Detroit gets some love from a travel guru.

**Bham1982** · April-11-13, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

This is exactly what you said:

"If you told the average Chicagoan that DC and SF now have larger economies than Chicago, and Houston and Boston gaining fast, they would think you're joking."

No where did you mention based on CSA and not MSA. Based on MSA, Chicago is larger than DC and SF. DC's CSA includes Baltimore which is a separate economy from DC. If Chicago could just annex a separate mid sized economy like Milwaukee, it would be larger. If you said DC and Baltimore combined has a larger economy, than you would be right.

Again, you're not getting it. I'm using official Census based classifications [[CSA), you're making things up [[artificially combining Milwaukee with Chicago, two cities 100 miles apart and with no Census-based linkages, and then claiming it's the same as official Census CSAs like DC or SF).

If you want to play games and make up metropolitan areas, fine. You win that argument. I'm going by official Census-derived metropolitan areas.

Shollin · April-11-13, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Again, you're not getting it. I'm using official Census based classifications [[CSA), you are making things up [[artificially combining Milwaukee with Chicago and then claiming it's the same as official Census CSAs like DC or SF).

If you want to play games and make up metropolitan areas, fine. You win that argument. I'm going by official Census-derived metropolitan areas.

I'm going based off of the BEA. Are you saying the US Department of Commerce is making things up? http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regi..._metro0213.htm

"The ten largest metropolitan areas, as measured by 2011 real GDP, are: New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA; Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA; Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI; Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV; Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX; Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX; Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD; San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA; Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH; and Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA. The real GDP produced by each of these metropolitan areas exceeds $240 billion."

Here's the table from the BEA. Notice Chicago is ranked 3rd.

**old guy** · April-11-13, 10:25 PM

Chicago is undoubtedly the greatest city in the Midwest. That's what it is. I've never really understood how they came to the conclusion that Illinois was part of the Midwest. I guess the term Central America was already taken. I've lived or worked in just about every major city in the "Midwest". When I moved to Detroit it had a completely different feel than any city I'd spent time in, across the Midwest. It has an eastern feel to it. I loved the fact that it felt different. I didn't think, too bad this isn't Chicago.

You have to embrace a city for what it is, enjoy what it has to offer. Chicago, Detroit, New York, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Tokyo, Berlin, Amsterdam, are all great cities because they all have their own personalities. Greatness? What is that based on? You love a city or you don't.

**Bham1982** · April-11-13, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

I'm going based off of the BEA. Are you saying the US Department of Commerce is making things up? http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regi..._metro0213.htm

Here's the table from the BEA. Notice Chicago is ranked 3rd.

You aren't following my posts. This is now the third time you posted the MSA-based ranking, and the third time I've agreed with you on the ranking.

So how does this contradict my original point? My whole point is that Chicago is the claimed "Second City", yet is nowhere near LA, the true Second City, not in population, and not in economy.

**illwill** · April-11-13, 10:32 PM

A recent article about where Michigan grads are moving and why.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/where-u-m-alumni-live/

Shollin · April-11-13, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

You aren't following my posts. This is now the third time you posted the MSA-based ranking, and the third time I've agreed with you on the ranking.

So how does this contradict my original point? My whole point is that Chicago is the claimed "Second City", yet is nowhere near LA, the true Second City, not in population, and not in economy.

Are you serious? Do I need to quote your post again? Are you this dense?

"If you told the average Chicagoan that DC and SF now have larger economies than Chicago, and Houston and Boston gaining fast, they would think you're joking."

You said DC and SF have larger economies. That is not true. You said it very clear when you used words such as DC, SF, larger, economies, Chicago.

**Bham1982** · April-11-13, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by illwill

A recent article about where Michigan grads are moving and why.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/where-u-m-alumni-live/

Ok, and where in this article does it say anything about more Michigan grads in Metropolitan Chicago than in Metropolitan NYC?

The main points I see are that 40% of Michigan grads live in the State of Michigan, and nowhere on earth comes close. And they don't even show comparative metropolitan-area stats. They only have comparative state stats, which show that California is easily the #2 state for U-M grads.

