News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Wallethub

Started by Max Rockatansky, May 27, 2022, 12:06:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Flint1979

Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 07:56:14 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 25, 2023, 04:45:10 PM
If you included Illinois they lack the lakes, still have plenty of farm land, the outdoor activities are more limited, Illinois does have scenic drives but not on the scale of the other three states mentioned here. I would say Lakeshore Drive or any of the expressways leading to the Chicago Loop are pretty nice with the Chicago skyline on the horizon but that gets old after awhile. There are still new things I'm finding in Michigan and I've traveled around this state for 4 decades.

There are a few thousand lakes in Illinois, not as much as the other mentioned states but they are here and more numerous than Indiana or Ohio. Also, there are numerous outdoor activities in Illinois. I really don't think that you've traveled Illinois as much as you claim due to this statement. Just within the Chicago area alone, there's a forest preserve within every 5 miles.
Good for those few thousand lakes in Illinois and I don't care about Indiana or Ohio and how many lakes those two states have because they don't have many either. So instead of discussing these numerous outdoor activities you decided to attack how much I've traveled Illinois which is much further than you think it is and that is for damn sure. Oh wonderful, in the Chicago area alone which doesn't consist of very much of the state's land area. I really don't care what you think, I guarantee my travels in life are a lot further than yours are.


ET21

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 11:21:32 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2023, 10:53:41 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 10:01:04 AM
Quote from: ET21 on January 26, 2023, 12:18:24 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 29, 2022, 07:28:47 AM
Is Wallethubism the official religion of Alanland?

Yes it is

The Facebook alias used by Crash has the first name "Alan."   Coincidence or grand design?

So he is (or is not) the Grand Alan?

No, he's Cabinet Minister of Car Horn Affairs except on the third Tuesday of every month between 2:07-2:21 PM.

Is that third Tuesday every month between 2:07-2:21pm the time when he thinks he speaks for all of Illinois when in fact no one inside or outside of the state cares?
The local weatherman, trust me I can be 99.9% right!
"Show where you're going, without forgetting where you're from"

Clinched:
IL: I-88, I-180, I-190, I-290, I-294, I-355, IL-390
IN: I-80, I-94
SD: I-190
WI: I-90, I-94
MI: I-94, I-196
MN: I-90

Scott5114

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 11:40:00 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2023, 11:30:37 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2023, 10:53:41 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 10:01:04 AM
Quote from: ET21 on January 26, 2023, 12:18:24 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 29, 2022, 07:28:47 AM
Is Wallethubism the official religion of Alanland?

Yes it is

The Facebook alias used by Crash has the first name "Alan."   Coincidence or grand design?

So he is (or is not) the Grand Alan?

We have been greatly mislead if he is the Grand Alan.

RGT lost to someone during the last election and attempted coup d'état.  I don't think we ever sorted out "who"  that someone was. 

RGT didn't even run in an election. The last election was Alan Merritt (T) vs. Alan Major Deegan (J), which Merritt won. RGT stated loudly to nobody in particular that he was running for an election that wasn't actually going on, never bought a fish hat, and thus committed woosterism without even having an election to run in.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

dlsterner

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 26, 2023, 05:52:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 11:40:00 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2023, 11:30:37 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2023, 10:53:41 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 10:01:04 AM
Quote from: ET21 on January 26, 2023, 12:18:24 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 29, 2022, 07:28:47 AM
Is Wallethubism the official religion of Alanland?

Yes it is

The Facebook alias used by Crash has the first name "Alan."   Coincidence or grand design?

So he is (or is not) the Grand Alan?

We have been greatly mislead if he is the Grand Alan.

RGT lost to someone during the last election and attempted coup d'état.  I don't think we ever sorted out "who"  that someone was. 

RGT didn't even run in an election. The last election was Alan Merritt (T) vs. Alan Major Deegan (J), which Merritt won. RGT stated loudly to nobody in particular that he was running for an election that wasn't actually going on, never bought a fish hat, and thus committed woosterism without even having an election to run in.

I guess at best RGT would be regarded as an Antialan, similar to the concept of an Antipope.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: dlsterner on January 26, 2023, 08:39:59 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 26, 2023, 05:52:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 11:40:00 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2023, 11:30:37 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2023, 10:53:41 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 10:01:04 AM
Quote from: ET21 on January 26, 2023, 12:18:24 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 29, 2022, 07:28:47 AM
Is Wallethubism the official religion of Alanland?

