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:

http://porter.csres.utexas.edu/album/Cityscapes_2/20020724_05dx010_%5BChicago%5D_From_Chicago_River_bridge_%5Brotate%5D_small.jpg

http://sears-tower-chicago.visit-chicago-illinois.com/sears-tower-exterior.jpg

http://www.vanermengem.com/img/chicago/kveus1506s.jpg

http://kcsnapshots.typepad.com/photos/travel/scan0013.jpg

http://www.vanermengem.com/img/chicago/kveus1772s.jpg

http://www.vanermengem.com/img/chicago/kveus1916s.jpg

http://www.vanermengem.com/img/chicago/kveus086s.jpg

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

Nope. Close but nahh...

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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..

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).

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.

It's called the Big Four for a reason.
:P

It's called the Big Four for a reason.
:P

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

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.

Chicago is more important for the world economy than London and Paris.
:hilarious :laugh: :hahaha: :lol: :laugh: :laugh: :hilarious :lol: :hahaha:

chicago doesnt have political power and international institutions

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

^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.

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.

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.


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/bt/4.jpg

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...

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.

^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.

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%)
-------

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

Chicago is alpha not beta...

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.

Mhhh why not?

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.

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

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

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

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.

Chicago is on the same level of Toledo and Newark.

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.

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:

"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.

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!).

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

That's just awful.

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

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...

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:

no

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?

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.

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



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/British_museum_facade.jpg



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fc/British_Musem_Great_Court_CRKL.JPG

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.

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.

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!

What about Chicago's shedd aquarium

or Lincoln Park Zoo...?

SOmeone have to know about those thingy..

C'mon...

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

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

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:

What about Chicago's shedd aquarium

or Lincoln Park Zoo...?

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

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.

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.

^
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.

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

^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.

(not my pics)

The Art Institute of Chicago:
http://www.illinoisbiz.biz/film/filmtrial/Images/museums/art_institute.gif
http://www.clevelandart.org/exhibcef/picassoas/illusmag/Old_Guitarist.jpg
http://sick.cirilo.net/images/american_gothic.jpg
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/eurptg/pictures/C50741big.jpg
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/amer/pictures/1942_51big.jpg
The Field Museum, housing Sue:
http://www.rotary2005.epagecity.com/site/pics/451/16115/62755/93755/Field_Museum_021.jpg
The Museum of Science and Industry: includes the Apollo 8 capsule, a U-505, and the Pioneer Zephyr
http://www.jamesspot.com/jet-chi.jpg
http://www.m37.cz/WORLD/HTML-chicago/pictures-html-chicago/Museum_of_Science01.jpg
http://www.earthsky.com/scienceqs/images/planebooth.jpg
http://www.artcom.com/Museums/vs/mr/380.jpg
The Shedd Aquarium:
http://www.gapw.com/shd4.jpg
The Adler Planetarium, first planetarium built in the western hemisphere:
http://cygnus.uchicago.edu/~lucy/adler_sundial.jpg
Mexican Anthropology Museum, best collection of pre-Columbian artifacts in the world
Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies: (after renovation)
http://www.spertus.edu/aboutspertus/images/new_building_DAY.jpg
Millenium Park:
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/129/2406/640/Millenium%20Park%20Cloud%203.jpg
http://www.millenniumpark.org/images/attractions/greatlawn.jpg
http://ccampbell.smugmug.com/photos/12031354-S.jpg

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.

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

Again, the British Museum, the Louvre, and the Prado kick the living daylights out of the Chicago Art Institute. I love NYC, but they even kick the shit out of the MET, and I am even willing to admit that.

(not my pics)
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.

The stuff you've shown us hasn't prove Chicago's eligibility to be one of the top 4 yet... no point showing us the same stuff over and over again, when they've already been discounted.

Again, the British Museum, the Louvre, and the Prado kick the living daylights out of the Chicago Art Institute. I love NYC, but they even kick the shit out of the MET, and I am even willing to admit that.

That most definitely isn't true. I don't want to go off topic, but the Met has (by far) the largest endowment in the world. Its collections are usually regarded as the most well-rounded on the planet. Read ARTNews and other industry publications. Noone is as strong in as many disciplines. Louvre, Prado, Hermitage have better nation-specific collections, while the Met is kind of a global "best of".

The British Museum is different from the others and isn't easily compared, though it's just as noteworthy.

The stuff you've shown us hasn't prove Chicago's eligibility to be one of the top 4 yet... no point showing us the same stuff over and over again, when they've already been discounted.

No, I want to see more pics of the aquarium. Pretty fish surely make Chicago an alpha city.

That most definitely isn't true. I don't want to go off topic, but the Met has (by far) the largest endowment in the world. Its collections are usually regarded as the most well-rounded on the planet. Read ARTNews and other industry publications. Noone is as strong in as many disciplines. Louvre, Prado, Hermitage have better nation-specific collections, while the Met is kind of a global "best of".

The British Museum is different from the others and isn't easily compared, though it's just as noteworthy.

You do have a point. Once you take into account the Egyptian-related exhibits, weaponry, and other rather unique collections, the MET is perhaps one of the best museums world wide.

OK, I amend my list. The British Museum, the louvre, the Prado, and the MET are more comprehensive than the Chicago Art Institute :wink2:

No, I want to see more pics of the aquarium. Pretty fish surely make Chicago an alpha city.

:hahaha: :hahaha:

There's no reason that Chicago isn't on the level. Still nothing here to disprove that it is.

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.

No, I want to see more pics of the aquarium. Pretty fish surely make Chicago an alpha city.
and pretty picturs in the met realy make NYC an alfa city!! if u only listen to how sad you sound. Its the overall picture that makes ny an alfa city not pretty pictures but everything as a whole. and the same goes with chicago , its not just "pretty fish " its everything that chiago offers that brings things to a whole new playing level and places chiago in the alfa city catagory

There's no reason that Chicago isn't on the level. Still nothing here to disprove that it is.

And there is nothing here that proves that Chicago is at that level... Chicago's status is up in limbo.

San Francisco's Aquarium is more famous due to the Star Trek movie with the whales :yes: ;)

Chicago isn't famous or important enough in the world IMO.
London and Paris are both homes to Queens, Presidents and Prime Ministers, and have truck loads of history.
NYC is one of THE cultural centres, and is percieved as the home of skyscrapers, even though Chicago was the birth place(the power of Hollywood), and has many great towers.

Chicago, whilst being a great city, just doesn't have that x-factor that puts it up there with the likes of Paris, NYC, Tokyo or London.

Just so everyone is clear on this, Kabukichou is a district in Shinjuku where one can pay large amounts of money to see Filipino prostitutes dance on your table while the yakuza owners watch from the back. You can also enjoy the wonders of having Nigerian "promoters" almost physically force you into clubs. A real classy place.

Why it was mentioned in the same sentence as the British Museum is beyond me.

