiddin :cheers:


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

defi said:


> Never heard of those dishes



well, for your edification. 










Chicago Deep Dish Pizza










And a classic Dog, with hot peppers









and thanks to our Greek immigrants, the Chicago-style Gyros, which can be found on every corner, along with burritos these days


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

Spotter said:


> Chicago n'est même pas le centre de l'anglophonie, où Paris est constitué "le coeur pour le monde francophone" :horse:
> 
> haha, just kiddin :cheers:



C'est vrai, mais Chicago est la centre de la Chicagoland, le couer pour le monde Chicagophone


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Every city in the world has culinary specialities


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

some more hometown boosterism
As Big as a Country
$350 billion economy--larger than Switzerland, Taiwan, or the State of Michigan

During the preceding business cycle, Chicago's economy grew by nearly $86.6 billion -- an average annual growth rate of approximately 3.3%
8.55 million people, 4.15 million jobs and over 205,000 businesses

During the preceding business cycle, the region's population increased by over 861,910 people -- a growth rate of nearly 12%

Globally Diversified Economy
Headquaters home to:

30 Fortune 500 company headquarters

12 Fortune Global 500

17 Financial Times Global 500

98 Corporate Headquarters, 2nd only to New York


U.S. Leadership By Sector
#1 in high--technology employment (347,100 workers) -- $35 billion regional high-tech output and over 7,100 companies
#1 city for air travel -- 46 international non-stop destinations (19 additional direct) and 134 domestic destinations
#1 distribution center -- #1 truck, #1 intermodal, #1 rail, #1 air
#1 in business services professionals -- 82% growth in employment from 1990 to 2000
#1 in manufacturing - $72.4 billion regional manufacturing output
#1 data transmission by volume -- 10 terabytes/day
#1 urban medical district


----------



## Shawn (Nov 12, 2002)

The Chicago economy is smaller than that of Osaka's. Why are we putting it on the same stage as Tokyo, when Tokyo makes Osaka look small by comparison?

And Rockford, where did you get that #1 urban medical district ranking? Something tells me that Longwood in Boston and the Texas Medical Center in Houston rank higher.


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

the info came from a chicago website. I think it refers to the size of the institutions, not reputation. 

And I'm guessing Osaka's economy is bigger than any European city as well. Anyhow, Chicago's is bigger than many European countries. Tis all relative, huh?


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

Rockford said:


> by the way, if you google for "London Authors", you'll get 677 "Chicago authors" gets 798 hits


Google is utterly irrelevant. I can blast those 798 hits to pieces with one word: "Shakespeare". The fact that "London authors" doesn't produce hits doesn't mean London is anything other than the most important literary city in the English-speaking world. 

But keeping this fair and limiting it to the last 150 years....



> among some of the well-known
> Ernest Hemingway
> Gwendolyn Brooks
> Theodore Dreiser
> ...


I trimmed that list down to the authors who are considered "big league" in literary circles. And to say the least, it's a very impressive group.

But come on... aside from Hemingway and _maybe_ Brooks these are not people who stand in the same league as Dickens, Eliot, Wilde and Rushdie. London vs. Chicago on literature is like Heat vs. Hawks in basketball, know what I mean? 



> Improv Comedy
> Poetry Slams
> House Music
> Electric Blues
> ...


Does any of that even come close to the cultural presence of Abbey Road Studios, impressionist painting, the London club scene, or the invention of photography and motion pictures? C'mon, you're claiming that the invention of certain sub-genres of particular art forms stands up to the transformation of art _itself_. 



> and about a million contributions to the Industrial and business economy
> such as futures, options and other derivitives in finance


Still comes nowhere near the financial presence of London. 



> and if you are a fan of communism (someone listed Marx)
> 
> May Day has its roots in Chicago May 1, 1886.
> 
> How many cities have created a global holiday at age 50?


Again, you're comparing a particular event (though important) to the very authorship of a revolutionary political system. The publication of the _Manifesto_ was one of the most important events in political history; the entire list that you presented has had less effect upon the world than the birth of Communism.


----------



## Dampyre (Sep 19, 2002)

No, but it's no slouch.


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

I wrote...

Improv Comedy
Poetry Slams
House Music
Electric Blues
Lotsa of Big Band Jazz 
Benny Goodman swing swing 

and justadude wrote
Does any of that even come close to the cultural presence of Abbey Road Studios, impressionist painting, the London club scene, or the invention of photography and motion pictures? C'mon, you're claiming that the invention of certain sub-genres of particular art forms stands up to the transformation of art itself. 

What exactly does the London Club scene have over house music (I'm assuming it relies on it) or Big Band Jazz.

Oh and the cell phone made its debut in Chicago. So did rolleer skates and ferris wheels and Playboy magazine.


----------



## Dampyre (Sep 19, 2002)

Kuesel said:


> No, definitly not - although an impressive city but never has this influence on its continent as NY, LA, Sao Paulo, Hong Kong...
> 
> I think it's on the same Beta-city level as Frankfurt, Zurich, Osaka and Buenos Aires. Although it has the biggest airport in the world


Hong Kong, Los Angeles and especially Sao Paulo are nothing more than peers of Chicago. BTW, if you are going to use terms like "Alpha" and "Beta" then you might as well get Chicago's "Alpha" ranking correct.


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

^ Primarily that London is THE world center for electronic music in general, whereas Chicago contributed a particular sub-genre. That's a big difference. 

And even if you want to dispute that point, the fact is that Chicago's artistic achievements come _nowhere close_ to London literature or Parisian painting (weird alliteration in those terms). Seriously, it's hard to believe that an educated person would push this comparison... have you ever taken an art class?


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

looks like London has not only learned to love skyscrapers, Oprah, futures and options, McDonald's, and house music, swing jazz, cell phones, ferris wheels (the Eye) but apparently poetry slams have made it across the pond as well,

http://www.poetrysoc.com/education/respect.htm


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

^ Yeah, and it looks like modern freaking art has made its way to Chicago as well!


----------



## TheKansan (Jun 22, 2004)

Putting aside things such as preferences in housing design and urban layout, it is quite obvious that LA is on level with Chicago in terms of national importance, and economic importance. I really don't care if you don't like LA because you think it sprawls too much, the fact remains that in terms of cultural institutions, politics, economics, etc. the two cities are at the same level. So other factors must be looked at to determine which city has more national importance. Population is a big factor since population is a factor in things such as elections. Also global media, and international business are important factors. I believe in these areas LA takes the lead over Chicago to be the second most important metro area in this country. 

Do I believe that Chicago is a world city on level with the big four? No, and neither is LA, however Chicago is an important city.


----------



## Dampyre (Sep 19, 2002)

virtual said:


> What you just proved was that Chicago was an important city in the world, but didn't make it to the top 4. It does not get enough tourists, no important political decisions are token over there and whatever you might say it is not culturaly as important as Paris or London


Chicago doesn't get many international visitors as a percentage of total visitors. It does, however, receive *plenty* of domestic visitors. The city proper alone gets roughly *30 million*. Chicago is a huge convention mecca and is the most visited city for business in America even ahead of New York City.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

Chicago - nice city but just not up there with NY, London, Tokyo

Paris history, art, beauty, fame and density (remember that lots/most people in the world don't give a shit about density) DESTROY Chicago. But in other areas, I would guess they're more or less equal.