Yes it is

The Facebook alias used by Crash has the first name "Alan."   Coincidence or grand design?

So he is (or is not) the Grand Alan?

We have been greatly mislead if he is the Grand Alan.

RGT lost to someone during the last election and attempted coup d'état.  I don't think we ever sorted out "who"  that someone was. 

RGT didn't even run in an election. The last election was Alan Merritt (T) vs. Alan Major Deegan (J), which Merritt won. RGT stated loudly to nobody in particular that he was running for an election that wasn't actually going on, never bought a fish hat, and thus committed woosterism without even having an election to run in.

I guess at best RGT would be regarded as an Antialan, similar to the concept of an Antipope.

I'm not sure.  Is Antialan an official or ceremonial posting in Alanland?  Is it a combination of both except for certain days and hours?

Crash_It

Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2023, 03:59:11 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 07:56:14 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 25, 2023, 04:45:10 PM
If you included Illinois they lack the lakes, still have plenty of farm land, the outdoor activities are more limited, Illinois does have scenic drives but not on the scale of the other three states mentioned here. I would say Lakeshore Drive or any of the expressways leading to the Chicago Loop are pretty nice with the Chicago skyline on the horizon but that gets old after awhile. There are still new things I'm finding in Michigan and I've traveled around this state for 4 decades.

There are a few thousand lakes in Illinois, not as much as the other mentioned states but they are here and more numerous than Indiana or Ohio. Also, there are numerous outdoor activities in Illinois. I really don't think that you've traveled Illinois as much as you claim due to this statement. Just within the Chicago area alone, there's a forest preserve within every 5 miles.
Good for those few thousand lakes in Illinois and I don't care about Indiana or Ohio and how many lakes those two states have because they don't have many either. So instead of discussing these numerous outdoor activities you decided to attack how much I've traveled Illinois which is much further than you think it is and that is for damn sure. Oh wonderful, in the Chicago area alone which doesn't consist of very much of the state's land area. I really don't care what you think, I guarantee my travels in life are a lot further than yours are.

No they aren't, not if you're making such statements. I said the Chicago area alone as a baseline, the rest of the state has just as much. There are 309 State Parks in the state alone. That's more than Wisconsin and Michigan combined.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 08:56:30 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2023, 03:59:11 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 07:56:14 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 25, 2023, 04:45:10 PM
If you included Illinois they lack the lakes, still have plenty of farm land, the outdoor activities are more limited, Illinois does have scenic drives but not on the scale of the other three states mentioned here. I would say Lakeshore Drive or any of the expressways leading to the Chicago Loop are pretty nice with the Chicago skyline on the horizon but that gets old after awhile. There are still new things I'm finding in Michigan and I've traveled around this state for 4 decades.

There are a few thousand lakes in Illinois, not as much as the other mentioned states but they are here and more numerous than Indiana or Ohio. Also, there are numerous outdoor activities in Illinois. I really don't think that you've traveled Illinois as much as you claim due to this statement. Just within the Chicago area alone, there's a forest preserve within every 5 miles.
Good for those few thousand lakes in Illinois and I don't care about Indiana or Ohio and how many lakes those two states have because they don't have many either. So instead of discussing these numerous outdoor activities you decided to attack how much I've traveled Illinois which is much further than you think it is and that is for damn sure. Oh wonderful, in the Chicago area alone which doesn't consist of very much of the state's land area. I really don't care what you think, I guarantee my travels in life are a lot further than yours are.

No they aren't, not if you're making such statements. I said the Chicago area alone as a baseline, the rest of the state has just as much. There are 309 State Parks in the state alone. That's more than Wisconsin and Michigan combined.

Last I checked the National Park representing Chicago and much of Illinois is in Indiana.

Crash_It

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 08:58:55 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 08:56:30 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2023, 03:59:11 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 07:56:14 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 25, 2023, 04:45:10 PM
If you included Illinois they lack the lakes, still have plenty of farm land, the outdoor activities are more limited, Illinois does have scenic drives but not on the scale of the other three states mentioned here. I would say Lakeshore Drive or any of the expressways leading to the Chicago Loop are pretty nice with the Chicago skyline on the horizon but that gets old after awhile. There are still new things I'm finding in Michigan and I've traveled around this state for 4 decades.