**Bham1982** · April-11-13, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

You said DC and SF have larger economies. That is not true. You said it very clear when you used words such as DC, SF, larger, economies, Chicago.

Yes, and it is true. DC and SF have larger metropolitan economies than Chicago.

Obviously there are different ways of measuring across metropolitan areas, but CSA is the one I used, and the one most used here on DYes. I would not get much agreement here if I claimed that Ann Arbor isn't part of Metropolitan Detroit. I would get even less agreement if I went to San Francisco and claimed that Silicon Valley and the rest of the Bay Area is a totally different metropolitan area.

If you prefer using other methodologies than CSA, again, be my guest. The larger point still stands, and Chicago is closer to, say Dallas, than to LA.

Shollin · April-11-13, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Yes, and it is true. DC and SF have larger metropolitan economies than Chicago.

One, nowhere in your post does it say that, and according to the US government, their metropolitan areas do not have larger economies.

**Bham1982** · April-11-13, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

One, nowhere in your post does it say that, and according to the US government, their metropolitan areas do not have larger economies.

Dude, what are you arguing?

I am saying, very clearly, that DC and SF have larger metropolitan economies than Chicago, and I am using official Census-based classifications.

You are saying, no that isn't true, because you prefer not to use the official CSA classification, and prefer to use city limits, MSA, or some other comparative analysis. That's fine, but it doesn't contradict my larger point.

Shollin · April-11-13, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Yes, and it is true. DC and SF have larger metropolitan economies than Chicago.

Obviously there are different ways of measuring across metropolitan areas, but CSA is the one I used, and the one most used here on DYes. I would not get much agreement here if I claimed that Ann Arbor isn't part of Metropolitan Detroit. I would get even less agreement if I went to San Francisco and claimed that Silicon Valley and the rest of the Bay Area is a totally different metropolitan area.

If you prefer using other methodologies than CSA, again, be my guest. The larger point still stands, and Chicago is closer to, say Dallas, than to LA.

I'm using statistics listed by the federal government. You won't get much agreement by saying Baltimore is part of DC. Going by that, I can say Baltimore has a larger economy than Chicago. Your original post never said metro area or CSA. You keep changing your meaning till it fits what you said.

Shollin · April-11-13, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Dude, what are you arguing?

I am saying, very clearly, that DC and SF have larger metropolitan economies than Chicago, and I am using official Census-based classifications.

You are saying, no that isn't true, because you prefer not to use the official CSA classification, and prefer to use city limits, MSA, or some other comparative analysis. That's fine, but it doesn't contradict my larger point.

I'll bold the keywords from the US Department of Commerce

"The ten largest metropolitan areas, as measured by 2011 real GDP, are: New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA; Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA; Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI; Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV; Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX; Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX; Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD; San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA; Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH; and Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA. The real GDP produced by each of these metropolitan areas exceeds $240 billion."

**illwill** · April-11-13, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Ok, and where in this article does it say anything about more Michigan grads in Metropolitan Chicago than in Metropolitan NYC?

The main points I see are that 40% of Michigan grads live in the State of Michigan, and nowhere on earth comes close. And they don't even show comparative metropolitan-area stats. They only have comparative state stats, which show that California is easily the #2 state for U-M grads.

You're probably right Bham1982. I'm not one of these guys that's gonna go back and forth with you. Everyone knows Chicago is cleaning house at Michigan's colleges. They have the fastest growing Downtown in the country. I assume Michigan grads ain't part of this? Hopefully Detroit can do something to stop the bleeding and soon.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/relea.../cb12-181.html

http://www.commerce.gov/blog/category/50

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...rowth/1597511/

**Bham1982** · April-11-13, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

I'm using statistics listed by the federal government. You won't get much agreement by saying Baltimore is part of DC.

Going by that, I can say Baltimore has a larger economy than Chicago. Your original post never said metro area or CSA. You keep changing your meaning till it fits what you said.

I have no idea what you're talking about, I have never changed any of my claims, and I don't know what your bigger point is.

What is the point of this argument? How does this contradict anything in the larger discussion?