Can anyone tell me which of the 2 world studies point that Chicago doesnt have which NYC, Paris, London, and Tokyo have.

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.

The think is that the British can't accept that we have two cities that are more important than London.
Chicago has more population than London, 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.

:wtf:

Ask anyone in the street where they would rather go for a holiday, London or Chicago, I would bet 9/10 would say London. It has more to offer, people want to say they have been there.
In the UK, Chicago is just another one of America's cities, it doesn't stand out like NYC, LA or Vegas

If an American goes to Europe and you ask him what city he prefered London or Paris, I'm Sure 9.5/10 would say Paris.

Here we go again with the fake statistics. At least my aquarium is tangible! :)

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. London was the capital of an Empire that stretched over a quarter of the globe. Paris is THE center for one of the top 10 economies in the world, and Tokyo is the richest metropolitan area in the WORLD, period. Chicago just does not have such an international punch.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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

"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

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

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.

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.

no

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....

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

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.

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...

Didnt you live an born in ROckford. ^

Anyways....http://diadelaetnia.homestead.com/files/Ophra.jpg

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.

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

Whaaaaa?!??!?

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.

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.

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.


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

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?

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 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=202583&page=1) thread).

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

:uh:

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?

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 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=202583&page=1) thread).

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

:uh:

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.

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

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:

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

^ 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.



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/bt/4.jpg

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.

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.

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???

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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 ;)

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:

Never heard of those dishes ;)


well, for your edification.

http://www.akook.com/twinkies/twinkies.jpg

Chicago Deep Dish Pizza

http://www.tastygram.com/isroot/tg/Images/product_images/medium/zt00214b.jpg

And a classic Dog, with hot peppers
http://www.vintageip.com/hotdog/tastejon.jpg

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

http://www.interestingideas.com/roadside/gyros/post.jpg

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

Every city in the world has culinary specialities

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

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.

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?

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
Ray Bradbury
Upton Sinclair

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
Lotsa of Big Band Jazz
Benny Goodman swing swing

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.

No, but it's no slouch.

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.

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.

^ 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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

There's no way in hell that Los Angeles comes ahead of Chicago in international business. .

I really like LA, but their corporate base just collapsed in the 90s. Outside of the media business, LA is about small business or niche specialities (car design, aerospace research and manufacturing, import/export)

Thomas Blackman, President of Art Chicago, announced two major changes to the international contemporary art fair - the exposition dates and location for 2005. The new dates and site, to be announced by the end of July, will mark a new beginning for one of the world's most consistently productive and beautiful annual contemporary art fairs.

The new site for Art Chicago 2005 is planned for a state of the art tent structure of 125,000 square feet -- the largest structure of this kind ever erected for a contemporary art fair. Blackman constructed a similar facility in 1993 and 1994 for Art Chicago before being selected for the traditional May dates at Navy Pier when the facility re-opened after redevelopment in 1995.

These changes have been in the planning for over 4 years and they will resolve a number of issues that have been facing the fair management in recent years. An international art fair has been staged in Chicago for the past 25 years. Thomas Blackman Associates, Inc. (TBA) has been producing an exposition in Chicago since 1993 and specifically at Navy Pier since 1995.
Now in its 13th year, Art Chicago still enjoys recognition as one of the world's most respected contemporary art fairs that provides young gallerists with the opportunity to gain notoriety on an international level. As the world economy increasingly focuses on the US market for stability, Art Chicago has continued its role as the primary venue for the most venerated international galleries seeking to present their artists to a dedicated and loyal clientele.

Art Chicago 2005 provides a sophisticated, yet casual, setting in which the anticipated 30,000 collectors, museum curators and general public can purchase the work on display, or merely gain a privileged insight into the contemporary art market's current state by surveying the thousands of works on view.

We invite you and your colleagues to experience America's finest international art event and enjoy Chicago's incomparable cultural and culinary highlights.

justadude, if you were in town last week, you could have seen works from the following galleries, maybe next year


Aaron Galleries - Chicago IL
Robert Henry Adams Fine Art, Inc. - Chicago IL
Alpha Gallery - Boston MA
Apex Fine Art - Los Angeles CA
Arion Press - San Francisco CA
Galeria Arte Art Nueve - Murcia
Belloc Lowndes Fine Art - Chicago IL
Galerie Bhak - Seoul
Roy Boyd Gallery - Chicago IL
Lisa Boyle Gallery - Chicago IL
Rudolf Budja Gallery / Artmosphere - Vienna
Galería Luis Burgos Arte Del Siglo XX - Madrid MAD
Valerie Carberry Gallery - Chicago IL
Stephen Daiter Gallery/Daiter Contemporary - Chicago IL
Douglas Dawson Gallery - Chicago IL
devening projects + editions - Chicago IL
dogmatic - Chicago IL
Dolan/Maxwell Gallery - Philadelphia PA
Drawing Project - Chicago IL
Linda Durham Contemporary Art - Santa Fe NM
Duru Artspace -
Catherine Edelman Gallery - Chicago IL
Galería Nieves Fernandez - Madrid
Peter Fetterman Gallery - Santa Monica CA
Flowers - London
Tory Folliard Gallery - Milwaukee WI
Forum Gallery - New York NY
Gemini G.E. L. at Joni Moisant Weyl - New York NY
Jill George Gallery - London
gescheidle - Chicago IL
Bobbie Greenfield Gallery - Santa Monica California
The Halsted Gallery - Bloomfield Hills MI
Van Harrison Gallery - New York NY
Jane Haslem Gallery - Washington Dc
Heller Gallery - New York NY
Gallery Henoch - New York NY
Nancy Hoffman Gallery - New York NY
Hotcakes - Milwaukee WI
Isabel Ignacio Gallery - Sevilla
Jack the Pelican Presents -
Juliana Gallery - Seoul
June Kelly Gallery - New York NY
KeumSan Gallery - Seoul
Koplin Del Rio Gallery - West Hollywood CA
Landfall Press - Santa Fe NM
Liquid Blue Gallery - Miami FL
Luckystar Studio - Milwaukee WI
Lumas Gallery for Editions - Berlin
David Lusk Gallery - Memphis TN
Kathryn Markel Fine Arts Inc. - New York NY
Marx-Saunders Gallery LTD - Chicago IL
Thomas McCormick Gallery - Chicago IL
Jerald Melberg Gallery - Charlotte NC
Galeria Metta - Madrid
Galerie Marion Meyer - Paris
Millenia - Orlando FL
Katharine Mulherin Contemporary Art Project -
Ann Nathan Gallery - Chicago IL
Newzones Gallery of Contemporary Art - Calgary Alberta
The Soap Factory - Minneapolis MN
Richard Norton Gallery - Chicago IL
Jonathan Novak Contemporary Art - Los Angeles CA
O.K. Harris Works of Art - New York NY
Pierre-François Ouellette art contemporain - Montréal QC
Pace Prints - New York NY
Aron Packer Gallery - Chicago IL
Pan American Art Gallery - Dallas TX
Parker's Box - Brooklyn NY
Perimeter Gallery - Chicago IL
Perugi arte contemporanea - Padova
Plane Space - New York NY
Plush - Dallas TX
Praxis International Art - New York NY
La Ribera Galería de Arte - Murcia
Riverhouse Editions/ van Straaten Gallery - Steamboat Springs CO
Arthur Roger Gallery - New Orleans LA
Rudolph Projects/ArtScan Gallery - Houston TX
Carrie Secrist Gallery - Chicago IL
Shark's Ink. - Lyons CO
Galerie Sho Contemporary Art - Tokyo
Sophisticated Traveler - Peoria IL
Stewart & Stewart - Bloomfield Hills MI
John Szoke Editions - New York NY
TAG Art Gallery - Nashville TN
Tandem Press - Madison WI
Susan Teller Gallery - New York NY
Paul Thiebaud Gallery - San Francisco CA
Galeria Trinta - Santiago de Compostela Galicia
UM Gallery - Seoul
Walker Fine Art - New York NY
Linda Warren Gallery - Chicago IL
Weinstein Gallery - Minneapolis MN
Western Exhibitions - Chicago IL
WildwoodPress, LLC - St. Louis MO
Marcia Wood Gallery - Atlanta GA
Zg Gallery, Inc. - Chicago IL