----------



## Dampyre (Sep 19, 2002)

TheKansan said:


> Also global media, and international business are important factors. I believe in these areas LA takes the lead over Chicago to be the second most important metro area in this country.


There's no way in hell that Los Angeles comes ahead of Chicago in international business. Studies have already shown that Chicago is more globally connected than Los Angeles in that sense. All the movies in the world can't change that.

Los Angeles is an alpha media city and Chicago cannot compete in that sense.


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

crawford said:


> If Chicago was fifth in Europe and North America, it was probably at best 15th globally.
> So yes; you were making that up.


Wow, you are a genius. Only 1/5 of the world's 15 largest cities in the world at the turn of the 20th century was in the West?

Is that what you think??????


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Rockford said:


> Chicago was like the world's4 th largest city in 1899.


Sure...


----------



## crawford (Dec 9, 2003)

Rockford said:


> Wow, you are a genius. Only 1/5 of the world's 15 largest cities in the world at the turn of the 20th century was in the West?
> 
> Is that what you think??????


No, I happen to think that 15/5 = 3. 
You must be using some sort of sophisticated "New Math" (probably invented at U. Chicago).


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

um Shiro, I posted the source. Actually it was the 5th, among all western cities that is.


----------



## crawford (Dec 9, 2003)

Rockford said:


> Woo hoo.....and you do realize that are likely more 100 year-old buildings in Chicago than in Rome right???
> 
> no? you didn't?


Yes, we believe you. Chicago has far more historic buildings than Rome.

:eek2:


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

crawford said:


> No, I happen to think that 15/5 = 3.
> You must be using some sort of sophisticated "New Math" (probably invented at U. Chicago).


wow, a math typo. Seriously, you think there were 10 cities outside of the western world in 2000 that had more than 1.7 million people? I'd be shocked if there were more than 2 or 3. Regardless, over a century ago, before any of us or our parents were alive, Chicago was among one of the world's largest cities. Most likely among the 10 largest.


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

crawford said:


> Yes, we believe you. Chicago has far more historic buildings than Rome.
> 
> :eek2:



Depends what you call historic. I was simply talking "old". Because to me, 100 years is old. If you've ever walked around Tokyo or Seoul or Shanghai, it's downright ancient. Inevitably when I've been in Chicago with Koreans or Japanese, they express surprise at how "old" it is.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Rockford said:


> um Shiro, I posted the source. Actually it was the 5th, among all western cities that is.


So your original claim was bollocks.
As I suspect your claim that Chicago has more 100 year old buildings than Rome is.


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

You do the math. How many people were living in Rome in 1900. Chicago had 1,700,000. It would be logical that a larger city would have more buildings from that period. And, when you consider that Chicago was an American boomtown at that period, there were lots of smaller 2 and 3 flats everywhere, even single family homes.

Why is this so hard for you to believe?


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

from a history page
In outlying areas, buildings were mostly limited to the one, two, and three story structures built on the 25x125 lots that are still characteristic of Chicago. Residential buildings ranged from wooden working man’s cottages and wood or brick tenements to the elaborate brick and stone mansions of the wealthy. Multi-family buildings, i.e. the two and three flats and large apartment buildings common today were starting to become popular. Small one to three story commercial buildings were common. Buildings of these various types from 1900 and before are still frequently found in Chicago.

maybe some images might help










from the 1870's




























mid-north district


















1875 row houses


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

It doesn't change a thing about the fact that Chicago has less influence then the top 4, however old the city is, however museums there are, if it holds no political power, it can't be considered a world city.

And it's reputation worldwide does not come close to the other four, perhaps if it had been the capital of the us or some other country, it would have, but right now it definitly isn't, and it's not by posting photos of ancient buildings, by giving names of writters from Chicago, or by giving its population in 1900 that it is going to change anything, period.

But Chicago is a cool city anyways


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> With respect to art, the greatest old works are (for the most part) accounted for. There aren't enough masterpieces from the 13th century through today on the market (let alone from before that period) to start a museum anew.


While you are right that the number of old works is limited, I think you're coming to the wrong conclusions. Firstly, museums don't depend solely on permanent collections; even large museums like the Tate depend on others to supplement their exhibits with traveling collections. So though a museum might not actually own a lot of 13th-century pieces, it can easily have a 13th-century exhibit if its profile is high enough. 

But more importantly, the fact is that art continues to be produced every year. The ability of a museum to recognize good art and buy it before anyone else gets a chance is what builds new collections. This is how the Met got its reputation; 100 years ago, it had no global reputation at all. But the ability of the American audience to pick up on modern European painting invested our museums with priceless collections of Monets, Van Goghs, and so forth. I see no reason to think that, at any given time, a new museum could not be collecting tomorrow's masterpieces.



> Also, with respect to the museum buildings themselves, grand structures like the Met, National Gallery, the Tate, etc. simply are no longer built.


Umm... the Tate Modern is brand new. There's no reason at all to believe that we're restricted in our ability to build grand structures.



> With respect to old structures, everyone has different opinions about there appeal, but the fact that New York has buildings from the 1600's, 1700's, 1800's, etc. add to its appeal


What famous structures does New York have from before the 19th Century?


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Justadude said:


> While you are right that the number of old works is limited, I think you're coming to the wrong conclusions. Firstly, museums don't depend solely on permanent collections; even large museums like the Tate depend on others to supplement their exhibits with traveling collections. So though a museum might not actually own a lot of 13th-century pieces, it can easily have a 13th-century exhibit if its profile is high enough.
> 
> But more importantly, the fact is that art continues to be produced every year. The ability of a museum to recognize good art and buy it before anyone else gets a chance is what builds new collections. This is how the Met got its reputation; 100 years ago, it had no global reputation at all. But the ability of the American audience to pick up on modern European painting invested our museums with priceless collections of Monets, Van Goghs, and so forth. I see no reason to think that, at any given time, a new museum could not be collecting tomorrow's masterpieces.
> 
> ...


I said the Tate -- not the Tate modern. New York has scores of pre-19th century structures. I did not say that they're famous (other than Gracie Mansion).


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> I said the Tate -- not the Tate modern. New York has scores of pre-19th century structures. I did not say that they're famous (other than Gracie Mansion).


But the point is that the Tate Modern is brand new... it's a world-famous museum less than a decade old. It shows positively that it's absolutely possible for a city to come up with such a museum.

Regarding pre-19th buildings, I still don't see how that has any effect on a city's status. If none of the buildings are even known to the public, who cares about them?

I really think that NYC and Chicago show why it's perfectly believable that a city might reach world status in the future.


----------



## TheJim (Feb 8, 2005)

I keep seeing post about Chicago not having the political influence of NY, Pairs, Tokyo and London. If you are going to use this argument then Washington DC, Beijing and Moscow would trump all of those four. Chicago compared to the “big four” holds up extremely well though. Neo-Liberalism is the most important economic movement of the last fifty years and affects the greatest number of the world’s population from India to S America and this is based in Chicago (a huge negative I know). The neo liberal movement is responsible for much of America’s foreign policy since the end of World War 2. This was the basis for London’s rebirth during the last decade also. Oh, the Manhattan project was based out of the University of Chicago, which is the most powerful political weapon there is period. 

