6 ms·

Little off-topic, but from the article: “This is the second most important building in Chicago? And this is the third most important city in the United States?

by 333c 8y ago

Little off-topic, but from the article: “This is the second most important building in Chicago? And this is the third most important city in the United States?” he questioned. By what metric is Chicago the third most important city in the United States? I'd argue that NYC and DC are the top two (not necessarily in that order) and either San Francisco or Los Angeles (or both) also rank above Chicago. Thoughts?

adjkant 8y ago
I have a good friend from Chicago and IMO the midwest is a bit of a cult and Chicago is the epicenter of it. The practical result of this is a lot of local pride in Chicago. Chicago is the city that represents basically all of the Midwest from an urban perspective while other regions usually have multiple epicenters. I can't find the stat at the moment but I believe there's an abnormally high return rate for people born in the Chicago area to come back to it. It's even very cyclical where young people live in the city, then they move out to the suburbs, have kids who go to college somewhere like OSU or Michigan then come back and work in Chicago and the cycle repeats. Nowhere else really has such a clear cycle like Chicago does, and I think it's because of the way Chicago is viewed by people in the area. Don't get me wrong it's a solid city but in terms of cities in the US I'd want to live in it probably comes out to #6 or so. In importance, I'd agree with your assessment as well. All of this to say that I think Chicagoans find some odd reasons to put themselves high up in importance. I've heard a lot about O'Hare being the air travel epicenter of the US where every connecting flight goes through, the (now fading) financial epicenter Chicago used to be, a top food scene, the list goes on. I think it has local importance and I think locals have a bit of a chip on their shoulder about others not viewing it as being so important. Edit: It's unclear if this is a local or international tourist in this specific case. Curious what the perspective is for an international tourist on the criteria.
- camjohnson26 8y ago
  It’s the 3rd largest city by population. I think that’s where they’re getting the number.
  - 333c 8y ago
    But population doesn't (in my opinion) determine importance. For example, the capital is a very important city even if not the most populous. That said, I'm basically questioning an off-the-cuff quote made by a friend of someone who was in the elevator. The speaker should be forgiven for being imprecise…
    - gsich 8y ago
      In this case it does. The author used population as criteria for importance. Which is fine. You might have a different criteria.
      - adjkant 8y ago
        > The author used population as criteria for importance. There's no evidence for that anywhere, nor is this the author. This is a quote from a friend of someone in the elevator and there's no given criteria, so we can only speculate.
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      > But population doesn't (in my opinion) determine importance. For example, the capital is a very important city even if not the most populous. It goes the other way. Importance determines population. If the capital is not populous, that reflects the fact that the capital isn't especially important. But assuming you're in a more or less steady state, that effect has already happened, so it's perfectly valid to just assume that importance and population are tightly correlated. The directionality doesn't really matter to the result.
      - adjkant 8y ago
        > Importance determines population. Does it though? You still have provided no supporting arguments for that. People live in places for reasons beyond importance. In fact, "importance" really isn't a factor people consider when they decide to live somewhere at all really in my experience.
    - deleted 8y ago
- 333c 8y ago
  Thanks for the frank perspective! I'm a California native currently in my first year of college in the Midwest, so I'll have to keep an ear out for this attitude about Chicago.
- almost_usual 8y ago
  Chicago has the third largest population and GDP for a metro area in the U.S. The Bay Area ranks 6th in the U.S. GDP wise. Dallas Ft Worth and DC are both higher. If you’re ranking cities by tourism I’d think Chicago would fall below SF or DC.
  - vasilipupkin 8y ago
    hmm. doubt that last statement. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-visited-cities-in-the-us.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-visited-cities-...
    - kodablah 8y ago
      To be fair, most people don't consider tourism the same as just arriving in a city for any reason.
    - almost_usual 8y ago
      I’m surprised Washington DC isn’t on that list.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- vasilipupkin 8y ago
  you seem to be obsessed with assessing Chicago's importance - more so than anybody I've ever met from Chicago here is importance not by population, but by GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_areas_by_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_area...
  - adjkant 8y ago
    Yes, one post is of course an obsession... I think this will turn into a pointless debate quickly unless someone nails down what defines the importance of a city. I don't personally think GDP is a defining factor. DC is a prime example against that. For the record, I'm not putting Chicago far down on that list - it's probably around #5 (behind NYC, DC, SF, and LA). But I think this discussion came from the very casual assumption of someone to put Chicago #3 which I do think is interesting to see where that came from.