Someone should tell the good folks in Chicago about Art Basel.

Chicago has no reputation in the art world.

sorry dude, chicago isnt in that top 4, because new york shadow is over you.

justadude, if you were in town last week, you could have seen works from the following galleries, maybe next year

Very nice... what's your point? Do you think that London and Paris don't have similar exhibitions?

Look, I'm going to be the first one to step away from this discussion. Chicago is simply not in the same league as London, and at least in cultural terms isn't in the same league as Paris. Your statement that it has led the world for 150 years is simply, unequivocally wrong. Arguing about it is like arguing over the result of a mathematical formula... anyone with the brains and education to know the subject in the first place won't need to argue over the answer.

Someone should tell the good folks in Chicago about Art Basel.

Chicago has no reputation in the art world.


Maybe someone should tell the good folks in Rockford, my snobbish friend.

Opinion can't be wrong. I never said it lead the world, I offered an opinion that it has had a more important influence on our planet over the last 150 years than has either London or Paris. Now we can debate what the term influence means, certainly Chicago wasn't overseeing the demise of the world's largest empire during that time, but it certainly hasn't been twiddling its thumbs on the lazy Chicago River either.

You disagree and question my brains and education. Working ourselves up into a tizzy over this aren't we.

sorry dude, chicago isnt in that top 4, because new york shadow is over you.


and as anyone knows these days, London's booming economy is drawing the best and brightest from Paris.

oh come on stop with the childish argumentation. chicago isnt considered by almost all the non chicagoans in that forum in the top cities. thats it.

london is getting better than paris ATM, but paris has still alot of economical power and political power.

chicago influence must stop at cleveland ..because of NY shadow
Paris influence goes to the south , and is not stopped by any city, because theire is a BORDER between london and Paris , thats why london will never dominate paris

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

lollolololol modern art is a disgrace to the the art world! you wana call that sophistication !? id rather look at a beautifull deatailed peice of realist art . and besides dont forget chicagos huge contribution to the world of art is the chicago architectur! our city is literaly one big sculptur

Someone should tell the good folks in Chicago about Art Basel.

Chicago has no reputation in the art world.

nah chicago has a huge rep esp in Graphic Design...but it is still overshadowed by New York

but right now london is the center of the art world

as a young artist...I've often thought about moving to chicago for a change/and price of living...but there are an inumerable amount of resources here in new york that I can take advantage of....as for chi, I have some plans to visit later this year...and then I'll be able to see things first hand

chicago influence must stop at cleveland ..because of NY shadow Paris influence goes to the south , and is not stopped by any city, because theire is a BORDER between london and Paris , thats why london will never dominate paris

That's one of the silliest things I've read in awhile. Thanks for the laugh.

I have a friend (gallery business) who moved from Chicago to New York 7 years ago. Sadly he was getting ready to open a gallery downtown in fall of 2001 :( and had to scrap those plans.

Anyhow, he said he missed the Chicago art world because it was so relaxed, lotsa mutual support. Of course, he moved to NY for the money, but he gave up a grgeous Wicker Park 3 bedroom in a three flat for a cramped Brooklyn studio. Chicago's amazing, you should definitely give it a shot. My advice, move there in spring, there's nothing like a summer in Chicago on the lake. Seriously..... humanity, green grass, beaches and freshwater.

Anyhow, he's in Boston now, for love. But he's planning to open a gallery there as well.

I said I'd step away, but revisionists annoy me.

Opinion can't be wrong.

I want you to think long and hard about that statement.

I never said it lead the world, I offered an opinion that it has had a more important influence on our planet over the last 150 years than has either London or Paris. Now we can debate what the term influence means

Actually, that's not what you said. Here's your actual quote:

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

Now I don't care how you slice it, that statement is incorrect. Chicago is a very active and influential city, but you surely must be able to admit you got yourself WAY in over your head with that one.

You disagree and question my brains and education. Working ourselves up into a tizzy over this aren't we.

First of all, you just used the word "tizzy" in conversation. Are you sure you're from Chicago?

Secondly, I would absolutely question either the brains or the education of someone who says such a thing. Either you're a smart guy who hasn't reached higher ed yet, or you're a college grad who just missed the boat altogether. But one way or another, you're betraying an appalling ignorance of Chicago's relative position in the world. The fact that you turned around and accused everyone else of being myopic and falsely labeling you as provincial makes this conversation hover somewhere between sad and hilarious.

And I think it is you who are overstating London and Paris influence on the world. I gave a list of such things as cell phones, moderd fast food industry, futures industry, options industry, house music, SKYSCRAPERS....etc.etc.etc.

And what do I hear about London and Paris influence?? Shakespeare (notice I'm talking the last 150 years).

Look, I have a Master's degree for what it's worth, and have even been published. Now when I travel around East Asia, what do I see??

Skyscrapers, May Day celebrations in Tiananmen, and house music in every nightclub, people eating at McDonald's etal, and everyone clutching a cell phone. And today at my gym, local ladies glued to Oprah on the treadmills.

And I have the audacity to think Chicago has had a greater influence on the world than Paris over the last 15 decades.


Hmmmm.. wonder why. It's you who needs to alter your paradigm. I said, one could debate what the word influence means. But in my worldview, Chicago and its wares have been more influential...as of late.

And I suppose you also have an exclusivist understanding of world culture. I was a sociology major, to me....EVERYTHING is culture. I'm guessing for you, the definition is a bit more narrow. Maybe we just had a semantic misunderstanding.

Under no circumstances is Chicago on par with New York, London, Paris and Tokyo. Those cities are in a league of their own. Just because a city is not in that league doesn't mean that it's pathetic and that its residents should feel affronted. Rome, Berlin, Madrid, San Francisco, Bueno Aires, etc. are not in that league either, and yet, they're all excellent.