For national politics, Chicago is much more important then New York over the last century and a half. The birth of the Republican Party in the mid 19th century to being the host of the most political conventions are a few of its contributions. The first Daly’s machine was the single most powerful force in national democratic politics during its time. In order to be the nominee for president you needed the Daly’s blessing; ask the Kennedy family about this. Chicago was ground zero of the American labor movement during the 1800’s.

I don’t know about Tokyo, Paris or London but Chicago has a more diverse economy then NY has and it would not surprise me if Chicago is more diverse then the others also. This is the great strength to Chicago has and what holds it back at the same time on this list. Except for the future markets does really lead in any other world economic measure compared to London, NY or Tokyo. The other major negative is how far back the Chicago media presence is compared to LA or NY. I am willing to bet that if Chicago had half the media exposure then either of those two, it would be a house hold name and seen in a higher light. 

One of the London boosters mentioned that London has the most international flights; I just wonder if a flight from Pairs to London counts as international anymore? I know London as a whole has the largest number of flights in the world amongst all of its airports. But, Chicago is no slouch when it comes to air traffic or for that matter rail, or trucks here in the USA. 

When it comes to Chicago’s influence over the world in the last 150 years, it wins hands down. Chicago is the birthplace of the assembly line, well more exactly the disassembly line. Has their been a more important and influential idea then that since the agricultural revolution? This has allowed more people to have a higher standard of living then any other idea. 

London, NY and Tokyo are more important cities then Chicago no doubt. But, to say Chicago should not be in the mentioned in the same sentence with them is ridicules and I would argue that Chicago is more important then Paris. Yet, I would live in Paris over any of the other cities mentioned in a heartbeat.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Sure...Chicago is more important than Paris...:|

When is this madness going to stop?

These kind of childish threads chase me away from this forum...


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

TheJim said:


> I keep seeing post about Chicago not having the political influence of NY, Pairs, Tokyo and London. If you are going to use this argument then Washington DC, Beijing and Moscow would trump all of those four. Chicago compared to the “big four” holds up extremely well though. Neo-Liberalism is the most important economic movement of the last fifty years and affects the greatest number of the world’s population from India to S America and this is based in Chicago (a huge negative I know). The neo liberal movement is responsible for much of America’s foreign policy since the end of World War 2. This was the basis for London’s rebirth during the last decade also. Oh, the Manhattan project was based out of the University of Chicago, which is the most powerful political weapon there is period.


Did you also know that socialisim, liberalism and conservatism can all trace their roots back to the UK because of the tensions created from the Industrial Revolution. Hell if you want to go back further, you could look to the Magna Carta!





TheJim said:


> For national politics, Chicago is much more important then New York over the last century and a half. The birth of the Republican Party in the mid 19th century to being the host of the most political conventions are a few of its contributions. The first Daly’s machine was the single most powerful force in national democratic politics during its time. In order to be the nominee for president you needed the Daly’s blessing; ask the Kennedy family about this. Chicago was ground zero of the American labor movement during the 1800’s.


Good for Chicago. London for instance boasts the LSE which has taught more world leaders than any other university on the planet. Oxford in London's metro area holds 2nd place. Karl Marx with the aid of Engels wrote his ideology within the walls of the Great Reading Room of what is now in the centre of the British Museum. 

Of course London is also home to the House of Parliament which dates back to the 13th Century and all associated government departments and legislative bodes. All Parliamentary systems on the planet can for instance trace their history to the Westminster System (Singapore, India, Ireland, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, etc...). London is also home to more NGO's than any other city on the planet.





TheJim said:


> I don’t know about Tokyo, Paris or London but Chicago has a more diverse economy then NY has and it would not surprise me if Chicago is more diverse then the others also. This is the great strength to Chicago has and what holds it back at the same time on this list. Except for the future markets does really lead in any other world economic measure compared to London, NY or Tokyo. The other major negative is how far back the Chicago media presence is compared to LA or NY. I am willing to bet that if Chicago had half the media exposure then either of those two, it would be a house hold name and seen in a higher light.


The futures markets are only one component ofthe financial system. The currency (Forex, FX) markets are for example the largest market on the planet with daily trading of several fold over that of the stock markets (ie London's currency market's handle around 20x what the NYSE handles). What is also interesting to note that after Chicago, it is London which leads in futures.




TheJim said:


> One of the London boosters mentioned that London has the most international flights; I just wonder if a flight from Pairs to London counts as international anymore? I know London as a whole has the largest number of flights in the world amongst all of its airports. But, Chicago is no slouch when it comes to air traffic or for that matter rail, or trucks here in the USA.


Well Paris is a seperate city away from London. For example Washington DC and Boston aren't that different. The difference between Paris and London is still dramatic with radically different social, political, economic and cultural systems.

Albeit, between London and Paris is the Channel Tunnel, and by 2008 (with the CTRL finished) the travel time between both cities will be just over 2hrs.

Then again London does have Heathrow (world's largest international airport) and Gatwick (6th largest international airport) which cater more towards the futher flung areas of the world. It is the likes of Stansted, Luton and City which are where the low cost carriers such as Easyjet and Ryanair really make their business: flying short-haul to the likes of Paris, Brussels, etc.

Regarding rail networks, London's rail network is comparable to the combined networks of Chicago and New York. There are around 600 stations within London, with another 600 in the metro area - the 2nd largest network on the planet only to Tokyo.





TheJim said:


> When it comes to Chicago’s influence over the world in the last 150 years, it wins hands down. Chicago is the birthplace of the assembly line, well more exactly the disassembly line. Has their been a more important and influential idea then that since the agricultural revolution? This has allowed more people to have a higher standard of living then any other idea.


Technically the assembly line dates back to the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in good old Britain with the likes of Wedgwood using mass-production methods in the production of pottery. Afterall the IR, was all about a change in modes of production and this is where the idea of an assembly line took off. The likes of H. Ford took it further though.





TheJim said:


> London, NY and Tokyo are more important cities then Chicago no doubt. But, to say Chicago should not be in the mentioned in the same sentence with them is ridicules and I would argue that Chicago is more important then Paris. Yet, I would live in Paris over any of the other cities mentioned in a heartbeat.


Paris is usually just seen as a city for tourists (although its now lost that title to London in the last year), but it is a major cultural, political and economical centre. It could be argued that it vies against Frankfurt for the financial hub of continental Europe, and is by far the most important business centre behind London. Politically, it still holds its weight and is infamous for being the home of various organisations such as the OECD. The fashion industry is also famous, and on par with that of London, New York and Tokyo, but all take 2nd place to Milan. It is this complete fusion that Chicago lacks (cultural + economic + political) and why it is not comparable.






Regarding the Tate Modern: it is housed within a former power plant, but the collections were housed away in the archives of the Tate (located just south of the Palace of Westminster) long before the Tate Modern came about simply because of a lack of display space.


