“This is the second most important building in Chicago? And this is the third most important city in the United States?” he questioned.
By what metric is Chicago the third most important city in the United States? I'd argue that NYC and DC are the top two (not necessarily in that order) and either San Francisco or Los Angeles (or both) also rank above Chicago.
Thoughts?
I can't find the stat at the moment but I believe there's an abnormally high return rate for people born in the Chicago area to come back to it. It's even very cyclical where young people live in the city, then they move out to the suburbs, have kids who go to college somewhere like OSU or Michigan then come back and work in Chicago and the cycle repeats. Nowhere else really has such a clear cycle like Chicago does, and I think it's because of the way Chicago is viewed by people in the area. Don't get me wrong it's a solid city but in terms of cities in the US I'd want to live in it probably comes out to #6 or so. In importance, I'd agree with your assessment as well.
All of this to say that I think Chicagoans find some odd reasons to put themselves high up in importance. I've heard a lot about O'Hare being the air travel epicenter of the US where every connecting flight goes through, the (now fading) financial epicenter Chicago used to be, a top food scene, the list goes on. I think it has local importance and I think locals have a bit of a chip on their shoulder about others not viewing it as being so important.
Edit: It's unclear if this is a local or international tourist in this specific case. Curious what the perspective is for an international tourist on the criteria.
That said, I'm basically questioning an off-the-cuff quote made by a friend of someone who was in the elevator. The speaker should be forgiven for being imprecise…
There's no evidence for that anywhere, nor is this the author. This is a quote from a friend of someone in the elevator and there's no given criteria, so we can only speculate.
It goes the other way. Importance determines population. If the capital is not populous, that reflects the fact that the capital isn't especially important.
But assuming you're in a more or less steady state, that effect has already happened, so it's perfectly valid to just assume that importance and population are tightly correlated. The directionality doesn't really matter to the result.
Does it though? You still have provided no supporting arguments for that. People live in places for reasons beyond importance. In fact, "importance" really isn't a factor people consider when they decide to live somewhere at all really in my experience.
> and either San Francisco or Los Angeles (or both) also rank above Chicago
Wouldn't it be Sacramento in this case, as the capital but not most populous city? The most important city is a combination of multiple factors: size, economic or political power, and probably some more (like cultural).
The Bay Area ranks 6th in the U.S. GDP wise. Dallas Ft Worth and DC are both higher.
If you’re ranking cities by tourism I’d think Chicago would fall below SF or DC.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-visited-cities-...
here is importance not by population, but by GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_area...
I think this will turn into a pointless debate quickly unless someone nails down what defines the importance of a city. I don't personally think GDP is a defining factor. DC is a prime example against that.
For the record, I'm not putting Chicago far down on that list - it's probably around #5 (behind NYC, DC, SF, and LA). But I think this discussion came from the very casual assumption of someone to put Chicago #3 which I do think is interesting to see where that came from.
The backbone of San Francisco’s economy is tourism. If you find tourism important then I guess your list could make sense.
New York - huge center of mixed cultures, huge both population and economic output (larger than Chicago), and a big center of the fashion industry, art, etc.
DC - Capital with lots of political relevance, still good sized and has lots of other aspects that make up a city like good public transit
SF - The tech center of a world being increasingly run by tech, for better or worse
LA - Huge global entertainment hub, huge cultural mixing pot, huge GDP and population
I find this strong backlash interesting as I have no dog in this fight - I'm from a no-name suburb to a medium city in the south and am simply a lover of cities comparing what I have encountered.
whereas gdp and population are
a) easy to define and b) correlated with significance
There are tech companies in SF but it’s vastly dwarfed by FAANG in SV. You could argue SF is a suburb for SV but I’m not sure how that would make the city any more important or interesting.
Due to insane housing costs you’re more likely to meet a younger person born and raised in the Bay Area in some Midwest city (like Chicago) unless they’ve decided to live with their parents.
The interesting culture of SF is in rapid decline. So what you end up with is a dying culture in a city funded by tourism (also in decline because of chronic homlessness) inhabited by transplants who don’t work in the city.
Is that important? I don’t know? Maybe it’s an important model of how not to run a city.
This comment doesn't ring true in general.
My experience is that most Chicagoans usually correctly rate their city. Chicago has been historically perceived as one of the great American cities, with indisputably great achievements (Chicago architecture, economics, transportation, mercantilism, etc.). And today, people love living in Chicago because it's a major cultural center that has many things to offer over smaller U.S. metropolitan areas, while still being much more affordable than coastal cities.
But unless they are very young, immature and non-world-savvy, most Chicagoans usually also confess there are problems with crime, crooked politicians and (ever increasing Cook County) taxes. Chicago today feels like NYC in the late 80s, but with modern infrastructure.
Not that many Chicagoans will gush unreservedly about their city. Chicago is not the kind of city that invites unexamined boosterism.
In terms of cost, in my experience, it's in line with coastal cities overall besides SF/NYC, maybe a bit lower than Boston.
> Not that many Chicagoans will gush unreservedly about their city. Chicago is not the kind of city that invites unexamined boosterism.
I wouldn't say they gush, but I know a good deal of people from the Chicago area at this point and it's very much in my experience an underlying assumption set they hold.
Ah so you’ve never lived in Chicago then
I may not have lived there but I have spent a good deal of time in many cities. I have explored various neighborhoods in these cities (Chicago included), regularly use their public transit, looked at COL numbers and done apartment searching in them to see prices, etc.
More generally, it tends to be regarded as a much more global city than SF or DC. New York is clearly #1 as far as international importance, but Chicago generally places third behind LA in any serious ranking of U.S. cities based on economic and cultural importance.
Also, the 3rd most populous city in the U.S.
Metro area rankings by GDP are the following.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_ar...
But my ranking is irrelevant really. Most silly rankings like this put chicago around #3 based on population/GDP/transport/etc.
For me - it's one of maybe 3-4 cities in the entire US where you can live comfortably without a car - meaning there is at least semi-competent public transportation at a "World City" level. LA, SF, and DC don't qualify at all by that metric so I'm not sure how useful it is :)
I guess in my minds eye I put the "top 3" cities in the US as NYC, LA, Chicago in that order - but it's also based on somewhat dated and historical information.