After reading this rapidly growing thread, I think I've come to terms with the fact that there is a limit on how many top-tier cities come out of countries, even one as powerful and populous as the US.

I think it'd be interesting for someone to present their case as to why LA isn't a top-tier city, a totally post-modern kind (that acts as a counter to NY), with 8% of the national population. Or why Toronto isn't, with 20% of the national population, and the lion's share of economy, political clout, and media.

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???
Sorry, I only meant the first part of the list - Ernest Hemingway & Saul Bellow were the ones I meant. From the second part clear I knew more.

You could also mention MUDDY WATERS, who hailed from the south but developped the electric urban blues in Chicago (first rocker kind of)... What I also missed is ROBERT PARK and the Chicago School that founded Human Ecology in the 1930s. For me these are the greatest things that came out from Chicago!

And what do I hear about London and Paris influence?? Shakespeare (notice I'm talking the last 150 years).

Are you serious? Go back and read what I fucking wrote. I mentioned Shakespeare in passing, specifically stated that it was more than 150 years ago, and went on to demolish your claims on other grounds. The only reason I even brought Shakespeare up was because you insinuated that Chicago's overall literary reputation exceeds London, which was yet another patently false claim on your part.

You have a major knack for forgetting the course of conversations, don't you?

Look, I have a Master's degree for what it's worth, and have even been published.

Shows what a Master's is worth these days, I suppose.

May Day celebrations in Tiananmen

Due to the birth of communism in London.

and house music in every nightclub

Due to the birth of electronic music in Paris (musique concrete) and in London.

people eating at McDonald's etal,

Which was founded in California. You're really kicking yourself in the ass here.

and everyone clutching a cell phone.

Which was invented by a New Yorker and first used in New York. The only Chicago connection there is that they were used experimentally in Chicago at an early stage. Even Wikipedia, which is entirely too thorough for such an obscure subject, doesn't bother mentioning Chicago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mobile_phones

And today at my gym, local ladies glued to Oprah on the treadmills.

Finally, something original to Chicago! Now that you've brought up Chicago's most famous resident, let's think of London's most famous resident... Queen Elizabeth the Second, head of state for 125 million people. Ok then.

And I have the audacity to think Chicago has had a greater influence on the world than Paris over the last 15 decades.

Hmmmm.. wonder why. It's you who needs to alter your paradigm. I said, one could debate what the word influence means. But in my worldview, Chicago and its wares have been more influential...as of late.

Again, this revision of the discussion. You never said anything about "influence", you stated in so many words that Chicago has "contributed more to world culture" than either London or Paris... which is flatly, factually WRONG. This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation, it is a simple matter of fact. And though I have nothing personal against you (besides the fact that you're really starting to irritate me), I have no problem at all telling you that you're plainly ignorant if you are actually going to sit here and argue otherwise.

^^Regarding cell phones...Isn't Mortorola(sp) based in the Chicago area?

Yeah, Rockford, from a Chicagoan who loves his city, I would stop pushing this issue.

Chicago literature is up there with New York and Paris, but not London. Our music is up there. We're as good as any city when it comes to modern architecture. Art, I have no idea.

But if we're measuring "the big four" by global importance, it's obvious that New York, Paris, London and Tokyo are simply on another level.

If we're measuring which is a nicer city, then it's all objective and there's not much point in arguing.

But someone should really end this thread for mercy's sake.

But if we're measuring "the big four" by global importance, it's obvious that New York, Paris, London and Tokyo are simply on another level.

:yes:




But someone should really end this thread for mercy's sake.
I'm thinking of closing it soon. It's obvious that Rockford won't budge an inch on his massively over-inflated opinions about Chicago. Any rational person will tell you that Chicago is nowhere near as influential as London/NY/Tokyo/Paris.

It's convenient to close this topic when someone disagrees with your opinions, no? Or that’s just the way I see it. From what posts I’ve read, Rockford isn’t doing anything bad. He’s sticking to his opinion, that’s all. If you’re going to call him out for his pro-Chicago posts than you better look at yourselves for all anti-Chicago, long live-NY/London/Paris/Tokyo posts that were just as bad. Just look at what you wrote:

"Any rational person will tell you that Chicago is nowhere near as influential as London/NY/Tokyo/Paris."

So when it is that your ideas or a poll's results reflect what's rational?

I think that New York, London, and Tokyo are a tier above Chicago. For one, I think the three are more important, but they also are able to dominate a region to an extent that Chicago doesn't.

New York dominates the Americas. period. I don't think Chicago is far-behind, but it isn't ahead and it isn't a tie. New York unfortunately does overshadow Chicago. The city oozes urban culture. Chicago does too, but not to the extent of New York. If Chicago was located in a different region, then it might be a first tier city. But then it wouldn't be Chicago so it doesn't really matter.

London clearly dominates the Europe & has a strong influence everywhere else. Nuff' said.

Tokyo, like the other three, has clear dominion over its area. Tokyo is clearly the center of Asia. If you think about it, Tokyo = NYC and Honk Kong = Chicago. Both HK and Chi are second in their respective areas.


Now Paris. I think, as did a few others, that an argument can be made that Paris is on the same level of Chicago. Paris is a city for lovers and artists, but other than that it doesn't really do much else to stand out. Paris and Chicago are both great cities, but I think Paris lucked out because it's in a different country than it's sister London.

It's convenient to close this topic when someone disagrees with your opinions, no? Or that’s just the way I see it. From what posts I’ve read, Rockford isn’t doing anything bad. He’s sticking to his opinion, that’s all. If you’re going to call him out for his pro-Chicago posts than you better look at yourselves for all anti-Chicago, long live-NY/London/Paris/Tokyo posts that were just as bad. Just look at what you wrote:

"Any rational person will tell you that Chicago is nowhere near as influential as London/NY/Tokyo/Paris."

So when it is that your ideas or a poll's results reflect what's rational?

The problem is rockford isn't acknowledging anyone elses opinions, he is sticking to his guns and not budging an inch!! The vast majority agree that Chicago, whilst being a great city, is not in the same league as LDN, Paris or NYC. Are all these people wrong, and Rockford right, that seems to go against logic. And no, we aren't anti-Chicago, don't be ridiculous, it seems your judgement is clouded by bias :ohno:

What a silly poll/question/whatever. Chicago is a great city, and my hometown, and for that I love it and relish the chance to defend it against misconceptions. However I am not deluded, I've traveled the world, been to the London museums, etc. I know where Chicago stands, quite comfortably a bit below those levels, but still a great vibrant world-class city and with that I am proud to call it home.