----------



## crawford (Dec 9, 2003)

TheJim said:


> I keep seeing post about Chicago not having the political influence of NY, Pairs, Tokyo and London. If you are going to use this argument then Washington DC, Beijing and Moscow would trump all of those four. Chicago compared to the “big four” holds up extremely well though. Neo-Liberalism is the most important economic movement of the last fifty years and affects the greatest number of the world’s population from India to S America and this is based in Chicago (a huge negative I know). The neo liberal movement is responsible for much of America’s foreign policy since the end of World War 2. This was the basis for London’s rebirth during the last decade also. Oh, the Manhattan project was based out of the University of Chicago, which is the most powerful political weapon there is period.
> 
> For national politics, Chicago is much more important then New York over the last century and a half. The birth of the Republican Party in the mid 19th century to being the host of the most political conventions are a few of its contributions. The first Daly’s machine was the single most powerful force in national democratic politics during its time. In order to be the nominee for president you needed the Daly’s blessing; ask the Kennedy family about this. Chicago was ground zero of the American labor movement during the 1800’s.
> 
> ...


 :laugh: 

You're just making stuff up! Apparently you're a U. of Chicago student with a bit of an inferiority complex.

The Manhattan Project has nothing to do with the U. of Chicago. New York, Massachusetts Tennessee, California and New Mexico were among the important locations.

Neoliberalism also has nothing to do with U. Chicago (or with the U.S. for that matter). Mundell, a Canadian, is the leading neoliberal academic.

But carry on. I suppose the the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation and the October Revolution had their roots on the South Side of Chicago.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

the attachment to all the global cities by their residents is far less than it was at a time when (1) companies and corporations were locally owned and not part of conglomaretes and (2) people lived in cities their whole lives and had roots that often went back in them for generations. Even our greatest cities have highly generic elements that are part of a most homogenized world.

Society today is mobile, global, subject to change, and highly networked. True global cities (by however you define them) are linked to other global cities and, to a degree, are as much allied with each other as in competition with each other. The global conglomarates that have put this system in place are highly dependent on _all_ the global cities remain healthy. It _is_ a system, and in many ways very unified. And there is a notable degreee of equality and leveling within the system, of global cities being peers. And technology has allowed all of these cities to offer many of the same ammentiies and attractons which, in simplier times, were far more centralized in very few sites.

We live at at when, for so many, history is irrelevant, and collective memory lasts only as long as the next event occurs. We also live at a time when the dominant nation for over a half century has been the United States.

Look, you can make all the arguments you want that Chicago does not belong up there with the "super cities" listed here, and many may well be quite valid. But keep this in mind: whether it's Chicago, or the group of NYC, London, Tokyo, no city is immune from unforseen forces throughout the world, forces that will only intensify. No city, not NYC, London, Tokyo, has it made and none is immune from a loss of status....something, I believe, that history has taught us well (if we bother to study it).

American huckersterism often elevates our cities to a level that may exceed their real value because (for lack of a better way of stating it) we're often filled with ourselves. No US city, even NYC, was anywhere on the list of the world's greatest cities 100 years ago. Who is to say as we change happens in shorter and shorter increments, where NYC or any of our US cities will be in another 100 years...or far less.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

Sheesh, I can't believe this thread is still going, and that there is somebody who actually seriously believes Chicago is more important and influential than London and Paris. :laugh:


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> Neither is there that much money in the world as circulates yearly (or monthly) on the London currency markets. They're just turning over the same dollars, euros, yen etc.
> 
> It's not about total volume. What do you think the margins are on each currency trade? They're absolutely razor thin. Perhaps a better way to look at the financial impact of each city is the revenue of all the finance-related businesses in that city, or perhaps total employment, or some combination of the two.


I would answer this if theEnglish was good enough for me to understand.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

Butcher said:


> I would answer this if theEnglish was good enough for me to understand.


ouch


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

He's probably talking about this:

_2003
Number of contracts traded (round turn trades)
640.2 million contracts (+15% from the same period of 2002) valued at $333.7 trillion

GLOBEX® volume
282.4 million contracts (+43%)

Period's high for open interest (number of contracts outstanding at the close of trading; a measure of liquidity)
Nearly 35.4 million positions on Dec. 11, 2003_


----------



## Rail Claimore (Sep 11, 2002)

Butcher said:


> I would answer this if theEnglish was good enough for me to understand.


Oh the English is fine for anyone who knows anything about how markets work.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

OK let me brush up on my English as a first language book. The value of all currency trades that take place on London exchanges over the course of a year almost certainly exceeds the total amount of money supply in the world. Is that English? Or should I limit myself to words with less than 5 letters?

That must mean that the same money is "turned over" more than once. Let's say you pay Mr Johnson $1 for his chocolate bar. Then he takes that same $1 bill and buys some M&Ms from you. $2 of transactions with a single $1 bill.

Comparing turnover on the NYSE (*s*tock *e*xchange) to turnover on the London currency exchanges is like comparing apples to oranges. The [profit] margin on each $1 of currency transactions is much lower than the margin on each $1 of stock transactions.

A better way to compare the importance of finance in London vs NY vs Tokyo vs Chicago might be to look at the total revenue of all financial companies in each city. Or perhaps to look at the total number of people employed by the financial indurstry in each city. Or a combination of the two.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

Rail Claimore said:


> Oh the English is fine for anyone who knows anything about how markets work.


I know how the market works, and no that English was not fine. Also, I don't need a long explanation about it because I know about it already.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> OK let me brush up on my English as a first language book. The value of all currency trades that take place on London exchanges over the course of a year almost certainly exceeds the total amount of money supply in the world. Is that English? Or should I limit myself to words with less than 5 letters?
> 
> That must mean that the same money is "turned over" more than once. Let's say you pay Mr Johnson $1 for his chocolate bar. Then he takes that same $1 bill and buys some M&Ms from you. $2 of transactions with a single $1 bill.
> 
> ...



Wow, I've never encountered such arrogant egotism from someone who can't even speak English properly(though I must say that this post was significantly better than the last.. Mrs. Johnson would be very proud of you.) 

Plus, your example was trading which is different from turnover. What would the logic be in buyiung something from someone and then paying them for something with the same money that they just payed you. Wouldn't you just trade the two items??? Better go ask Mrs. Johnson about that one!! 

I'm aware of how daily/annual turnover works. But to say that in Chicago there is $330 trillion dollars turned over annually is proposterous. 

Also, to say that Chicago has 4 times the turnover that NYC (*N*ew *Y*ork *C*ity) is just too hard for me to believe.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

Butcher said:


> Wow, I've never encountered such arrogant egotism from someone who can't even speak English properly(though I must say that this post was significantly better than the last.. Mrs. Johnson would be very proud of you.) .


you're very witty, aren't you?


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

Didn't I post this already?



> The Chicago futures and options exchanges collectively dominate exchange-based derivatives trading in the U.S.
> 2003 U.S. Exchange-Traded Futures & Options
> Chicago63%
> New York16%
> ...


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

And turnover is important because it indicated the amount of people/companies that want to do business in a particular city. i guarentee that Chicago does not have an annual turnover of $330 trillion dollars. Just to comprehend how much money a trillion dollars is, think of this. If you spend 10 million dollars every minute, it would take you 100 years to spend 500 trillion dollars.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

So, according to my calculations, 10 million dollars is "turned over" every second in Chicago. Sounds right!!!(sarcasm)


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> you're very witty, aren't you?


aparently you can't come up with a response, so my comment must have been pretty witty.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

Butcher said:


> And turnover is important because it indicated the amount of people/companies that want to do business in a particular city.


