# is Chicago a world class, International city?



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Chicago _is_ a world-class, international city. 

I don't see how this thread got so big, the question and answer was quite simple to me...at least.


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

LLoydGeorge said:


> By contrast, when one walks down Michigan Avenue, one the only linguistic variation that one encounters is whether the Midwestern accent originates in Ohio, Wisconsin, etc.


This is false.


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

Evangelion said:


> dude chillout. i never said chicago wasnt a world class city, i said financially it very much is.... cultural impact on the other hand...i dont think so


This actually does spring up an interesting point to ponder. 

Do you mean mainly that Chicago isn't Hollywood, and that Chicago doesn't house the national media?


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

nomarandlee said:


> This thread is shite. A thread seeking out validation is to bad when most Chicagoans aren't at all consumed with the idea of a tier for which others to place the city on. If one wants to think of the city as world class great, if not for whatever reason then great as well. Either way it is not going to change what the heck is going on and what it has going for it or doesn't. The definition is subjective and arbitrary anyway and debating about is wasting minutes of ones life.


I do think that Chicago has always had this ego issue. It has always wanted and aimed to be the best. This, of course, is one of the things that is great about Chicago; it drives the city to be dynamic. Of course, though, Chicagoans aren't consumed by this, because they are real people that have real things to do in life.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

cbotnyse said:


> I hear what you're saying and somewhat agree. I trade the futures markets here, and no, it does not cater to the public at large. But the futures markets here are vital to the global economy. I wish more people understood that, but also understand why they dont.


Yes, futures are a great way to hedge risk for my equity positions, among many other things I can do with them. Sadly, they're not readily accessible to the general public since they are not likely to carry large positions to participate in the market. So even if they want to buy in, they might be swamped by the institutions anyway.


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

I think Chicago is the perfect example that brings us to question what "world class city" means. Should world class only be New York, London, and Paris? Chicago is certainly a famous city and is known all around the world. Furthermore, what do we mean by "good ol' americana"? 

I walk down Michigan Ave. and I hear languages from all over the world. I go into coffee shops and stores, I hear people from all over the world. Hearing a foreign language or accent is normal in Chicago. This even feels ridiculous to say; like saying that people in Chicago also like to eat. 

I agree that New York, London, and Paris are more international. I don't think any Chicagoan will seriously contest this. Yet, we find the international flavors in our city too. So, how should we define it? I'm fine with calling Chicago the quintessential American city, so long as we don't intend say that in a demeaning way, like "the quintessential hick city" or something absurd like that. 

Well, I think this thread can still be useful for producing an insightful conversation about we mean by "world city" and what cities should be considered such and why. 

For sure, though, things that have gone on in Chicago have had an undeniable influence in the worlds of urban planning, architecture, finance, comedy, theater, and academia. It has ways to go in fashion and film. Maybe these are the clinchers?


----------



## Lightness (Nov 3, 2006)

Great thread! Go on, show off your stuff Chicago!

And don't forget, Chicago is the birthplace of House music!!! That's gotta be enough for the A-list.


----------



## PanaManiac (Mar 26, 2005)

*This thread started yesterday; I can't belive it's six pages long already. Isn't the answer an obvious yes? I don't see much fodder for debate...

P.S. I havn't read any of the posts yet.*


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jun 13, 2007)

UrbanSophist said:


> I think Chicago is the perfect example that brings us to question what "world class city" means. Should world class only be New York, London, and Paris? Chicago is certainly a famous city and is known all around the world. Furthermore, what do we mean by "good ol' americana"?
> 
> I walk down Michigan Ave. and I hear languages from all over the world. I go into coffee shops and stores, I hear people from all over the world. Hearing a foreign language or accent is normal in Chicago. This even feels ridiculous to say; like saying that people in Chicago also like to eat.
> 
> ...



good post. I agree. although Chicago is very easily becoming a fashion force to reckon with. 