There are a few thousand lakes in Illinois, not as much as the other mentioned states but they are here and more numerous than Indiana or Ohio. Also, there are numerous outdoor activities in Illinois. I really don't think that you've traveled Illinois as much as you claim due to this statement. Just within the Chicago area alone, there's a forest preserve within every 5 miles.
Good for those few thousand lakes in Illinois and I don't care about Indiana or Ohio and how many lakes those two states have because they don't have many either. So instead of discussing these numerous outdoor activities you decided to attack how much I've traveled Illinois which is much further than you think it is and that is for damn sure. Oh wonderful, in the Chicago area alone which doesn't consist of very much of the state's land area. I really don't care what you think, I guarantee my travels in life are a lot further than yours are.

No they aren't, not if you're making such statements. I said the Chicago area alone as a baseline, the rest of the state has just as much. There are 309 State Parks in the state alone. That's more than Wisconsin and Michigan combined.

Last I checked the National Park representing Chicago and much of Illinois is in Indiana.

Forgot to look at the Pullman National historic site. That's considered a National park now.

https://www.nps.gov/pull/index.htm

This one will likely be the next addition

https://www.fs.usda.gov/midewin

National parks differ from state parks just like they as well differ from Forest Preserves.

Max Rockatansky

#58
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 09:18:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 08:58:55 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 08:56:30 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2023, 03:59:11 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 07:56:14 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 25, 2023, 04:45:10 PM
If you included Illinois they lack the lakes, still have plenty of farm land, the outdoor activities are more limited, Illinois does have scenic drives but not on the scale of the other three states mentioned here. I would say Lakeshore Drive or any of the expressways leading to the Chicago Loop are pretty nice with the Chicago skyline on the horizon but that gets old after awhile. There are still new things I'm finding in Michigan and I've traveled around this state for 4 decades.

There are a few thousand lakes in Illinois, not as much as the other mentioned states but they are here and more numerous than Indiana or Ohio. Also, there are numerous outdoor activities in Illinois. I really don't think that you've traveled Illinois as much as you claim due to this statement. Just within the Chicago area alone, there's a forest preserve within every 5 miles.
Good for those few thousand lakes in Illinois and I don't care about Indiana or Ohio and how many lakes those two states have because they don't have many either. So instead of discussing these numerous outdoor activities you decided to attack how much I've traveled Illinois which is much further than you think it is and that is for damn sure. Oh wonderful, in the Chicago area alone which doesn't consist of very much of the state's land area. I really don't care what you think, I guarantee my travels in life are a lot further than yours are.

No they aren't, not if you're making such statements. I said the Chicago area alone as a baseline, the rest of the state has just as much. There are 309 State Parks in the state alone. That's more than Wisconsin and Michigan combined.

Last I checked the National Park representing Chicago and much of Illinois is in Indiana.

Forgot to look at the Pullman National historic site. That's considered a National park now.

https://www.nps.gov/pull/index.htm

This one will likely be the next addition

https://www.fs.usda.gov/midewin

National parks differ from state parks just like they as well differ from Forest Preserves.

I haven't forgotten about Pullman. 

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/national-park-wednesday-pullman.html?m=1

Pullman was a National Monument and now is a National Historic Park.  Pullman is a "National Park unit"  but "Monument"  and "National Historic Park"  don't exactly have the name brand recognition "National Park"  does.  The National Parks "mostly"  are designated to places with significant natural features.  Illinois just doesn't have the natural features worthy of National Park consideration.  But that's speaking from the perspective of someone who has actually been to every designated "National Park"  in the continental U.S. along with one in Hawaii.

When I lived in Chicago almost nobody I knew went to spend time on Lake Michigan beaches in Illinois.  Most of us went to beaches outside the state, most commonly the Indiana Dunes.  Personally I'd preferred to drive up to the Sleeping Bear Dunes when time permitted.

Crash_It

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 09:26:30 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 09:18:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 08:58:55 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 08:56:30 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2023, 03:59:11 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 07:56:14 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 25, 2023, 04:45:10 PM
If you included Illinois they lack the lakes, still have plenty of farm land, the outdoor activities are more limited, Illinois does have scenic drives but not on the scale of the other three states mentioned here. I would say Lakeshore Drive or any of the expressways leading to the Chicago Loop are pretty nice with the Chicago skyline on the horizon but that gets old after awhile. There are still new things I'm finding in Michigan and I've traveled around this state for 4 decades.