**runnerXT** · April-11-13, 10:53 PM

im dating a girl that lives in chicago so i go here a lot. im here now.

chicago is a wanna be city. they talk about nyc all the time. the vast majority of this city is dangerous and run down. its great they have a few blocks of nice just like cleveland or toledo.

the shopping which is so much talked about here. its chain and any mall except yu have to deal with crime, run down and flash mobs here.

this is a declining city that has like 1% of its city as being nice. just dont walk 2 blocks away.

chicago is a declining city. shrinking economy, one of the most dangerous cities in the country, bland, huge population losses, other cities are passing it up no matter the metric, and just boring. there is no appeal to this city. its empty, depressing and declining.

**Bham1982** · April-11-13, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by illwill

They have the fastest growing Downtown in the country.

And here's yet another one. I have to give Chicago props on this. They keep the propaganda pumping, and it does seem to work.

There is, of course, so such thing as an official downtown classification, so there's no way to do a comparative analysis. Any city can have the "fastest growing downtown"; you just need to find a sample with a fast rate of growth.

And, looking at the study, that's exactly what Chicago did. They measured
"rate of population growth within radius of City Hall", which encompasses the [[previously empty and uninhabited) rail yards of the South Loop. New York's City Hall is surrounded by landmarked neighborhoods, and isn't even in the main central business district; Miami's City Hall is nowhere near its downtown and almost in the suburbs.

So, yeah, the study, while totally ridiculous, makes sense. When you convert a railyard to condos, it will have more growth than established urban neighborhoods.

Detroit should move its City Hall to the most empty part of Delray or Brightmoor, and then they should build a couple of homes right in the vicinity. Maybe they could take #1 next year.

**old guy** · April-11-13, 11:15 PM

Attachment 18871
A great city is not to be confounded with a populous one.
Aristotle

**illwill** · April-11-13, 11:22 PM

Here's a Crain's article explaining why this young man left Detroit in pursuit of expanding his career. He also gives his assessment on what Detroit needs to do, in order to obain young talent. Personally, I think Detroit has everything he's looking for?

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20130227/BLOG106/130229892/a-perspective-on-detroit-from-a-once-detroiter-now-chicagoan

**wolverine** · April-11-13, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

And here's yet another one. I have to give Chicago props on this. They keep the propaganda pumping, and it does seem to work.

There is, of course, so such thing as an official downtown classification, so there's no way to do a comparative analysis. Any city can have the "fastest growing downtown"; you just need to find a sample with a fast rate of growth.

And, looking at the study, that's exactly what Chicago did. They measured
"rate of population growth within radius of City Hall", which encompasses the [[previously empty and uninhabited) rail yards of the South Loop. New York's City Hall is surrounded by landmarked neighborhoods, and isn't even in the main central business district; Miami's City Hall is nowhere near its downtown and almost in the suburbs.

So, yeah, the study, while totally ridiculous, makes sense. When you convert a railyard to condos, it will have more growth than established urban neighborhoods.

Detroit should move its City Hall to the most empty part of Delray or Brightmoor, and then they should build a couple of homes right in the vicinity. Maybe they could take #1 next year.

Yes, and Chicago had 11 murders in a contiguous area of 1 million people. and 490 in the other half of the city. People will re-arrange numbers however they want to back up their city. And it appears they will argue it to death.

Back to the original subject, point is no one should always paint a city with a broad brush. The people that visit downtown Chicago and Lincoln Park have never actually seen the city just as the people who visit Detroit for ballgames and ride the people mover have never actually seen Detroit.

And this "comparing ourselves better to New York" is absolute nonsense. Most Chicagoan's simply enjoy life without making any comparisons. Those that actually make those judgement do the complete opposite and harshly criticize our own city for an antique transit system, our recent crop of bland skyscrapers and the inability to quickly wipe out the gang problem.