The problem is rockford isn't acknowledging anyone elses opinions, he is sticking to his guns and not budging an inch!! The vast majority agree that Chicago, whilst being a great city, is not in the same league as LDN, Paris or NYC. Are all these people wrong, and Rockford right, that seems to go against logic. And no, we aren't anti-Chicago, don't be ridiculous, it seems your judgement is clouded by bias :ohno:

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but looking at this topic I see contradictions in your post. Yes he is sticking to his "guns and not budging and inch" but I've seen a lot of anti-Chicago users (they're entitled to their opinions) that say the same broad statements over and over again, just disregarding the entire topic and bringing the conversation back to the beginning. And then they add insults like comparing Chicago to Toledo, Ohio which bring more flames into the topic. So you must ask yourself, which is worse: someone who honestly believes what they are saying is correct or people who just makeup fake or broad statistics or criticisms to justify their claims?

I think it's unfair for a mod to call out a specific person in such a big topic and blame him soley when more than one person has contributed to this topic, including the mod.

And I stick by my original comment on how polls or what the popular view is =/= always rational thinking. If you do think it equals rational thinking I could point out a lot of counterexamples for you. By saying that people who do believe Chicago is part of the top-tier are irrational you're further provoking people and making this topic even worse.

Also, everyone has bias, especially towards their hometown. Look at the locations of the people putting down Chicago: NYC, London, and Paris.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but there are points at which you can call those opinions wrong. No one would say that Aurora is as important as Chicago; and if they did say that, they would be wrong. I think it's the same with Chicago and London/NYC/Tokyo: Chicago is clearly a world-class city, but those three are clearly more *influential*.

Then again, I'm really not sure why this all matters. Sure, New York is a lot more important on a world stage, but we all are single people and not on a world stage. So New York has extra federal workers--so what? What do I care? For that matter, what do I care that Chicago has a great futures exchange? It's nice for bragging rights, I guess, but it doesn't affect my daily life. We're not arguing which is a *better* city.

Id say LA is the second largest city in the US (not just in terms of size or population).

It would appear to be portrayed that way both in the united states and in the international scene (it helps that LA is the entertainment capital and can portray such notions). It has the largest port complex in North America, the biggest point of entry of international trade in the US. The entertainment industry. Many fine institutions.

^don't forget being the hub of the largest state, largest port in the country, multiple HQs for diverse industries.

:yes:




I'm thinking of closing it soon. It's obvious that Rockford won't budge an inch on his massively over-inflated opinions about Chicago. Any rational person will tell you that Chicago is nowhere near as influential as London/NY/Tokyo/Paris.


???

Are you the thought police????

I didn't state that Chicago was prettier than Paris or more diverse than London. All I said was that in my opinion, it has (obviously below the radar screen) played a greater role in modern world culture (over the last 150 years) than has London or Paris. And I explained that my idea of culture may differ from others. And I also believe that this whole Big 4 thing is Eurocentric crap. And it will be considered laughable very very soon.

And note, I would never claim that Chicago has played a greater role than those 2 great cities in all of history. Only the last 150 years. 2000 years from now, the equation may change again.

what's the name of this forum again????

and Digital slash,

I've lived in Asia for the better part of a decade. If youn think Tokyo dominates Asia....well.....you don't know many Chinese and Koreans do you?

Someone mentioned that Chicago was where the Human Ecology movement started.

The University of Chicago is arguably among the most imfluential in the world. Only Cambridge has been home to more Nobel Prize winners

more on the UC

The University of Chicago is one of the foremost research universities in the world. Barely a century old, the departments of Physics, Economics, Sociology, Linguistics, Political Science (Committee on Social Thought), International Studies (Committee on International Relations) as well as the schools of Jurisprudence and Business are considered among the best in the country. Scholars affiliated with the University have obtained a total of seventy-five Nobel Prizes

The school's more important contributions to science include Robert Millikan's 1909 Oil-drop experiment, which determined the charge of the electron; the first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction, carried out by Enrico Fermi and his colleagues as part of the Manhattan Project on December 2, 1942; and the Miller-Urey experiment in 1953, considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life.

The school is also known for its important contributions to modern sociology, economics, international relations, archaeology, philosophy, literary criticism, archeology, and paleontology. In many of these areas there developed in the latter half of the 20th century the "Chicago School of . . ." -- where many members of a department adopted a consistent and often radical approach to the study of each of these subjects. One of the great influences over many of the Chicago Schools was the neo-Aristotelian philosopher, Richard McKeon, whose intellectual rigor, in the context of the collegial atmosphere of the University that encouraged cross-departmental discussions, engendered a fresh look at the study of these subjects.

The University of Chicago Press is the largest university press in the country and publishes The Chicago Manual of Style, the definitive guide to American English usage. The University also operates a number of off-campus scientific research institutions, the best known of which is probably Fermilab, or the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, managed by the University of Chicago for the U.S. Department of Energy. The University also operates the Argonne National Laboratory, owns and operates Yerkes Observatory in Williams Bay, Wisconsin, the Oriental Institute, and has a stake in Apache Point Observatory in Sunspot, New Mexico. The University is also a founding member of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation.

Some notable alumni of the University of Chicago

* Saul Alinsky, Community Organizer
* John Ashcroft, United States Attorney General
* Hastings Kamuzu Banda, Life President of Malawi from 1971-1994
* Saul Bellow, Author
* Allan Bloom, Philosopher
* Robert Bork, Judge, United States Supreme Court Nominee
* Sophonisba Breckinridge, Feminist
* Herbert C. Brown, Nobel laureate in Chemistry in 1979
* Ahmed Chalabi, Leader, Iraqi National Congress
* Isadore Singer (PhD), Mathematician
* David Suzuki (PhD), Ecologist and host of The Nature of Things



* Frank H. Easterbrook, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
* Carol Moseley-Braun, First female African-American United States Senator, 2004 Presidential Candidate
* Milton Friedman, Economist
* Philip Glass, Composer
* Katherine Graham, Publisher, Washington Post
* Friedrich Hayek, Political theorist
* Seymour Hersh, Journalist
* Stephen Leacock, Humorist and economist
* Patsy Mink, Representative (D-HI), United States House of Representatives
* Richard Rorty, Philosopher
* Philip Roth, Author
* F. Sherwood Rowland, Nobel laureate in Chemistry



* Carl Sagan (AB, PhD), Astronomer, creator of , 1977 Pulitzer Prize winning author
* Paul Samuelson (BA, 1935), Nobel laureate (Economics, 1970)
* Edwin Hubble (AB, PhD), Astronomer
* John Paul Stevens, United States Supreme Court Justice
* Leo Strauss, Philosopher
* Susan Sontag, Author
* Mark Strand, Poet
* Kurt Vonnegut, Author
* James D. Watson, ''Biologist, co-discoverer of DNA, Nobel laureate (Physiology or Medicine, 1972)
* Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy United States Secretary of Defense
* Indiana Jones, Archaeologist
* more professors than you can shake a stick at

and this probably won't endear many on this board to Chicago, but Chicago (the University at least) was the home of neo-conservative thought, Leo Strauss Wolfowitz etal....