So why not look at the total revenue of financial companies, and the number of people employed in the financial industry, in London, NY, Chicago, and Tokyo. That would solve the problem. And who knows, London might even win. But don't throw currency trading numbers at us and expect everyone to bow down before London.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

Butcher said:


> aparently you can't come up with a response, so my comment must have been pretty witty.


Are you sure you're not in 5th grade?


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

No sorry, I forgot. However, if I was in the fifth grade, there would be a chance that I would be in your class. After all it is a small world.


----------



## Rail Claimore (Sep 11, 2002)

Butcher said:


> I know how the market works, and no that English was not fine. Also, I don't need a long explanation about it because I know about it already.


You obviously don't know considering this statement:



Butcher said:


> Plus, your example was trading which is different from turnover. What would the logic be in buyiung something from someone and then paying them for something with the same money that they just payed you. Wouldn't you just trade the two items??? Better go ask Mrs. Johnson about that one!!


What you speak of is called bartering. Money came into existence for a reason... as a means of exchange. Such a transaction could not go through without a currency that all three people in the transaction given as an example put faith in. That's what currency trading is.



butcher said:


> I'm aware of how daily/annual turnover works. But to say that in Chicago there is $330 trillion dollars turned over annually is proposterous.
> 
> Also, to say that Chicago has 4 times the turnover that NYC (New York City) is just too hard for me to believe.


Facts don't lie. Face it. Besides, turnover isn't that important anyway... you contradicted yourself.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> So why not look at the total revenue of financial companies, and the number of people employed in the financial industry, in London, NY, Chicago, and Tokyo. That would solve the problem. And who knows, London might even win. But don't throw currency trading numbers at us and expect everyone to bow down before London.


Because daily turnover reflect the amount of business that takes place in a city in a period of time(which is very important for companies when choosiing their headquarters ect. ect.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

Rail Claimore said:


> You obviously don't know considering this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What I was talking about is trading. You don't buy something from someone, and then let them by someting from you for the same price. You would just trade the two objects. An example of turnover would be if I bought something from you, and then you sold that thing to someone else. Two transactions take place with the same amount of money. I know that wasn't a good example.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

Butcher said:


> Because daily turnover reflect the amount of business that takes place in a city in a period of time(which is very important for companies when choosiing their headquarters ect. ect.


Tell me again why we can't just look at the total revenue of financial companies in NY, London, Tokyo, Chicago etc? Why do we have to use various daily turnover numbers as proxies?

And once more, just in case you forgot, comparing currency market turnover to stock market turnover is like comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

Back to Chicago, 

Another reason it is in the same league as any city on the planet(in addition to the hundred or so things mentioned in its favor so far)

is Rotary International. Rotary is like the Red Cross of Charity



About Rotary 

Rotary History
A Brief History
Rotary History in Depth 

• The Early Years 
• Rotary Goes Global 
• Evolution of The Rotary Foundation 
• Programs for Young People 
• Rotary Today and Tomorrow 




The world's first service club, the Rotary Club of Chicago, Illinois, USA, was formed on 23 February 1905 by Paul P. Harris, an attorney who wished to recapture in a professional club the same friendly spirit he had felt in the small towns of his youth. The name "Rotary" derived from the early practice of rotating meetings among members' offices.

Rotary's popularity spread throughout the United States in the decade that followed; clubs were chartered from San Francisco to New York. By 1921, Rotary clubs had been formed on six continents, and the organization adopted the name Rotary International a year later.

As Rotary grew, its mission expanded beyond serving the professional and social interests of club members. Rotarians began pooling their resources and contributing their talents to help serve communities in need. The organization's dedication to this ideal is best expressed in its principal motto: Service Above Self. Rotary also later embraced a code of ethics, called The 4-Way Test, that has been translated into hundreds of languages.

During and after World War II, Rotarians became increasingly involved in promoting international understanding. In 1945, 49 Rotary members served in 29 delegations to the United Nations Charter Conference. Rotary still actively participates in UN conferences by sending observers to major meetings and promoting the United Nations in Rotary publications. Rotary International's relationship with the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) dates back to a 1943 London Rotary conference that promoted international cultural and educational exchanges. Attended by ministers of education and observers from around the world, and chaired by a past president of RI, the conference was an impetus to the establishment of UNESCO in 1946.


An endowment fund, set up by Rotarians in 1917 "for doing good in the world," became a not-for-profit corporation known as The Rotary Foundation in 1928. Upon the death of Paul Harris in 1947, an outpouring of Rotarian donations made in his honor, totaling US$2 million, launched the Foundation's first program — graduate fellowships, now called Ambassadorial Scholarships. Today, contributions to The Rotary Foundation total more than US$80 million annually and support a wide range of humanitarian grants and educational programs that enable Rotarians to bring hope and promote international understanding throughout the world.

In 1985, Rotary made a historic commitment to immunize all of the world's children against polio. Working in partnership with nongovernmental organizations and national governments thorough its PolioPlus program, Rotary is the largest private-sector contributor to the global polio eradication campaign. Rotarians have mobilized hundreds of thousands of PolioPlus volunteers and have immunized more than one billion children worldwide. By the 2005 target date for certification of a polio-free world, Rotary will have contributed half a billion dollars to the cause.

As it approached the dawn of the 21st century, Rotary worked to meet the changing needs of society, expanding its service effort to address such pressing issues as environmental degradation, illiteracy, world hunger, and children at risk. The organization admitted women for the first time (worldwide) in 1989 and claims more than 145,000 women in its ranks today. Following the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Rotary clubs were formed or re-established throughout Central and Eastern Europe. Today, 1.2 million Rotarians belong to some 31,000 Rotary clubs in 166 countries.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> Tell me again why we can't just look at the total revenue of financial companies in NY, London, Tokyo, Chicago etc? Why do we have to use various daily turnover numbers as proxies?
> 
> And once more, just in case you forgot, comparing currency market turnover to stock market turnover is like comparing apples to oranges.


brooklyn, do you think that you can add (the right) financial numbers to come up with why a city like New York is greater than a city like Chicago? Is this about crunching numbers, because, if it is, those numbers change constantly and neither you nor I are in a position where the numbers will be in twenty, ten, let alone five years from now.

I personally think Chicago does share a lot of New York's greatness, and my opinion relates to more than just number crunching. If,on some level, finanacial issues are related to what are the world's most important cities, they don't relate to what are the world's greatest cities in the same way. A city like Paris would always rank among the world's greatest, no matter what its future financial role is.

I, for one, am happy that Chgo has a lower profile than NYC; it allows us to be more of what we wish to be than to be shaped by the transient nature of those who are living in our city at the moment, but are not really a part of it.

That said, I realize those are my views and not others. My standard reply has been: *Chicago works for me*. And it does. IMHO, it is the greatest of cities because it offers the full range of urbanity in one of the most user-friendly and attractive urban environments anywhere. In that sense, my own sense of Chicago's greatness is more important to me than the thoughts of non-Chicagoans.