There are a few thousand lakes in Illinois, not as much as the other mentioned states but they are here and more numerous than Indiana or Ohio. Also, there are numerous outdoor activities in Illinois. I really don't think that you've traveled Illinois as much as you claim due to this statement. Just within the Chicago area alone, there's a forest preserve within every 5 miles.
Good for those few thousand lakes in Illinois and I don't care about Indiana or Ohio and how many lakes those two states have because they don't have many either. So instead of discussing these numerous outdoor activities you decided to attack how much I've traveled Illinois which is much further than you think it is and that is for damn sure. Oh wonderful, in the Chicago area alone which doesn't consist of very much of the state's land area. I really don't care what you think, I guarantee my travels in life are a lot further than yours are.

No they aren't, not if you're making such statements. I said the Chicago area alone as a baseline, the rest of the state has just as much. There are 309 State Parks in the state alone. That's more than Wisconsin and Michigan combined.

Last I checked the National Park representing Chicago and much of Illinois is in Indiana.

Forgot to look at the Pullman National historic site. That's considered a National park now.

https://www.nps.gov/pull/index.htm

This one will likely be the next addition

https://www.fs.usda.gov/midewin

National parks differ from state parks just like they as well differ from Forest Preserves.

I haven't forgotten about Pullman. 

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/national-park-wednesday-pullman.html?m=1

Pullman was a National Monument and now is a National Historic Park.  Pullman is a "National Park unit"  but "Monument"  and "National Historic Park"  don't exactly have the name brand recognition "National Park"  does.  The National Parks "mostly"  are designated to places with significant natural features.  Illinois just doesn't have the natural features worthy of National Park consideration.  But that's speaking from the perspective of someone who has actually been to every designated "National Park"  in the continental U.S. along with one in Hawaii.

When I lived in Chicago almost nobody I knew went to spend time on Lake Michigan beaches in Illinois.  Most of us went to beaches outside the state, most commonly the Indiana Dunes.  Personally I'd preferred to drive up to the Sleeping Bear Dunes when time permitted.

There are plenty of units that are part of the USDA , these could easily be considered national parks . Just because the people that you know didn't want to doesn't mean that no one else wants to. The beaches are part of why Chicago is one of the most visited cities in the US and keeps winning Best big city YoY.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 09:44:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 09:26:30 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 09:18:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 08:58:55 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 08:56:30 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2023, 03:59:11 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 07:56:14 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 25, 2023, 04:45:10 PM
If you included Illinois they lack the lakes, still have plenty of farm land, the outdoor activities are more limited, Illinois does have scenic drives but not on the scale of the other three states mentioned here. I would say Lakeshore Drive or any of the expressways leading to the Chicago Loop are pretty nice with the Chicago skyline on the horizon but that gets old after awhile. There are still new things I'm finding in Michigan and I've traveled around this state for 4 decades.

There are a few thousand lakes in Illinois, not as much as the other mentioned states but they are here and more numerous than Indiana or Ohio. Also, there are numerous outdoor activities in Illinois. I really don't think that you've traveled Illinois as much as you claim due to this statement. Just within the Chicago area alone, there's a forest preserve within every 5 miles.
Good for those few thousand lakes in Illinois and I don't care about Indiana or Ohio and how many lakes those two states have because they don't have many either. So instead of discussing these numerous outdoor activities you decided to attack how much I've traveled Illinois which is much further than you think it is and that is for damn sure. Oh wonderful, in the Chicago area alone which doesn't consist of very much of the state's land area. I really don't care what you think, I guarantee my travels in life are a lot further than yours are.

No they aren't, not if you're making such statements. I said the Chicago area alone as a baseline, the rest of the state has just as much. There are 309 State Parks in the state alone. That's more than Wisconsin and Michigan combined.

Last I checked the National Park representing Chicago and much of Illinois is in Indiana.

Forgot to look at the Pullman National historic site. That's considered a National park now.

https://www.nps.gov/pull/index.htm

This one will likely be the next addition

https://www.fs.usda.gov/midewin

National parks differ from state parks just like they as well differ from Forest Preserves.

I haven't forgotten about Pullman. 

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/national-park-wednesday-pullman.html?m=1

Pullman was a National Monument and now is a National Historic Park.  Pullman is a "National Park unit"  but "Monument"  and "National Historic Park"  don't exactly have the name brand recognition "National Park"  does.  The National Parks "mostly"  are designated to places with significant natural features.  Illinois just doesn't have the natural features worthy of National Park consideration.  But that's speaking from the perspective of someone who has actually been to every designated "National Park"  in the continental U.S. along with one in Hawaii.