The power of ideas. Oh and Rumsfeld is a Chicago native.

and the Chicago School of Economics has been the most influential movement in economics for decades....around the world.

but no, I'm just an uneducated hometown booster for thinking Chicago (and what and who is from there) is currently having more influence on the world than Paris.

Hysterical.

Nobody ever said that Chicago isn't an influential city, so I do not think that there is any reason why you should continue posting endless lists of people having lived/studied/worked in Chicago. It won't change the mind of anybody.

but no, I'm just an uneducated hometown booster for thinking Chicago (and what and who is from there) is currently having more influence on the world than Paris.

Maybe 'currently', but you were saying that the influence was bigger the past 150 years. Taking into consideration that Paris used to be the capital city of an empire (dating until 1960!) covering nearly 10 pct. of the world's area might leave Chicago in a rather thin position when it comes to influence, don't you think so?

one word......no

one word......no

Agreed

What a stupid thread...again.
Is it me or is this forum spiraling down...fast!

Of course it's not. It is a great city but London, New York, Paris and Tokyo are on a tier unmatched by any other city at the moment.

few miles behind.

For it's skyline is the best!

Of course it's not. It is a great city but London, New York, Paris and Tokyo are on a tier unmatched by any other city at the moment.

I agree. I think that these cities will always be unrivalled for several reasons. Firstly, great emerging cities like Shanghai and HK will never be able to build the unparalleled museums that NY, Londoon and Paris have. Also, old stone grandoise buildings constructed in the 19th and early 20th centuries in NY (and earlier in London and Paris) give these cities so much character. BY contrast, in new cities (like HK and Shanghai) for the most part everything is new (other than the Bund and some colonial buildings in HK).

and the Forbidden City in Beijing is what??? And the Aztec Pyramids of Mexico City....and the palaces of Seoul????

And don't forget, Shanghai has the Bund.

Again, this obsession with four city uber alles is just plain ridiculous.

I don't think Chicago is on the same level as New York, but neither is Paris or London. And Tokyo and Seoul are on a whole'nother level of urbanity and commerce. Seoul makes New York seem laid back.

It's a big world.

I agree. I think that these cities will always be unrivalled for several reasons. Firstly, great emerging cities like Shanghai and HK will never be able to build the unparalleled museums that NY, Londoon and Paris have. Also, old stone grandoise buildings constructed in the 19th and early 20th centuries in NY (and earlier in London and Paris) give these cities so much character. BY contrast, in new cities (like HK and Shanghai) for the most part everything is new (other than the Bund and some colonial buildings in HK).


And again, the obsession with old has its drawbacks. Shanghai has arguably one of the most spectacular museums in the world....and its (oh my) new!!!

http://www.mba-im.org/impressions/Shanghai%20Museum_IMG.JPG

Yes but the thing about London, New York and Paris is they have a mix of old and new which cities like Shanghai fail to have.

Firstly, great emerging cities like Shanghai and HK will never be able to build the unparalleled museums that NY, Londoon and Paris have.

Why not? New York's significant art collections aren't even a century old yet. Same with Chicago, where the Art Institute was only built in 1893. There's nothing about museums that can't be replicated elsewhere. If anything, the divisive nature of critics actually makes it likely that newer art museums will snap up important collections before they're recognized.

Also, old stone grandoise buildings constructed in the 19th and early 20th centuries in NY (and earlier in London and Paris) give these cities so much character. BY contrast, in new cities (like HK and Shanghai) for the most part everything is new (other than the Bund and some colonial buildings in HK).

So? Old buildings are nice but they're hardly essential to the making of great cities. Tokyo doesn't have nearly as many "old stone grandiose buildings" as NYC, but it manages to get by as a major world capitol. Again, these are things that can easily be replaced.

Why not? New York's significant art collections aren't even a century old yet. Same with Chicago, where the Art Institute was only built in 1893. There's nothing about museums that can't be replicated elsewhere. If anything, the divisive nature of critics actually makes it likely that newer art museums will snap up important collections before they're recognized.



So? Old buildings are nice but they're hardly essential to the making of great cities. Tokyo doesn't have nearly as many "old stone grandiose buildings" as NYC, but it manages to get by as a major world capitol. Again, these are things that can easily be replaced.

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

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 (and, obviously, the appeal is even greater for London and Paris). A mix of old and new, to me, is vastly more preferable than all new. That's one of the things that I don't like about Chicago. There are very few pre-20th century buildings in that city.

Yes but the thing about London, New York and Paris is they have a mix of old and new which cities like Shanghai fail to have.

I agree.

Mike Hunt,

Chicago was like the world's4 th largest city in 1899. Have you ever been to Chicago?? There are literally thousands upon thousands of buildings built before 1900.

Mike Hunt,

Chicago was like the world's4 th largest city in 1899. Have you ever been to Chicago?? There are literally thousands upon thousands of buildings built before 1900.

I'ver been there countless times. It has very few buildings from the 1800's and none from before then.

Mike Hunt,

Chicago was like the world's4 th largest city in 1899. Have you ever been to Chicago?? There are literally thousands upon thousands of buildings built before 1900.

You're making that up. Do you have a source?

Chicago isn't even an old city by American standards, to say nothing of European standards.

In Chicago there's nothing older than from after the Great Fire in the 1870's.

http://www.asergeev.com/pictures/archives/compress/1999/101/jpeg/12.jpg
1887
http://patsabin.com/illinois/auditorium.jpg

http://patsabin.com/illinois/monadnock.jpg

the Newberry Library 1892
http://patsabin.com/illinois/newberry2.jpg

also 1892 University of Chicago

http://patsabin.com/illinois/univ_chicago.jpg

the old public library now the Culture Center
http://patsabin.com/illinois/library.jpg

the Congress hotel
http://patsabin.com/illinois/congress.jpg

These are all downtown (except U0f C), in the neighborhoods and even in many suburbs, you can find thousands of 19th century structures.

So bascially the oldest builing in Chicago is from 1887?
:runaway:

My college dorm was about 100 years old than that. You realize people in Rome live and work in buildings that predate Christianity, right?

You're making that up. Do you have a source?

Chicago isn't even an old city by American standards, to say nothing of European standards.

In Chicago there's nothing older than from after the Great Fire in the 1870's.


actually, I was off by 1, it was the fifth (in the west)
http://www.thymos.com/know/outline.html

World's largest cities in 1900 (West only)
London 6,480,000
New York 4,242,000
Paris 3,330,000
Berlin 2,424,000
Chicago 1,717,000


The ignorance of Chicago rears its head again.

So Mr. Mike,

where exactly did 1,717,000 people live. In tents???

My guess is that you didn't get out of the downtown very much. Chicago was the world's fastest growing city from 1870-1900.

actually, I was off by 1, it was the fifth (in the west)
http://www.thymos.com/know/outline.html

World's largest cities in 1900 (West only)
London 6,480,000
New York 4,242,000
Paris 3,330,000
Berlin 2,424,000
Chicago 1,717,000


The ignorance of Chicago rears its head again.