I've also said this before, but I'll include it here as I feel it is relevant: if you ask most people which city is greaters, NY or Chgo, far more would say New York. If you ask Chicagoans the same question, you'd find that the majority would answer Chicago. That's because Chicagoans really do believe our city is as good as it gets as an urban center, aren't in awe of NYC (Tokyo, London) or any city, and are basically unaffected that others see things differently than we do on that issue.


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

Ditto,

this explains why
http://lib1.store.vip.sc5.yahoo.com/lib/3dcafe/cha101.htm


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

and the following thread highlights edsg25 thoughts perfectly.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=199866


----------



## aion26 (Dec 17, 2004)

edsg25 - while I appreciate your love for our fair city (remember I've lived here, city and burbs, my whole life, but refuse to look at this place through rose colored glasses) I'm not entirely sure the most Chicagoans feel the same way you do (and I mean this in the nicest possible way).


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

I do.

Chicago is the planet's hometown.


----------



## findo102000 (Jun 24, 2004)

edsg25 said:


> brooklyn, do you think that you can add (the right) financial numbers to come up with why a city like New York is greater than a city like Chicago? Is this about crunching numbers, because, if it is, those numbers change constantly and neither you nor I are in a position where the numbers will be in twenty, ten, let alone five years from now.
> 
> I personally think Chicago does share a lot of New York's greatness, and my opinion relates to more than just number crunching. If,on some level, finanacial issues are related to what are the world's most important cities, they don't relate to what are the world's greatest cities in the same way. A city like Paris would always rank among the world's greatest, no matter what its future financial role is.
> 
> ...


 I personally think that most chicagoans would say that new york was greater actually. I think that we hold a strong belief that our city is COMPLETE, but not necessarily the best. You see, as i view it, you can find what you need in chicago, it is not necessaily the best one, but it sure satifies your taste. You could apply that to most catagories. Chicagoans may be confident, but they're not delusional


----------



## London_2006 (Feb 9, 2003)

gronier said:


> The thing is that the British can't accept that we have two cities that are more important than London.
> Chicago has more population than London's, and the GDP per Capita is extremely higher than London, and that is a fact.
> Chicago has everything to be consider one of the most important cities in the world.


Since when did Chicago have a higher population than London? 

Chicago
city: 2,900,000
metro: 9,700,000

London
city: 7,600,000
metro: 18,400,000


----------



## TheKansan (Jun 22, 2004)

Dampyre said:


> There's no way in hell that Los Angeles comes ahead of Chicago in international business. Studies have already shown that Chicago is more globally connected than Los Angeles in that sense. All the movies in the world can't change that.
> 
> Los Angeles is an alpha media city and Chicago cannot compete in that sense.


Imports and exports in LA blow Chicago away. Business includes more than just dudes in suits you know.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

aion26 said:


> edsg25 - while I appreciate your love for our fair city (remember I've lived here, city and burbs, my whole life, but refuse to look at this place through rose colored glasses) I'm not entirely sure the most Chicagoans feel the same way you do (and I mean this in the nicest possible way).


aion, i'm certainly not uncomfortable with your observation. that said, the vast majority of chicagoans i know do feel that way.


----------



## kyenan (Mar 22, 2003)

I think Chicago is the same level with Nagoya and Milan.


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

edsg25 said:


> brooklyn, do you think that you can add (the right) financial numbers to come up with why a city like New York is greater than a city like Chicago? Is this about crunching numbers, because, if it is, those numbers change constantly and neither you nor I are in a position where the numbers will be in twenty, ten, let alone five years from now.


Nobody is saying that Chicago can't possibly increase its profile. What people are saying is that in the here and now Chicago is very obviously not at the absolute top tier of cities. Maybe it will be someday... there's no real way to know.



> That said, I realize those are my views and not others. My standard reply has been: *Chicago works for me*. And it does.


Definitely. Chicago is a badass city, easily as interesting and fun as any other place. The fact that it's on a level slightly below NYC or London doesn't hurt its livability at all; if anything, one of the things that makes Chicago great is that it has a remarkably relaxed feel. People will actually talk to you on the street, and the city has a relatively small ego. If anything I think that Chicago is a much better place because of NYC's spotlight-hogging personality.


----------



## KingShizzznit (Jan 18, 2005)

rantanamo said:


> ^that's the usual ignorance of this whole board. A lot of cities are highly over inflated on this board because they are most important in given country. That doesn't make them more important than or even on the level of Chicago.
> 
> Most interesting is that in this very post, Chicago is accused of certain things it is not, while said criteria can be used against those cities too. Those cities that are called the big 4 on this board are simply that. Instead of people just posting that Chicago isn't on the level, I'd like to see some actual evidence or criteria to compare Chicago to these other cities with. That's my challenge for this board. Prove that Chicago isn't on par.


Post of the thread, and he is still waiting for his proof. The problem is this site is Anti-American and Chicago is about as American as you can get.


----------



## KingShizzznit (Jan 18, 2005)

Recently, the City of Chicago undertook a year-long “branding study” of Chicago’s role in the world marketplace. Study participants, more than eighty corporate and media executives, were asked who Chicago would be if it were a person. The two most popular answers were Tom Hanks and Joe Montana, which, when crunched through a sophistic equation, correlated to a “famous” person who was “mainstream but slightly bland… broad shouldered, but would need some time in the gym.” 

The study didn’t tell Chicagoans anything they didn’t already know. Chicago belongs to the pantheon of hardcore capitalist business and transit centers that drive the world economy: Hong Kong, Singapore, Frankfurt, Osaka, Milan. Each of these cities rose to prominence on equal parts geographic location and direct relationship to larger cosmopolitan centers such as New York, London, Tokyo, Paris, and Rome. While the second-tier global cities labor in the shadows of their larger siblings, they provide the infrastructure and raw materials that make the larger cities work. 

For Chicago, its advantages were initially natural, as the main water and, later, rail hub for goods coming to and from the western frontier—though, as historian William Cronon points out in his epic Nature’s Metropolis, Toledo or St. Louis could have filled that bill just as well if not for the city’s farsighted move to raise the capital to open the Illinois-Michigan Canal in 1848. When highways replaced railroads as the primary mode of ground travel, the U.S. interstates all converged just west of the city. As commercial aviation grew into a global enterprise, Chicago laid claim to the world’s busiest airport. When the information age came to the fore, Chicago’s leaders took deliberate steps to make sure that Chicago would retain its hub function. In an industry in which location, supposedly, does not matter, Chicago’s leaders found ways to make geography work for them—and began, long before the boom of the late ‘90s, to stake its claim for a particular niche in the tech industry. 

“The Internet means nothing without the communications networks to support it,” says Dan Lyne, Director of Tech Development for World Business Chicago. “Pound for pound, Chicago boasts the most advanced wired or unwired digital infrastructure of any single metro in the United States ... if not the world.” Nobody talks about Chicago as a tech city. But the advanced networking systems being developed there—though less sexy than the new hardware, software, and web applications being developed in Silicon Valley and Silicon Alley—are helping drive a revolution in Chicago’s economy. With a rate of change from manufacturing to service jobs that outpaces even New York, Chicago is playing a critical, if unheralded, role in the new economy—a role paying dividends like a 38 percent annual growth rate in downtown living and a projected increase of 1.6 million square feet of office space within the downtown Loop for each of the next twenty years. 