When I lived in Chicago almost nobody I knew went to spend time on Lake Michigan beaches in Illinois.  Most of us went to beaches outside the state, most commonly the Indiana Dunes.  Personally I'd preferred to drive up to the Sleeping Bear Dunes when time permitted.

There are plenty of units that are part of the USDA , these could easily be considered national parks . Just because the people that you know didn't want to doesn't mean that no one else wants to. The beaches are part of why Chicago is one of the most visited cities in the US and keeps winning Best big city YoY.

Fair to say though, that I've had a fair greater sampling of parklands to base my opinion.  You can cherry pick your Illinois data, units and factoids all you want it still doesn't chance the fact that most of your travels/experiences are confined to your home state.  How do you expect anyone except Illinois homers such as yourself to get on board with what you say with such limited exposure?  Can you even plausibly give fully informed opinions on Illinois considering you haven't even visited all the counties?

Flint1979

Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 08:56:30 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2023, 03:59:11 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 07:56:14 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 25, 2023, 04:45:10 PM
If you included Illinois they lack the lakes, still have plenty of farm land, the outdoor activities are more limited, Illinois does have scenic drives but not on the scale of the other three states mentioned here. I would say Lakeshore Drive or any of the expressways leading to the Chicago Loop are pretty nice with the Chicago skyline on the horizon but that gets old after awhile. There are still new things I'm finding in Michigan and I've traveled around this state for 4 decades.

There are a few thousand lakes in Illinois, not as much as the other mentioned states but they are here and more numerous than Indiana or Ohio. Also, there are numerous outdoor activities in Illinois. I really don't think that you've traveled Illinois as much as you claim due to this statement. Just within the Chicago area alone, there's a forest preserve within every 5 miles.
Good for those few thousand lakes in Illinois and I don't care about Indiana or Ohio and how many lakes those two states have because they don't have many either. So instead of discussing these numerous outdoor activities you decided to attack how much I've traveled Illinois which is much further than you think it is and that is for damn sure. Oh wonderful, in the Chicago area alone which doesn't consist of very much of the state's land area. I really don't care what you think, I guarantee my travels in life are a lot further than yours are.

No they aren't, not if you're making such statements. I said the Chicago area alone as a baseline, the rest of the state has just as much. There are 309 State Parks in the state alone. That's more than Wisconsin and Michigan combined.
I find it hilarious that you are using the number of state parks in each state. That doesn't mean Illinois is better than Wisconsin or Michigan and it's not. I don't care how many state parks Illinois has.

Flint1979

Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 09:18:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 08:58:55 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 08:56:30 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2023, 03:59:11 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 07:56:14 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 25, 2023, 04:45:10 PM
If you included Illinois they lack the lakes, still have plenty of farm land, the outdoor activities are more limited, Illinois does have scenic drives but not on the scale of the other three states mentioned here. I would say Lakeshore Drive or any of the expressways leading to the Chicago Loop are pretty nice with the Chicago skyline on the horizon but that gets old after awhile. There are still new things I'm finding in Michigan and I've traveled around this state for 4 decades.

There are a few thousand lakes in Illinois, not as much as the other mentioned states but they are here and more numerous than Indiana or Ohio. Also, there are numerous outdoor activities in Illinois. I really don't think that you've traveled Illinois as much as you claim due to this statement. Just within the Chicago area alone, there's a forest preserve within every 5 miles.
Good for those few thousand lakes in Illinois and I don't care about Indiana or Ohio and how many lakes those two states have because they don't have many either. So instead of discussing these numerous outdoor activities you decided to attack how much I've traveled Illinois which is much further than you think it is and that is for damn sure. Oh wonderful, in the Chicago area alone which doesn't consist of very much of the state's land area. I really don't care what you think, I guarantee my travels in life are a lot further than yours are.

No they aren't, not if you're making such statements. I said the Chicago area alone as a baseline, the rest of the state has just as much. There are 309 State Parks in the state alone. That's more than Wisconsin and Michigan combined.

Last I checked the National Park representing Chicago and much of Illinois is in Indiana.

Forgot to look at the Pullman National historic site. That's considered a National park now.

https://www.nps.gov/pull/index.htm

This one will likely be the next addition

https://www.fs.usda.gov/midewin

National parks differ from state parks just like they as well differ from Forest Preserves.
The only difference is state parks are operated by state governments and national parks by the federal government. State parks also usually have more amenities to offer than national parks as well.