Other than that, it's pretty damn good place to live in the midwest. If you have a college degree and land a middle class job or better you'll enjoy safe neighborhoods, beautiful historic homes, busy commercial districts, a vibrant downtown with great cultural attractions, the ability to own a car and take transit round the clock. Part 2, Chicago has finally reached a point where married couples that had moved to the city and then have kids are staying because they want to, not because they have to. That is a pretty big accomplishment for the old rust belt cities trying to boost populations. Sure about half the city has more dire prospects but every time these types of articles pop up....be it tourism or places where young grads are moving, no one is heading into Chicago's Englewood or Detroit's Brightmoor. And generally these young professionals remain very optimistic that Chicago's gentrification is spreading or Detroit's downtown core is revitalizing.

What I kind of alluded to in my earlier post is that if you want to be concerned about competition, I'd be a bit more worried about places like Milwaukee or Cincinnati stealing grads. They are good alternatives for people that want to go elsewhere but Chicago or New York isn't for them. Though they share typical urban problems like other Midwestern cities, they do not have extremities of crime and abandonment. Certainly the number of grads leaving Michigan and going to these places is minimal, but I expect "the next big thing" is for people to explore living in the midwest region than heading off to the coasts.

**DetroitPlanner** · April-12-13, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by illwill

A recent article about where Michigan grads are moving and why.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/where-u-m-alumni-live/

Just proves we should not be sticking so many eggs [[state taxes) in U of M's basket. We would be far better off support good but less prestigious schools such as Wayne or Oakland. Why pay to educate those from other places or for those who are going to leave?

**TexasT** · April-12-13, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Just proves we should not be sticking so many eggs [[state taxes) in U of M's basket. We would be far better off support good but less prestigious schools such as Wayne or Oakland. Why pay to educate those from other places or for those who are going to leave?

Native UM grads are leaving because they have the option to, not because of some inherent quality of UM grads. Elevate WSU's status to the point that their grads have abundant options in other cities like NYC or Chicago like UM grads, they'll leave too.

With regard to out-of-state UM students, they are paying full out-of-state tuition, so they are actually subsidizing the rest. You probably want to keep them around.

**AGinthe313** · April-12-13, 07:53 AM

People are moving to Chicago to hang with .........s, drunk co-eds, and to enjoy the roof-top pools!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=yZSlkrSvA_Q

Sorry, I couldn’t resist!

**iheartthed** · April-12-13, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Just proves we should not be sticking so many eggs [[state taxes) in U of M's basket. We would be far better off support good but less prestigious schools such as Wayne or Oakland. Why pay to educate those from other places or for those who are going to leave?

What the state gives in aid to U-M each year is less than 10% of the university's annual operating budget. The university would probably be better off going private than remaining public. But the regents would never approve it, since they are elected officials...

**Gistok** · April-12-13, 09:29 AM

LOL... folks arguing over statistics ONCE AGAIN.... we can argue CSA...MSA... why metropolitan Windsor isn't included in ours... ad nauseum. I look at those MSA maps that Shollin produced... and I see the MSA's for Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix that are as large as metro Detroit... if you included all of the Thumb, Toledo AND metro Windsor... I always remember that the claim for being among the 6 largest cathedrals in Europe number at least 20! It all depends on how you measure!

**TexasT** · April-12-13, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Gistok

LOL... folks arguing over statistics ONCE AGAIN.... we can argue CSA...MSA... why metropolitan Windsor isn't included in ours... ad nauseum. I look at those MSA maps that Shollin produced... and I see the MSA's for Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix that are as large as metro Detroit... if you included all of the Thumb, Toledo AND metro Windsor... I always remember that the claim for being among the 6 largest cathedrals in Europe number at least 20! It all depends on how you measure!

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Houston and other sunbelt cities also keep expanding out, which certainly helps them acquire population without actually having people move anywhere. Houston has been knocking on my hometown suburb's door [[30 miles from city center) for years now, but we've been fighting off their annexation attempts.

Also, the growth of Houston isn't people moving from other states, it's the high birth rate of the largely poor minority and immigrant population [[89% of Texas's overall growth). If you look at the stats of people moving from other states [[and take out the number of people leaving Texas for other states), the growth is way less impressive in terms of whether Texas is attracting workers.