Barney's New York has just signed a contract to buy a new space near Oak st. the store is going to be 5 times bigger then its current spot on michigan ave. I wish I had article. 

film, yes we are behind. although several movies are being filmed here this summer. such as the new batman movie. its been cool to see film crews all over downtown. 

:cheers:


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jun 13, 2007)

Lightness said:


> Great thread! Go on, show off your stuff Chicago!
> 
> And don't forget, Chicago is the birthplace of House music!!! That's gotta be enough for the A-list.


:dance: 

someone said that before. I didnt even know that. I love house.


----------



## brett7three (Jun 21, 2007)

LLoydGeorge said:


> It's warranted. This is a country in which at least three people running for president admit that they don't believe in evolution! It's absurd.


And there are how many people running for President? At least 13 I think. 

I guess you have a hard time being tolerant of the views of other people.

Anyway, back to city talk. What, in your opinion must Chicago have contributed to world culture in order for it to warrant the status of "World Class City" to you? Haven't the contributions mentioned been enough? Or is this going to end up being a circular debate?


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jun 13, 2007)

brett7three said:


> And there are how many people running for President? At least 13 I think.
> 
> I guess you have a hard time being tolerant of the views of other people.
> 
> Anyway, back to city talk. What, in your opinion must Chicago have contributed to world culture in order for it to warrant the status of "World Class City" to you? Haven't the contributions mentioned been enough? Or is this going to end up being a circular debate?


its actually 23 candidates. hno: 

but anyway, he has given no examples. besides something along the lines of chicago is "too American" and all he hears is hicks from the midwest when walking down michigan ave. :lol:


----------



## brett7three (Jun 21, 2007)

airsound said:


> ^^ Maybe Nightlife.... It is a very important thing in a city (culturally speaking) and i think the same as duke of hazzard... in this issue the city is dead...
> If somebody show me a picture of some part of Chicago at 4:00 or 5:00 am in the morning with lots of people in the streets, full of cars everywhere... i'll be pleased :cheers:


Chicago has a FANTASTIC nightlife, trust me, I grew up in the suburbs and the only place to go was Chicago... Nice thing about it is that it caters to all ages...


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

Evangelion said:


> you do realize that a chicagoan made this thread right?


yes


----------



## brett7three (Jun 21, 2007)

Chicagophotoshop said:


> its actually 23 candidates. hno:
> 
> but anyway, he has given no examples. besides something along the lines of chicago is "too American" and all he hears is hicks from the midwest when walking down michigan ave. :lol:


Thanks for the correction... Haven't been paying attention to "ALL of the candidates" except those that I have interest in or "fear greatly"... (Some of them are irrelevent in my mind.)

A politician that has to mold their viewpoints on focus groups and poll data is not someone that I want as my leader... I want someone that can stand by THEIR beliefs, whether popular or not... (of course, I have to agree with most of them... but)

If our leaders did only the popular things, we would never have fought the civil war and the oppression of slavery may have existed for far longer. We would not have built the incredible free market economy that we have, freed Europe from Nazi oppression and genocide... the list goes on and on...

Heck, the John Hancock Center would never have been built... "They" said it didn't fit in... Now it's the most beloved building Chicago.

Who is the committee of "They" anyway?

*Apologizing profusely for the digression*


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

airsound said:


> ^^ Maybe Nightlife.... It is a very important thing in a city (culturally speaking) and i think the same as duke of hazzard... in this issue the city is dead...
> If somebody show me a picture of some part of Chicago at 4:00 or 5:00 am in the morning with lots of people in the streets, full of cars everywhere... i'll be pleased :cheers:



The problem is you guys are talking about downtown....which is fairly dead after nightfall (it's the financial district,why wouldn't it be).

Go up to Halsted, Belmont, Clark or Broadway from 2am to 5am and you will be traffic and people everywhere. I remember walking out of bars at 4am and seeing traffic jams on Belmont and tons of people going in all directions.

That's where a lot of the 24 hour lifestyle of Chicago is centered - where people live. Not where people work or where tourists hang out.