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

So bascially the oldest builing in Chicago is from 1887?
:runaway:

My college dorm was about 100 years old than that. You realize people in Rome live and work in buildings that predate Christianity, right?


Woo hoo.....and you do realize that are likely more 100 year-old buildings in Chicago than in Rome right???

no? you didn't?

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??????

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

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).

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

http://www.attainbrokerage.com/images/buildings/RowHouses.jpg

from the 1870's

http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/images/landmarks/j/JacksonBlvd3.gif

http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/images/landmarks/j/jacksonblvdB1a.jpg

http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/images/landmarks/m/McSem1a.jpg

mid-north district
http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/images/landmarks/m/midnorth1a.gif

http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/images/landmarks/m/midnorthB2.gif

1875 row houses
http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/images/landmarks/b/burling1a.jpg

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

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?

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.



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.



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

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).

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.

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.

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...

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!



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.



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.


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.



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.



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.

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.

: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.

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.

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:

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:

I have to agree... Chicago is not in the tier as them but the one below them.

For the quote of Chicago's being 4th in the world, wasnt there any city in China or India larger than Chicago at that time?

When it comes to Chicago’s influence over the world in the last 150 years, it wins hands down.

What are they teaching in the schools up there?

How to sniff glue and talk rubbish :yes:

Sounds like some Chicago people have an inferiority complex

What are they teaching in the schools up there?

If you are going to quote me at least finish the quote. Is there a more important invention in the last 150 years then the assembly line? If so please tell me.

: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.
I am a Florida State grad even worse. NeoLiberalism has noting to do with U of chicago? Tell that to the Bank of Swedon that keeps giving the noble prize to the members of the faculty of the school then.

no.

The End.

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!


And I claimed where that London didn’t do any of these things?

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.


And this has to do with the United States how?

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.

And where was I wrong here? Well except for the fact that I forgot the not in the sentence “Except for the future markets does {not} (which should have been there} really lead in any other world economic measure compared to London, NY or Tokyo” but it was easy to see that I meant it to be there.

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.

All I asked was a question on how they did the statistics on international flights in Europe. I was in NO way making a value judgment. I just wondered how it is done now. But, to the rest of the response, since when has either Tokyo or London resided in the US? I responded that Chicago in air traffic is amongst the world leaders in air travel, which it is. Then, I responded that in the USA Chicago is the leader in Rail and Trucks that it is.

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.

I have always read that Chicago’s meat packing industry was the first use of the assembly line well again the disassembly line. H Ford for example used this example he saw in Chicago for his blue print. IR does not mean the assembly line it just means machines in use of manufacturing. If London did indeed have the first assembly line this is the first I have ever heard of it.

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.

I would not deny that Pairs is a cultural, political or economic center. But as you yourself stated it vies with Frankfurt for the financial hub of the continent. Pair’s political power is not as great as it used to be, with Germany an equally strong player in EU affairs. Of course Pairs fashion industry is greater then Chicago’s but so fucking what, when does that make a city important. Next you are going to tell me that fine cuisine matters but then in that case London would be the least powerful city (sorry I could not resist).

The weird thing is most of the list of the worlds greatest cities lists have Chicago just under the big 3 plus Paris. Paris unforutuanly is loosing its stature and will be passed in the near future by many cites. This does not change the fact that it’s the most beautiful city in the world and the city I would most love to live in. This is why I hope Pairs gets the 2012 Olympics. I have no ill will towards any city mentioned and would kill to visit all of them. But, you make Chicago out to be a nothing city when it’s North Americas second most important city. Maybe if each state was seen as country then it would garner more respect from you but we are a country that is only slightly smaller then the EU. And, since you seem to think I disrespected the great London I really hope you the city gets a F1 grand prix even if stole the FIA from Paris.

This is extrememly stupid....London is waay more important and influencial the Chicago.
Lookining at people argue about this makes me sick.

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...

And Europeans 100 years ago would have rolled their eyes when an American traveling in Europe would have claimed America as more important than Europe. They would have guffawed and spoke of Empires.

Get over it.

Nobody is saying you don't have the right to think Paris is more important than Chicago.

I happen to think otherwise. What is childish is for people to dismiss others ideas and opinions when they don't jive with their own preconceived notions.

Although I believe that Chicago is somewhat underrated, I do not think it can compete with the 4 megacities. The only one city that has a chance of that is Hong Kong. To say that Chicago is not a major world city because it is in the same country as the US is somewhat correct. The 4 megacities are positioned globally. London is the only major world city that can communicate with Tokyo and NYC in the same working day.

For example, if Chicago were in Germany, I believe that it would be much more important internationally.

Woo hoo.....and you do realize that are likely more 100 year-old buildings in Chicago than in Rome right???

no? you didn't?

:lol: :hahaha: :laugh: :hilarious m)) :rofl: :hilarious :hahaha: :rofl:

My God,

Chicago was bigger than Rome 100 years ago. OKAY already????

My God,

Chicago was bigger than Rome 100 years ago. OKAY already????

Seoul is bigger than NYC, but is it more important?

Also, you could never compare Chicago to Rome in terms of architecture. Especially before 1900.

Here's a map showing the built up area of Chicago in 1900, for what it's worth

http://www.orl.arch.ethz.ch/dl/Chicago/images/Chgo1900.gif

the built up area north to south was roughly 20km.

If you are going to quote me at least finish the quote. Is there a more important invention in the last 150 years then the assembly line? If so please tell me.

Look, Chicago was not the home of the assembly line. You yourself have accredited it to Chicago's meat-packing industry... think about it... they weren't "assembling" meat.

The full story is that assembly lines existed before Chicago was even founded. They were common in 19th-Century factories. What you are thinking of is the moving assembly line. The Chicago meat-packing industry used conveyor belts to save time in moving meat from one stage of processing to the next. Henry Ford picked up on that idea, applied it to industrial construction and installed the first true assembly line in Detroit. It's true that Chicago's meat packers helped inspire the idea, but accrediting it to them directly is inaccurate.

Again, this is a case in which Chicago had a peripheral influence, but was not the center of development for an important idea.

And Europeans 100 years ago would have rolled their eyes when an American traveling in Europe would have claimed America as more important than Europe. They would have guffawed and spoke of Empires.

And they would have been absolutely correct in doing so. 100 years ago Europe was more important than the United States, and that traveling American would have been nothing but an ignorant blowhard.

Do I need to tell you that, during the Roman empire, Rome's population was 1 million?, that makes quite a lot of old buildings don't you think?

Now I'm not even talking about what hapened architecturally in the city after the fall of the empire.

I respect the fact that you are defending your city, even if the only ones out there saying Chicago is equal to the top 4, are "Chicagoists", but by saying it has more old buildings then Rome, you are just making a fool of yourself

Frankly I am saying the top 4 is a figment of many's imagination. I am simply saying that in my opinion, in the larger scheme of things Chicago is as important a city as Paris. So is Mexico City, so is Seoul, so is Shanghai, so is Moscow and a dozen other major metros.