Flint1979

Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 09:44:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 09:26:30 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 09:18:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 08:58:55 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 08:56:30 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2023, 03:59:11 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 07:56:14 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 25, 2023, 04:45:10 PM
If you included Illinois they lack the lakes, still have plenty of farm land, the outdoor activities are more limited, Illinois does have scenic drives but not on the scale of the other three states mentioned here. I would say Lakeshore Drive or any of the expressways leading to the Chicago Loop are pretty nice with the Chicago skyline on the horizon but that gets old after awhile. There are still new things I'm finding in Michigan and I've traveled around this state for 4 decades.

There are a few thousand lakes in Illinois, not as much as the other mentioned states but they are here and more numerous than Indiana or Ohio. Also, there are numerous outdoor activities in Illinois. I really don't think that you've traveled Illinois as much as you claim due to this statement. Just within the Chicago area alone, there's a forest preserve within every 5 miles.
Good for those few thousand lakes in Illinois and I don't care about Indiana or Ohio and how many lakes those two states have because they don't have many either. So instead of discussing these numerous outdoor activities you decided to attack how much I've traveled Illinois which is much further than you think it is and that is for damn sure. Oh wonderful, in the Chicago area alone which doesn't consist of very much of the state's land area. I really don't care what you think, I guarantee my travels in life are a lot further than yours are.

No they aren't, not if you're making such statements. I said the Chicago area alone as a baseline, the rest of the state has just as much. There are 309 State Parks in the state alone. That's more than Wisconsin and Michigan combined.

Last I checked the National Park representing Chicago and much of Illinois is in Indiana.

Forgot to look at the Pullman National historic site. That's considered a National park now.

https://www.nps.gov/pull/index.htm

This one will likely be the next addition

https://www.fs.usda.gov/midewin

National parks differ from state parks just like they as well differ from Forest Preserves.

I haven't forgotten about Pullman. 

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/national-park-wednesday-pullman.html?m=1

Pullman was a National Monument and now is a National Historic Park.  Pullman is a "National Park unit"  but "Monument"  and "National Historic Park"  don't exactly have the name brand recognition "National Park"  does.  The National Parks "mostly"  are designated to places with significant natural features.  Illinois just doesn't have the natural features worthy of National Park consideration.  But that's speaking from the perspective of someone who has actually been to every designated "National Park"  in the continental U.S. along with one in Hawaii.

When I lived in Chicago almost nobody I knew went to spend time on Lake Michigan beaches in Illinois.  Most of us went to beaches outside the state, most commonly the Indiana Dunes.  Personally I'd preferred to drive up to the Sleeping Bear Dunes when time permitted.
The beaches are part of why Chicago is one of the most visited cities in the US and keeps winning Best big city YoY.
No it's not.

Flint1979

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 09:44:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 09:26:30 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 09:18:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 08:58:55 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 08:56:30 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2023, 03:59:11 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 07:56:14 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 25, 2023, 04:45:10 PM
If you included Illinois they lack the lakes, still have plenty of farm land, the outdoor activities are more limited, Illinois does have scenic drives but not on the scale of the other three states mentioned here. I would say Lakeshore Drive or any of the expressways leading to the Chicago Loop are pretty nice with the Chicago skyline on the horizon but that gets old after awhile. There are still new things I'm finding in Michigan and I've traveled around this state for 4 decades.

There are a few thousand lakes in Illinois, not as much as the other mentioned states but they are here and more numerous than Indiana or Ohio. Also, there are numerous outdoor activities in Illinois. I really don't think that you've traveled Illinois as much as you claim due to this statement. Just within the Chicago area alone, there's a forest preserve within every 5 miles.
Good for those few thousand lakes in Illinois and I don't care about Indiana or Ohio and how many lakes those two states have because they don't have many either. So instead of discussing these numerous outdoor activities you decided to attack how much I've traveled Illinois which is much further than you think it is and that is for damn sure. Oh wonderful, in the Chicago area alone which doesn't consist of very much of the state's land area. I really don't care what you think, I guarantee my travels in life are a lot further than yours are.

No they aren't, not if you're making such statements. I said the Chicago area alone as a baseline, the rest of the state has just as much. There are 309 State Parks in the state alone. That's more than Wisconsin and Michigan combined.