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> Yes, of course.
> But a top position is the Tokyo.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


Actually the top position is shared by Tokyo, London , and New York.. sorry to shed some light on you but Tokyo does not stand alone.. but I know what yer gonna say.. "haha please dont say joke anymore" no joke.. all three of us share the top you tokyo humping newbie.


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jun 13, 2007)

Chicagoago said:


> The problem is you guys are talking about downtown....which is fairly dead after nightfall (it's the financial district,why wouldn't it be).


 it depends what you consider "downtown". if its the Loop then I agree. as you said, the financial district is dead at night. obviously. but river north, gold coast, rush st area, could be considered downtown and is shit packed nightly. 



Chicagoago said:


> Go up to Halsted, Belmont, Clark or Broadway from 2am to 5am and you will be traffic and people everywhere. I remember walking out of bars at 4am and seeing traffic jams on Belmont and tons of people going in all directions.
> 
> That's where a lot of the 24 hour lifestyle of Chicago is centered - where people live. Not where people work or where tourists hang out.



true


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jun 13, 2007)

nygirl said:


> you tokyo humping newbie.


:rofl:


----------



## Latoso (Mar 23, 2005)

^^I think London in 3 top spot.
Doubt me no think so.

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

Apple iPhone
#1 Universe Gooder Phone Yes! kay: :banana: :cheers:


----------



## Rizzato (Dec 13, 2006)

even though the answer is clear, its an ALPHA city..so yes, is a fantastic city.

Ive noticed, chicago at night is so scary looking. but in the day it looks so nice....
maybe it can be the worlds first ever bi-polar city, leading to more and more recognition world wide


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

Rizzato said:


> its an ALPHA city.


Last time I checked there were only 4 Alpha cities and Chicago wasn't one of them. So unless this has changed in the last couple years...


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

Rizzato said:


> even though the answer is clear, its an ALPHA city..so yes, is a fantastic city.
> 
> Ive noticed, chicago at night is so scary looking. but in the day it looks so nice....
> maybe it can be the worlds first ever bi-polar city, leading to more and more recognition world wide


That's interesting to me. I was just out and about in the Loop, and there were people all over the place. It was nice.


----------



## OtAkAw (Aug 5, 2004)

Gosh, this question shouldn't even be asked because the answer is so obvious...


----------



## gus_chi (Apr 17, 2006)

It is definitely a World Class City! [Major U.S. Financial Hub]

International City? No

I Love Chicago don't get me wrong, However, I just don't picture it as an international destination for Finance or Leisure. In many aspects, the city seems to be more domestic oriented due to its geographical Location.


----------



## brett7three (Jun 21, 2007)

gonzo said:


> Last time I checked there were only 4 Alpha cities and Chicago wasn't one of them. So unless this has changed in the last couple years...


http://www.diserio.com/gawc-world-cities.html

It is an alpha world city.


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jun 13, 2007)

gus_chi said:


> It is definitely a World Class City! [Major U.S. Financial Hub]
> 
> International City? No
> 
> I Love Chicago don't get me wrong, However, I just don't picture it as an international destination for Finance or Leisure. In many aspects, the city seems to be more domestic oriented due to its geographical Location.


hno: I'm sorry man but I live here. comments like this just bug me because I see soooo many foreign tourists every single day.


----------



## Evangelion (May 11, 2005)

chicago is the third largest city in the usa, 
but i believe amongst US cities it only ranks 8th or 9th in foreign tourists from a ranking i saw on here.... correct me if i'm wrong

why do people sayin they cant believe this thread exists or why it's still going on... obviously the topic is debateable and people don't exactly see eye to eye on the issue.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

Evangelion said:


> chicago is the third largest city in the usa,
> but i believe amongst US cities it only ranks 8th or 9th in foreign tourists from a ranking i saw on here.... correct me if i'm wrong


In 2003 (before Millennium Park) it was tied for 9th place with Boston in overseas tourists. However, I don't see your logic connecting it's size (#3rd largest). Honolulu, Miami, Orlando, Vegas, had more tourist ahead of San Francisco, Boston, DC, and they are smaller cities? I assume that makes Honolulu and Orlando more international than San Fran or Chicago or Boston?