I tend to think that the 20 or so people who voted that Chicago is in this league are from Chicago or middle American states like Ohio, Indiana, etc.

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).
Lol... he probably had English Lesson #22: "The Chicago symphony orchestra" rammed down his throat during English class while he was in junior high.

And I claimed where that London didn’t do any of these things? Where did I say otherwise!



And this has to do with the United States how?I thought we were talking about Chicago being comparable to the likes of London, which it isn't!



And where was I wrong here? Well except for the fact that I forgot the not in the sentence “Except for the future markets does {not} (which should have been there} really lead in any other world economic measure compared to London, NY or Tokyo” but it was easy to see that I meant it to be there.Still a typo though. On other fronts financially it lags behind the big three/four.


All I asked was a question on how they did the statistics on international flights in Europe. I was in NO way making a value judgment. I just wondered how it is done now. But, to the rest of the response, since when has either Tokyo or London resided in the US? I responded that Chicago in air traffic is amongst the world leaders in air travel, which it is. Then, I responded that in the USA Chicago is the leader in Rail and Trucks that it is.Chicago does well, but its aviation hub is dewarfed once again by the likes of London's 5 international airport system serving 130mppa.



I have always read that Chicago’s meat packing industry was the first use of the assembly line well again the disassembly line. H Ford for example used this example he saw in Chicago for his blue print. IR does not mean the assembly line it just means machines in use of manufacturing. If London did indeed have the first assembly line this is the first I have ever heard of it.Wedgwood was based not in London, but in a place called Staffordshire, where ironically the basis of the skyscraper can be found. The Ditherington Flax Mill (built 1796) was the first building on the planet to be built with an iron frame: the basis of what skyscrapers would later become!

However Wedgwood's processes (some argue that it was Darby) were to be found in London factories from around 1780 on wards, as the idea of mass-production became more common and the British Empire started to expand at a phenomenal rate - long before the incorporation of Chicago



I would not deny that Pairs is a cultural, political or economic center. But as you yourself stated it vies with Frankfurt for the financial hub of the continent. Pair’s political power is not as great as it used to be, with Germany an equally strong player in EU affairs. Of course Pairs fashion industry is greater then Chicago’s but so fucking what, when does that make a city important. Next you are going to tell me that fine cuisine matters but then in that case London would be the least powerful city (sorry I could not resist).Remember though that EU has an immense population and larger economy than that of the US.

Paris does still have political power - it commands the 5th largest economy on the planet and the big decisions are made in Paris and Washington between the two respective nations. Chicago quite literally like New York has practically zero sovereignty (the UN is no more than a puppet).

I could have gone on to go on about shopping, food, the image, the global recognition which are all factors as to why Paris is better. Its rail system for example dewarfs Chicago, I could go on and on!

I believe it was the March issue of Gourmet which dedicated the entire publication to London and the UK for the best range and quality on the planet - the first that this international (US based) publication had ever done. Other publications like Restaurant Magazine ranked the best restaurants to eat (by restaurant owners, critics, chefs, etc...) on the planet. London out of the top 50 list produced, had the most places, followed by Paris and then New York. Food in the UK and London has changed beyond your wildest dreams.



The weird thing is most of the list of the worlds greatest cities lists have Chicago just under the big 3 plus Paris. Paris unforutuanly is loosing its stature and will be passed in the near future by many cites. This does not change the fact that it’s the most beautiful city in the world and the city I would most love to live in. This is why I hope Pairs gets the 2012 Olympics. I have no ill will towards any city mentioned and would kill to visit all of them. But, you make Chicago out to be a nothing city when it’s North Americas second most important city. Maybe if each state was seen as country then it would garner more respect from you but we are a country that is only slightly smaller then the EU. And, since you seem to think I disrespected the great London I really hope you the city gets a F1 grand prix even if stole the FIA from Paris.No Chicago is a good city...but not the best and that is why it won't be in the top 4.

I've been to NYC London and Tokyo. Currently I live Chicago. I think Chicago is a great city in its own right, but i dont its anywhere on the level of the others cities above. I recently moved here, and i'm enjoying it so far but to compare to the other four then i'd have to say Chicago isnt that grand, its cute though :)

But Chicago has the 10 million population plus a higher GDP Per Capita than all the countries of the EU but tiny Luxembourg.

I've been to NYC London and Tokyo. Currently I live Chicago. I think Chicago is a great city in its own right, but i dont its anywhere on the level of the others cities above. I recently moved here, and i'm enjoying it so far but to compare to the other four then i'd have to say Chicago isnt that grand, its cute though :)


How recently? Because if you haven't spent a summer in Chicago, you really shouldn't pass judgment yet. Ditto for winter. In September it's the greatest city in the world, bar none. In February, it's a notch above Novosibirsk.

I won't speak for Tokyo, but Chicago is not on the same level of New York, London or Paris. I lived in Chicago for three years and absolutely loved it, however.

Chicago is within view of those other cities, it may even have a certain family resemblance, but it's not quite as impressive as the cities of the big four. Size-wise, institution-wise, and general city-wise. It's just not on the same scale. If all of Chicagoland were condensed into the city of Chicago, it could compete, but as it is it is a big 3 million city surrounded by 6 million of suburbs no more "world-class" than the suburban corridors of any large populated area.

Those six million peopleand the suburbs of Chicago you dismiss include the largest collection of Frank lyoyd Wright homes in the world, the headquarters for such world-leading corporate giants as Motorola and McDonald's, the incredible residential architecture of the North Shore, gems such as Hinsdale and urban ethnic enclaves such as Cicero and Skokie, a world class university perched on Lake Michigan (Northwestern in Evanston), home to what many consider to be among the top business schools in the world (Kellog), a national lakeshore with 1o miles of sand dunes and beaches that was the birthplace of the Human Ecology Movement (Indiana Dunes), Argonne and Fermi Labs, one of the world's largest particle accelerators, UL LAbs, which is the world standard for safety testing, America's most important metallurgical complex where 75% of our nation's steel is made, Arlington Racetrack, not to mention older urban centers such as Aurora and Elgin, and the amazing Bahai Temple at Wilmetter, one of the world's most beautiful works of religious architecture.

Not every inch of London and Paris is "world class" either. And not every inch of Chicagoland outside the city is without world-class attractions.

How recently? Because if you haven't spent a summer in Chicago, you really shouldn't pass judgment yet. Ditto for winter. In September it's the greatest city in the world, bar none. In February, it's a notch above Novosibirsk.

i have actually, last summer i stayed here in chicago for about 3 weeks.
during the summer Chicago is amazing compared to its soured winters, but i still dont think summers here are enough to compare to the top 4

3 weeks ain't enough. You need to do the entire summer before you really understand what makes the place tick. :)