This is silly, but interesting. Erik's list of real cities includes a few mamoth but mono-cultural, mono-ethnic, i.e., none-too-cosmopolitan, places. That does not necesarily make them any less great cities, but it does highlight the problem of arguing about these things without first deciding what the parameters are.

Can a great city be one that was once wide-open and endlessy interesting but has now been sanitized for outsiders' approval? If not, then maybe NYC and Chicago are not great cities. Does a great city need to have great architecture and cultural institutions? A downtown? If so, step back LA and Mexico city. Does it have to be large? Does that mean SF and NOLA (as we knew it) are not great cities?

My realest city by all criteria- Rio (not even the largest in Brazil).

JimInLoganSquare wrote:[She moved first to Chicago, then to San Francisco (a city you didn't mention -- probably belongs in that list of great cities), and finally settled in L.A.

That was not intended to be a list of great cities per se, it was simply a list of cities with which I am intimately familiar and which are much, much larger than Chicago. I listed them simply as a means of providing some measurable contrast. Remember, it was my contention that this is all simply a matter of perspective, a matter of having a different frame of reference.

A rough-and-ready phrasing of my entire position would look like this:

The more that one travels and sees of the world, the rinkier, the dinkier, and the less significant Chicago becomes, as a matter of course.

Oh, but I kid. [Don't I?]

I am not interested in carrying on any further with something that stevez initiated, and which--by his choice of (quoted) words--was meant to address the issue of Chicago's--or, for that matter, any other city's-- relative realness.*

If, by listing the cities above, I was intending to refer to anything besides their sheer hulking size, it might be a certain vital energy which they seem--to me, at least--to possess, and which Chicago seems--to me, at least--to lack. And, I am happy to leave it at that, as I think that one either relates to what I am saying or one does not.**

There are many, many other cities with which I am familiar and which seem--to me, at least--to have this vital energy, but which lack for sheer hulking size. That list would include cities like Madrid, Nairobi, Berlin, Colombo, and Beirut. It would not, however, include cities like Sydney, Auckland, Prague, Vienna, Brussels, or San Francisco.

I am finished.

E.M. [Who is scheduled to add Lima, Peru to his list of global metropolises visited in 04.06.]

* Sorry, JeffB.

** And, if not, but even if so, I do not conceive of LTHForum as the sort of place for me to tease out these sorts of thoughts.

O.K., but in each of these cities, who has the best Italian Beef?

By the way, Erik, how old are you? You look like you're probably in your mid-30s, but I think you must've discovered the philosopher's stone; because how could one become "intimately familiar" with the following 16 cities, with a combined population of maybe 100 million people, in less than perhaps 1600 years?

"Singapore, Jakarta, Hong Kong, Saigon, Taipei, Tokyo, Bangkok, Bombay/Mumbai, Dehli, Calcutta, Cairo, Mexico City, Paris, London, New York, and Los Angeles"

I've lived in or near Chicago for 14 years, and I don't think I've even scratched the surface of this rinky dink burg. Intimate familiarity? Maybe with a small and highly circumscribed subset of the Chicagoland area. Maybe I'm just slow because of my parochial midwest upbringing.

JiLS,

I normally just lurk, but your post inspired this response. For various reasons, I've lived in and traveled throughout many parts of the world. These experiences have broadened (and not narrowed) my appreciation of every city I've ever called home. Moreover, new experiences continue to defamiliarize and enrich the old.

Like you, I feel as if I've barely scratched the surface of any of the cities I've lived in, let alone visited. So I share in your bafflement: how does one achieve intimate knowledege of over a dozen cities spread across the globe? I've come to the conclusion that I too must be a bit slow. Until I get up to speed, I'll leave the pretentious name/city-dropping and cavalier dismissals to the privileged elect.

Erik M. wrote:

I am not interested in carrying on any further with something that stevez initiated, and which--by his choice of (quoted) words--was meant to address the issue of Chicago's--or, for that matter, any other city's-- relative realness.*

Erik,

By the delicious life's quoted words, I was merely pointing out to you the absurdity of your original statement. Even someone who actually lives in the giant suburb they call LA thinks so. Sure, there are many larger cities (population wise) than Chicago, but it's not the number of people that makes a great city, it's the culture and lifestyle. Chicago scores on both accounts (And I've done my share of traveling as well). It's also not an either/or proposition. There can be more than one great city in the world (obviously).

S/Z wrote:Like you, I feel as if I've barely scratched the surface of any of the cities I've lived in, let alone visited. So I share in your bafflement: how does one achieve intimate knowledege of over a dozen cities spread across the globe?

By "intimate," I only meant that I have first-hand knowledge or experience of the place, with little, if any, regard to duration.*

At any rate, the point here, for me, is only to dispel the notion that Chicago is the center of the Universe and that God himself only eats Italian Beef.

Should you perceive my efforts to be pompous and/or pretentious, well, that saddens me greatly.

E.M.

* In the popular culture, the same claim seems to be widely made/understood in matters of sexual partnership. I see it no differently.

Erik M. wrote:
At any rate, the point here, for me, is only to dispel the notion that Chicago is the center of the Universe and that God himself only eats Italian Beef.

Surely She also has the occasional Polish sausage?

Erik M. wrote:

S/Z wrote:Like you, I feel as if I've barely scratched the surface of any of the cities I've lived in, let alone visited. So I share in your bafflement: how does one achieve intimate knowledege of over a dozen cities spread across the globe?

By "intimate," I only meant that I have first-hand knowledge or experience of the place, with little, if any, regard to duration.*

At any rate, the point here, for me, is only to dispel the notion that Chicago is the center of the Universe and that God himself only eats Italian Beef.

Should you perceive my efforts to be pompous and/or pretentious, well, that saddens me greatly.

E.M.

* In the popular culture, the same claim seems to be widely made/understood in matters of sexual partnership. I see it no differently.

That's an excellent explanation, Erik. I conclude that all of us actually agree with each other on these points, now that the terminology problem has been resolved (although I think most people probably didn't think of "intimate" in the "Wham-Bam, Thank You, Siam" sense that you did).