In the Sun Times last week.....

Illinois tourism up 9%

June 12, 2007
Illinois hosted a record 71.8 million leisure visitors in 2006, up 9 percent from the previous year due in part to stepped-up tourism marketing efforts, state officials said Monday.

The growth in leisure travel hit 13.5 percent in Chicago and 5.5 percent Downstate, according to the data from D.K. Shifflet & Associates.

Not counting international visitors, Illinois hosted 91 million domestic visitors in 2006, a 6.4 percent increase over 2005. That tally includes all U.S. visitors who came from at least 50 miles away or stayed overnight.

AP




Evangelion said:


> why do people sayin they cant believe this thread exists or why it's still going on... obviously the topic is debateable and people don't exactly see eye to eye on the issue.


Let me ask you a question. Do you consider L.A. a world class city? _Obviously_ this topic is debateable (using your logic) since a thread on this forum exists.


----------



## LMCA1990 (Jun 18, 2005)

For me, even though it's one of the great economic centers of the USA, it needs cultural importance. Please don't attack me for stating my opinion.


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jun 13, 2007)

lmcm1990 said:


> For me, even though it's one of the great economic centers of the USA, it needs cultural importance. Please don't attack me for stating my opinion.


what do you mean exactly by cultural importance? if you read through this thread you will see many examples of this. food, music, architecture, etc.


----------



## Evangelion (May 11, 2005)

chicagogeorge said:


> In 2003 (before Millennium Park) it was tied for 9th place with Boston in overseas tourists. However, I don't see your logic connecting it's size (#3rd largest). Honolulu, Miami, Orlando, Vegas, had more tourist ahead of San Francisco, Boston, DC, and they are smaller cities? I assume that makes Honolulu and Orlando more international than San Fran or Chicago or Boston?
> 
> 
> In the Sun Times last week.....
> ...


theres no logic, it was just an observation. take from it what you want, but it does show that chicago is not quite the international destination someone keeps stating. from my experience from when i lived there and from people here - alot of people usually stop by there for a day or two if at all on their way to new york coming from asia or the west coast or on their way to the west coast coming from the east coast or europe
I like Chicago way more then LA, but i think LA is ahead of chicago when it comes to influence globally/nationally


----------



## lahnwyhn (Jun 23, 2007)

The problem Chicago has is its weather. And the bleak, flat landscape it sits on. It's probably the cause of the Second City complex; it's just something Chicago will never be able to change, but will always make it undesirable. 

Other than that, I'd say that Chicago just completely lacks media outlets. There's no city on earth whose extreme economic power (And Chicago is definitely on the 'extreme' level of economic strength, even more so financially and otherwise-- manufacturing has steadily been disappearing) is such a polar opposite of its cultural significance. 

Having grown up in Chicago, I used to care a lot about this. Now, I just don't care at all. It's my home (or will be soon again). I've lived in NYC and Madrid, I've visited Tokyo and Singapore, London and Hong Kong... There's just no such thing as a 'global' city when you've seen it all. 

In fact, I'd challenge anyone here to actually be able to specify what 'global' really means. Economically I can think of several specific factors that make Chicago global (that commodities exchange is far more important than you know, in addition to other things). International? Not so much. People don't really travel to Chicago except to travel through it. 

NYC has consistently failed to impress me (why should I pay THAT much to live in such a dirty place? I can get similar conditions for free in the slums of Bogota), San Francisco is pretty but doesn't have much else... I think the only other city in the world that I really loved was Los Angeles, and LA and Chicago both are cities people love to hate and hate to love.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

Evangelion said:


> theres no logic, *it was just an observation.* take from it what you want, but it does show that chicago is not quite the international destination someone keeps stating.