    - almost_usual 8y ago
      I guess the question is what do you find ‘important’ because your ‘ranking’ doesn’t map to anything. The backbone of San Francisco’s economy is tourism. If you find tourism important then I guess your list could make sense.
      - adjkant 8y ago
        Why do you assume mine maps to nothing? Are you really arguing that the importance of cities is based off a single economic number or simply the number of people living there? I would say it's a combination of politics, cultural relevance, and economics mainly. Going down 1-4 in no order: New York - huge center of mixed cultures, huge both population and economic output (larger than Chicago), and a big center of the fashion industry, art, etc. DC - Capital with lots of political relevance, still good sized and has lots of other aspects that make up a city like good public transit SF - The tech center of a world being increasingly run by tech, for better or worse LA - Huge global entertainment hub, huge cultural mixing pot, huge GDP and population I find this strong backlash interesting as I have no dog in this fight - I'm from a no-name suburb to a medium city in the south and am simply a lover of cities comparing what I have encountered.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- wenc 8y ago
  > All of this to say that I think Chicagoans find some odd reasons to put themselves high up in importance. This comment doesn't ring true in general. My experience is that most Chicagoans usually correctly rate their city. Chicago has been historically perceived as one of the great American cities, with indisputably great achievements (Chicago architecture, economics, transportation, mercantilism, etc.). And today, people love living in Chicago because it's a major cultural center that has many things to offer over smaller U.S. metropolitan areas, while still being much more affordable than coastal cities. But unless they are very young, immature and non-world-savvy, most Chicagoans usually also confess there are problems with crime, crooked politicians and (ever increasing Cook County) taxes. Chicago today feels like NYC in the late 80s, but with modern infrastructure. Not that many Chicagoans will gush unreservedly about their city. Chicago is not the kind of city that invites unexamined boosterism.
  - adjkant 8y ago
    I absolutely agree it's had more importance historically, but many of the things you listed don't have much relevance for what people define as an "important" city today. The central location of Chicago I think plays a lot into many of those factors re transportation and mercantilism in particular which aren't as relevant as travel became easier and the internet arose. In terms of cost, in my experience, it's in line with coastal cities overall besides SF/NYC, maybe a bit lower than Boston. > Not that many Chicagoans will gush unreservedly about their city. Chicago is not the kind of city that invites unexamined boosterism. I wouldn't say they gush, but I know a good deal of people from the Chicago area at this point and it's very much in my experience an underlying assumption set they hold.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - wenc 8y ago
      I disagree with much of what you wrote but we will just have to agree to disagree.
- debt 8y ago
  “but in terms of cities in the US I'd want to live in it probably comes out to #6” Ah so you’ve never lived in Chicago then
  - adjkant 8y ago
    No, but I haven't lived in many cities on that list. No, it's not a perfect assessment but the assumption that "X city is top and anyone who disagrees clearly hasn't lived there" is a perfect example of the attitude I'm talking about originally. I may not have lived there but I have spent a good deal of time in many cities. I have explored various neighborhoods in these cities (Chicago included), regularly use their public transit, looked at COL numbers and done apartment searching in them to see prices, etc.
slyfocks 8y ago
The Chicago metropolitan area is not only the third most populous in the U.S., it also has the third highest GDP by a fair margin. More generally, it tends to be regarded as a much more global city than SF or DC. New York is clearly #1 as far as international importance, but Chicago generally places third behind LA in any serious ranking of U.S. cities based on economic and cultural importance.
almost_usual 8y ago
If you look at GDP ranking Chicago comes 3rd in the U.S. Also, the 3rd most populous city in the U.S. Metro area rankings by GDP are the following. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_areas_by_GDP https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_ar...
phil21 8y ago
What is the metric for ranking? By my metric, DC doesn't really qualify as a city - it's a giant barely functional suburb. Most metro areas in the US would seem to be similar. But my ranking is irrelevant really. Most silly rankings like this put chicago around #3 based on population/GDP/transport/etc. For me - it's one of maybe 3-4 cities in the entire US where you can live comfortably without a car - meaning there is at least semi-competent public transportation at a "World City" level. LA, SF, and DC don't qualify at all by that metric so I'm not sure how useful it is :) I guess in my minds eye I put the "top 3" cities in the US as NYC, LA, Chicago in that order - but it's also based on somewhat dated and historical information.
Redoubts 8y ago
Top 3 are NYC, LA, and CHI by any measure. Not sure why SF was even mentioned, it doesn’t even place.
mcguire 8y ago
Population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...