Last I checked the National Park representing Chicago and much of Illinois is in Indiana.

Forgot to look at the Pullman National historic site. That's considered a National park now.

https://www.nps.gov/pull/index.htm

This one will likely be the next addition

https://www.fs.usda.gov/midewin

National parks differ from state parks just like they as well differ from Forest Preserves.

I haven't forgotten about Pullman. 

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/national-park-wednesday-pullman.html?m=1

Pullman was a National Monument and now is a National Historic Park.  Pullman is a "National Park unit"  but "Monument"  and "National Historic Park"  don't exactly have the name brand recognition "National Park"  does.  The National Parks "mostly"  are designated to places with significant natural features.  Illinois just doesn't have the natural features worthy of National Park consideration.  But that's speaking from the perspective of someone who has actually been to every designated "National Park"  in the continental U.S. along with one in Hawaii.

When I lived in Chicago almost nobody I knew went to spend time on Lake Michigan beaches in Illinois.  Most of us went to beaches outside the state, most commonly the Indiana Dunes.  Personally I'd preferred to drive up to the Sleeping Bear Dunes when time permitted.

There are plenty of units that are part of the USDA , these could easily be considered national parks . Just because the people that you know didn't want to doesn't mean that no one else wants to. The beaches are part of why Chicago is one of the most visited cities in the US and keeps winning Best big city YoY.

Fair to say though, that I've had a fair greater sampling of parklands to base my opinion.  You can cherry pick your Illinois data, units and factoids all you want it still doesn't chance the fact that most of your travels/experiences are confined to your home state.  How do you expect anyone except Illinois homers such as yourself to get on board with what you say with such limited exposure?  Can you even plausibly give fully informed opinions on Illinois considering you haven't even visited all the counties?
Same here even though he wants to try to discredit where I have been and where I haven't been in Illinois. I guarantee I have more counties clinched in Illinois than he does. Looking at my mob-rule I have 84 counties out of 102 clinched, that's 82.4% of the state's counties. The only part of Illinois I haven't been in is the western part from just south of the Quad Cities to a little north of St. Louis and a little west of Peoria. I would say a state that I have 82.4% of the counties from I have seen plenty of that state I would think.

Max Rockatansky


Crash_It

Quote from: Flint1979 on January 27, 2023, 06:46:29 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 09:44:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 09:26:30 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 09:18:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 08:58:55 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 08:56:30 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2023, 03:59:11 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 07:56:14 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 25, 2023, 04:45:10 PM
If you included Illinois they lack the lakes, still have plenty of farm land, the outdoor activities are more limited, Illinois does have scenic drives but not on the scale of the other three states mentioned here. I would say Lakeshore Drive or any of the expressways leading to the Chicago Loop are pretty nice with the Chicago skyline on the horizon but that gets old after awhile. There are still new things I'm finding in Michigan and I've traveled around this state for 4 decades.

There are a few thousand lakes in Illinois, not as much as the other mentioned states but they are here and more numerous than Indiana or Ohio. Also, there are numerous outdoor activities in Illinois. I really don't think that you've traveled Illinois as much as you claim due to this statement. Just within the Chicago area alone, there's a forest preserve within every 5 miles.
Good for those few thousand lakes in Illinois and I don't care about Indiana or Ohio and how many lakes those two states have because they don't have many either. So instead of discussing these numerous outdoor activities you decided to attack how much I've traveled Illinois which is much further than you think it is and that is for damn sure. Oh wonderful, in the Chicago area alone which doesn't consist of very much of the state's land area. I really don't care what you think, I guarantee my travels in life are a lot further than yours are.

No they aren't, not if you're making such statements. I said the Chicago area alone as a baseline, the rest of the state has just as much. There are 309 State Parks in the state alone. That's more than Wisconsin and Michigan combined.

Last I checked the National Park representing Chicago and much of Illinois is in Indiana.

Forgot to look at the Pullman National historic site. That's considered a National park now.

https://www.nps.gov/pull/index.htm

This one will likely be the next addition

https://www.fs.usda.gov/midewin

National parks differ from state parks just like they as well differ from Forest Preserves.

I haven't forgotten about Pullman. 

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/national-park-wednesday-pullman.html?m=1

Pullman was a National Monument and now is a National Historic Park.  Pullman is a "National Park unit"  but "Monument"  and "National Historic Park"  don't exactly have the name brand recognition "National Park"  does.  The National Parks "mostly"  are designated to places with significant natural features.  Illinois just doesn't have the natural features worthy of National Park consideration.  But that's speaking from the perspective of someone who has actually been to every designated "National Park"  in the continental U.S. along with one in Hawaii.