Oh come on, you obviously tried to connect Chicago's global importance to it's international visitors, which by the way, aren't bad at all (nearly 1 million overseas visitors in 2003) imo.



Evangelion said:


> from my experience from when i lived there and from people here - alot of people *usually stop by there for a day or two *if at all on their way to new york coming from asia or the west coast or on their way to the west coast coming from the east coast or europe


So Chicago in your eyes is more of a pit stop to more important destinations than an actual travel destination.hno: The Great Lakes are not tourist worthy?:lol: 



Evangelion said:


> I like Chicago way more then LA, but i think LA is ahead of chicago when it comes to influence globally/nationally


^^
I agree with that, but people on this forum have debated why L.A. is an global international city.

I like NYC more than I like L.A (not that there's anything wrong with L.A.), frankly, L.A imo has much more of a _cultural _impact globally than NYC.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

chicagogeorge said:


> I like NYC more than I like L.A (not that there's anything wrong with L.A.), frankly, L.A imo has much more of a _cultural _impact globally than NYC.


Hmmm, I don't know about that George. While I do think that LA undeniably has a large cultural influence, I would give NYC the edge on this one.

Though I _would_ place LA's cultural influence up there with NYC, London, and Paris.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

Westsidelife said:


> Hmmm, I don't know about that George. While I do think that LA undeniably has a large cultural influence, I would give NYC the edge on this one.


Well, maybe you are right, but I guess I was thinking more along the lines with L.A. being the media/entertainment center, Hollywood.....From my experience overseas, people know L.A. for Hollywood. Of course there's more to L.A. than just Hollywood. People know NYC for many reasons but as the American media center, I would guess L.A. has NYC beat.



lahnwyhn said:


> The problem Chicago has is its weather. And the bleak, flat landscape it sits on. .


With regards to Chicago's climate, it's not all that different than most east coast cities from say DC north to Boston. Maybe it's a bit more extreme with colder winters, maybe more heat and humidity in the summers (maybe not more than DC, but more probably more than NYC). Sometimes we have two seasons here with Autumn and Spring resembling either Summer or Winter.......As for the landscape, I love the prairies and the Great Lakes, the Mid Atlantic along the coast (not inland) is pretty flat too.


----------



## cbotnyse (Jun 13, 2007)

lahnwyhn said:


> It's probably the cause of the Second City complex;


The nickname Second City comes directly from the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. The entire city was burnt down and a "second city" was immediately built. It does not mean Chicago is second to anyone. (I'm just stating this because many people do not know exactly where that nickname really comes from.)


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

chicagogeorge said:


> Well, maybe you are right, but I guess I was thinking more along the lines with L.A. being the media/entertainment center, Hollywood.....From my experience overseas, people know L.A. for Hollywood. Of course there's more to L.A. than just Hollywood. People know NYC for many reasons but as the American media center, I would guess L.A. has NYC beat.


It just depends on how you look at it. Some don't even consider Hollywood as "culture." 

In fact, there are plenty of people who think LA lacks culture...which is far from the truth.


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

:ancient: :ancient: Threads like this are a waste of time. I don't really know what "world class" is supposed to mean, and I think it varies depending on who is using the term. Those that like Chicago (or any other city) for that matter will continue to like Chicago. Those that don't respect it are not going to be swayed by any amount of chest beating.


----------



## ChrisLA (Sep 11, 2002)

Personally I think Chicago is world class, but international I'm not so sure. Its a very diverse city, and the numbers prove that, but also at the same time it doesn't seem so as much as NYC, LA, or even San Francisco. Chicago seems more american in its values, and culture more so that the others I mentioned. Perhaps I'm mistaken, and its the mid-western culture we tend to associate as very american.

Also even though LA IMO has more of a world influence with the media/Hollywood, sometimes I wonder. Why? Several remarks I heard from a few Europeans. One is a friend of mine in London (he's never been to LA) and when we talk its like he forget that any other city in america beside NYC is important and big. In his opinion he thought Boston was boring and dead, so who really knows outside our own bubble.


----------