The Work of Chicago’s Innovators 

Joe Mambretti sits in the ground floor conference room of a recently constructed, low-rise office building in downtown Evanston, Illinois, just north of Chicago. He is staring out the window at building cranes creaking and swinging across the partially poured concrete apartment towers that have begun to litter the west side of this once teetotaling college town. Mambretti is the Director of the International Center for Advanced Internet Research, based at Northwestern University, and he looks like he doesn’t often leave his office. His salt and cinnamon hair is mussed, and he twirls a pen in his hand, smiling in an uninterrupted manner that says, my boy, you have no idea what is waiting for you right around the corner. 

“Dan Lyne sent you here to talk about why Chicago is the center of the advanced networking universe, and why no one but the three of us knows about it,” he says—begrudgingly accepting the current state of affairs but delighted that I have shown interest. “What do you know about large-scale network infrastructures?” 

“Absolutely nothing,” I reply. 

He nods, with no discernible decrease in delight. Apparently, this is not an uncommon answer. “It helps to know, so take a look at this.” 

On the conference table sits a roughly 4'x2' super-HDTV set channeling the future of the Internet. It’s only a prototype, but it’s jaw-dropping. The screen has substantially higher resolution and overall quality than those available today. The frame within the screen resembles a webpage but with multiple video streams and data fields. In one corner CNN is rebroadcasting footage of the Howard Dean meltdown in Iowa. To the bottom, a smaller video window shows an Indian cricket match. Uttering the word “search” reveals a small window, which, when “fish” is entered, displays a page of thumbnail images. Each represents a video clip from somewhere in the world that mentions the word “fish.” 

As Mambretti surfs the world’s cable networks in a manner that today can be done only by satellite, he explains to me that worldwide Internet traffic is doubling every year. Massive global applications like 3-D design imaging and Computer Assisted Design networks consume a much larger chunk of bandwidth than DSL, digital cable, or even business and government networks. These applications, employed by auto manufacturers and architects, engineers and geneticists, and bio and nanotechnologists, require a medium that can transport terabytes of data. Mambretti and his colleagues’ solution is to use light. 

Distilling astrophysics and broadcast engineering into one workable concept, Mambretti and his partners are developing “lightpaths,” known as photonic networks, which will travel across optical fiber lines bundled in thousands of strands. To that end, Mambretti and a select coalition of Illinois’ technical and research communities, including the International Center for Advanced Internet Research, Northwestern, the University of Illinois-Chicago, Fermi Labs, Argonne National Laboratory, the National Center for Superconducting Applications, and the University of Chicago, have already begun to construct the world’s largest, fastest, and most advanced information networks—and hardly anyone knows about it. For the next half-hour I am led on a mind-bending multimedia presentation of the various National Science Foundation-funded global super-networks Mambretti has helped build, starting with the Startap network hub (http://www.startap.net), created in 1997, and continuing with StarLight, the next generation network developed in 2002. 

Most recently, the Global Ring Network for Advanced Application Development (GLORIAD) provides a cutting-edge tool for researchers around the world to address vital scientific issues like joint responses to natural and manmade disasters, safeguards for nuclear materials, better understanding of the human genome, joint exploration of space, monitoring of seismic events, and environmental studies and simulations. GLORIAD begins in Chicago at the StarLight facility, managed by the University of Illinois at Chicago and Northwestern University. The network’s lines cross the Atlantic Ocean to the NetherLight facility in Amsterdam, continue to Moscow, then to the Russian science city of Novosibirsk, and across Siberia to the Chinese border at Zabajkal’sk. After crossing the border to Manzhouli, the network continues to Beijing, then Hong Kong, then crosses the Pacific Ocean to complete the ring in Chicago. From the StarLight hub, other networks in Chicago soon will be able to connect to GLORIAD. 

On a daily basis, Mambretti and his colleagues deal with concepts that are, pardon the pun, light years ahead of public comprehension. Yet he predicts that the capacity for data transfer embodied in GLORIAD, the video search capacities on a HDTV screen, and other technologies will be commonplace in the home in the near future. Five years from now, Googling will mean accessing every piece of media in the world, digitized and cross-referenced to be available through one portal with a single command. Say you are working intently on dinner in your kitchen, thinking about having fish, sea bass in particular, and you want a unique recipe. You ask your screen to search for “sea bass,” “dinner recipes,” and “2009,” and it retrieves a list of cooking programs aired anywhere in the world during 2009 that featured sea bass. You can then narrow your search to English-speaking programs or even find the exact second at which a specific word is uttered, say, “cilantro.” And you can bet that, somewhere in the mix, the information you receive will come through Chicago.


The Planetary Hub of the Future 

“I love the Hub metaphor for Chicago, but most of our historical hub distinctions were designated by geography,” Mambretti says. “This is the one that was not. These types of people and institutions do not happen passively. Our research community had to work very hard to create them. We have put in the investment and built the infrastructure while other cities are still asking themselves how they can attract the tech community. What we have done here in Chicago, the infrastructure we have built, will be the basis of the digital economy of the future. It was, of many examples, one of the primary reasons Boeing chose to relocate here.” 

Still, geography had quite a bit to do with it, as did Chicago’s historical role as Hub City. As Dan Lyne mentioned, Chicago is one of the most wired cities in the world, offering broadband access to almost every sector of the city and the bulk of the metropolitan area. This innovation was possible largely because the nation’s network of fiber optic cable developed primarily along rail rights-of-way, which converge on downtown Chicago. Local data lines use existing freight tunnels to extend throughout downtown. The overall network of the region has been heavily developed by the private sector, most notably the original Bell company and then Ameritech, and lately by RCN, AT&T, and Comcast, which laid out the networks that analog cable and DSL use today. These same companies are converting their old hub-and-spoke copper networks to fiber optic cable networks in order to carry all-digital signals. 

Already, Chicago has leveraged these unique advantages to seize commercial opportunities. For example, Mambretti helped design and build the most advanced convention/hotel/exhibition network in the world for the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, the agency that welcomes twelve million visitors a year to Chicago’s behemoth McCormick Place convention center and Navy Pier. Known as “Internet2,” this high-speed, high-capacity network allows for instantaneous transfer of multiple files consisting of hundreds of megabytes of data each. By comparison, today’s “broadband” can only handle somewhere from 1.5 to 3 megabytes per second. 

Ellen Barry, Chief Information Officer of the MPEA, says she became aware of Chicago’s place in the tech world when the city began losing convention business to cities like Atlanta, Orlando, and San Diego. Barry and her colleagues realized that they needed to act fast to stem the outflow of conventions, or else one of Chicago’s core industries might collapse. 

Barry learned that McCormick Place had “second–class” Internet service and desperately needed an upgrade. She committed herself to developing a “plug-and-play system where we can get a high-speed connection to anyone in any area of our complexes within ten minutes.” That may seem like a standard requirement today, but only four years ago it was a logistical nightmare. In early 2001, Barry struck a deal with Cisco Systems to rewire the complex. Cisco installed the backbone equipment, and the MPEA laid all 500 miles of fiber optic wiring. With that step completed, Barry worked to connect MPEA with the Metropolitan Research and Education Network so that it can connect to the Abilene national networks and the international networks at StarLight, and so that it would be compatible not only with Internet2 but also the forthcoming “National Lambda Rail” technology, which some call “Internet3.” 

As a result, SUPERCOMM 2004, the world’s largest annual gathering for communication service providers and private network managers, returns to Chicago this year after more than a decade away. Launched in 1988, the event has rotated among several cities, including Atlanta, New Orleans, Dallas, and Anaheim. SUPERCOMM will make its home at McCormick Place for the next three years, a major coup for the City That Works.


Building Networks for All 

Chicago is using its leadership position in Internet infrastructure not only to attract business, but also to tackle the “digital divide” by providing universal access throughout the city to high-speed Internet. CivicNet, a ten-year, $320 million, private sector incentive program to accelerate the development of high-speed communications in Chicago neighborhoods, would create a giant network to provide data and voice services to the city’s agencies and facilities. The network would aggregate the business of city agencies by connecting all public buildings—schools, park district field houses, Chicago Housing Authority buildings, transit stations, police and fire stations, and public libraries—to a single network, creating some 1,600 node sites from which fiber optic lines can be laid out to provide Internet access for every building on every block of the city. 

CivicNet is an ambitious plan that, unfortunately, rings of much of the optimism of the late ‘90s tech boom. Local telecom group RCN, which was to have already built all the fiber optic lines, has been in major financial straits since the recent economic downturn and has defaulted on all its local funding and development agreements with the city. Still, city officials and Mambretti assure naysayers that the project is on track, just being adapted to another timetable. 

Regardless of what becomes of CivicNet, this project is significant if only because it has diagrammed what future city networks will look like and how “network” access could eventually be made available to all, just as TV and radio were. When the first CivicNet is in place, the infrastructure will exist to introduce next generation optical networking, and eventually photonic tera-networks like Lambda Rail, StarLight, and TransLight, to the general population. 

Chicago has perfected the distribution of essential commodities, taking everything imaginable and spinning it once through the hub before flinging it out to the far corners of the globe. Because of the persistent effort of local visionaries in academia, business, and government, Chicago is rising to the upper tier of the tech world. Through new high-speed networks radiating out from this Big City on the Lake, in the future everyone and everything, whether physically or virtually, will pass through Chicago.


----------



## DrJekyll (Sep 23, 2004)

I think it can be at the same level


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

Rockford said:


> and the following thread highlights edsg25 thoughts perfectly.
> 
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=199866


He doesn't have any posts in that thread. All I saw was you propping up your pointless ego.


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

My ego is fine.....yours on the other hand......

You are the one who spends so much time defending London. I haven't seen one person from Chicago putting down any other city. Most Chicagoans believe Chicago to be on the same level as any other city.

If you say London is greater than Chicago so be it. I challenge you to find a Chicagoan on the board who wouldn't respect your feelings.

However, if someone says the opposite, you go ape shit. You feel the need to attack others strongly held opinions. 

It's you who has the problem.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

Rockford said:


> My ego is fine.....yours on the other hand......
> 
> You are the one who spends so much time defending London. I haven't seen one person from Chicago putting down any other city. Most Chicagoans believe Chicago to be on the same level as any other city.
> 
> ...


First of all, I can back up my ego with facts. The only things I criticize are people's comments, not their opinions. I don't care if people think that Chicago is better than London, but when they provide eroneous proof for their argument, that makes me mad. I ould also challenge you to find a londoner on the board who would not respect your opinion (besides, I am not a Londoner). 

Can you please define what "go ape shit" means because I am having trouble understanding it. 

Then you tell me that I attack other people, but you are the one saying that I have a problem. I never said you had a problem. All I said was that you had an overly large ego, and there is no problem with that. 

And to answer this quetion, no Chicago is not on the same level as NYC, Paris, London, or Tokyo.If you looks at the poll, you'll find that most people agree with that statement.


----------



## andrea_despentes (Apr 28, 2005)

I DON'T THINK SO, CHICAGO IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT WORLDWIDE

NOT AS PLACES LIKE TOKYO, LONDON, PARIS OR NEW YORK CITY.


----------



## I*LOVE*NY (Jan 20, 2005)

Is Chicago at the same level as New York-London-Paris-Tokyo????
YEEES


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

This is insane. Chicago is not, under any circumstances whatsoever, at the same level of those cities. No one (but people from Mid-America) thinks so.

Chicago is nice, but so is Madrid. No one claims that Madrid is in the same league as Paris, for example.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

MikeHunt said:


> This is insane.


I agree. This thread is ridiculous.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

wjfox2002 said:


> I agree. This thread is ridiculous.


Technically you are wrong. Yours was the 301st post on the thread. according to the skyscraper city's _Thread Classification Manual_, threads are classified as follows:

1: Introductory post

2-40: Move discussion 180 degrees from introductory post

41-100: Explaining why 2-40 has little to do with topic

101-150: Rapid rise of insults and references to people's mothers

150-225: words used must have more than 3 letters and less than 5

226-310: bordering on questionable judgement

311-350: *ridiculous* (see, you were only off by 10 posts)

350-395: Idiotic

395-410: No sign of brain waves

411-: Even National Enquirer won't handle it


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

:lol:


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

gronier said:


> But the question is: If Chicago would be in England and London in Illinois, wouldn't Chicago be considered one of the big 4 and London overshadowed by New York??
> Saying that the only reason that why Chicago isn't there is because of it's geographical position sounds silly.
> 
> And to my English friends, I love London, I think it's one of the best cities in the world, it was just an example.



:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: 

If London was in the U.S.? your forgetting that London is the seat of the entire national government of england, Is its largest city by far, and its sourounding region is disproportionally richer and more important than the U.K.s other regions, the equivilant in the U.S. would not be Chicago, but MORE LIKE New York combined with Washington D.C.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

this certainly is a love fest for the *Official Unquestionably Greatest Cities of the World (OUGCW)*. I stand in awe. They clearly are two or three cuts above the mere mortal cities that make up the rest, they're blessed by God, and rulers of the universe. Kings of the hills, tops of the peaks.

I'm convinced.

But tell me, if the powerhouses that are New York, London, and Tokyo each had a *****, how long would it be?


----------



## Rockford (Jan 12, 2005)

Chicago is the defacto capitol of the midwest, a region larger and more populous than the UK, for what it's worth.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

And...? It's not its own country. There are other regions with more population than both the Midwest and the UK (which are only separated by a couple million). How about wealth and density?


----------



## gronier (Mar 2, 2005)

The Midwest has a higher income per Capita than the UK.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

Is anyone getting tired of this thread?

:lock:


----------



## Shooter2 (May 8, 2005)

noooooo, Chicago is not at the same level.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

wjfox2002 said:


> Is anyone getting tired of this thread?
> 
> :lock:


no, i'm still trying to find out if witchita is really on the same level as mobile, shreveport, spokane, and rochester. have we discussed it yet; i may have dozed off between posts 278-294.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

It's pointless trying to argue with Rockford anyway.

He won't budge an inch on his views. As far as he's concerned, Chicago is quite clearly, well-and-truly, head-and-shoulders above every other city in the world, and there's simply no question about it.


----------