When I lived in Chicago almost nobody I knew went to spend time on Lake Michigan beaches in Illinois.  Most of us went to beaches outside the state, most commonly the Indiana Dunes.  Personally I'd preferred to drive up to the Sleeping Bear Dunes when time permitted.

There are plenty of units that are part of the USDA , these could easily be considered national parks . Just because the people that you know didn't want to doesn't mean that no one else wants to. The beaches are part of why Chicago is one of the most visited cities in the US and keeps winning Best big city YoY.

Fair to say though, that I've had a fair greater sampling of parklands to base my opinion.  You can cherry pick your Illinois data, units and factoids all you want it still doesn't chance the fact that most of your travels/experiences are confined to your home state.  How do you expect anyone except Illinois homers such as yourself to get on board with what you say with such limited exposure?  Can you even plausibly give fully informed opinions on Illinois considering you haven't even visited all the counties?
Same here even though he wants to try to discredit where I have been and where I haven't been in Illinois. I guarantee I have more counties clinched in Illinois than he does. Looking at my mob-rule I have 84 counties out of 102 clinched, that's 82.4% of the state's counties. The only part of Illinois I haven't been in is the western part from just south of the Quad Cities to a little north of St. Louis and a little west of Peoria. I would say a state that I have 82.4% of the counties from I have seen plenty of that state I would think.

Again, I find that hard to believe with all the statements you make. How's it possible that we've likely been to the same counties and you not have seen either a lake,state park, forest/nature preserve and a good restaurant while I have?

Flint1979

Quote from: Crash_It on January 27, 2023, 09:42:31 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 27, 2023, 06:46:29 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 09:44:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 09:26:30 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 09:18:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2023, 08:58:55 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 08:56:30 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2023, 03:59:11 PM
Quote from: Crash_It on January 26, 2023, 07:56:14 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 25, 2023, 04:45:10 PM
If you included Illinois they lack the lakes, still have plenty of farm land, the outdoor activities are more limited, Illinois does have scenic drives but not on the scale of the other three states mentioned here. I would say Lakeshore Drive or any of the expressways leading to the Chicago Loop are pretty nice with the Chicago skyline on the horizon but that gets old after awhile. There are still new things I'm finding in Michigan and I've traveled around this state for 4 decades.

There are a few thousand lakes in Illinois, not as much as the other mentioned states but they are here and more numerous than Indiana or Ohio. Also, there are numerous outdoor activities in Illinois. I really don't think that you've traveled Illinois as much as you claim due to this statement. Just within the Chicago area alone, there's a forest preserve within every 5 miles.
Good for those few thousand lakes in Illinois and I don't care about Indiana or Ohio and how many lakes those two states have because they don't have many either. So instead of discussing these numerous outdoor activities you decided to attack how much I've traveled Illinois which is much further than you think it is and that is for damn sure. Oh wonderful, in the Chicago area alone which doesn't consist of very much of the state's land area. I really don't care what you think, I guarantee my travels in life are a lot further than yours are.

No they aren't, not if you're making such statements. I said the Chicago area alone as a baseline, the rest of the state has just as much. There are 309 State Parks in the state alone. That's more than Wisconsin and Michigan combined.

Last I checked the National Park representing Chicago and much of Illinois is in Indiana.

Forgot to look at the Pullman National historic site. That's considered a National park now.

https://www.nps.gov/pull/index.htm

This one will likely be the next addition

https://www.fs.usda.gov/midewin

National parks differ from state parks just like they as well differ from Forest Preserves.

I haven't forgotten about Pullman. 

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/national-park-wednesday-pullman.html?m=1

Pullman was a National Monument and now is a National Historic Park.  Pullman is a "National Park unit"  but "Monument"  and "National Historic Park"  don't exactly have the name brand recognition "National Park"  does.  The National Parks "mostly"  are designated to places with significant natural features.  Illinois just doesn't have the natural features worthy of National Park consideration.  But that's speaking from the perspective of someone who has actually been to every designated "National Park"  in the continental U.S. along with one in Hawaii.

When I lived in Chicago almost nobody I knew went to spend time on Lake Michigan beaches in Illinois.  Most of us went to beaches outside the state, most commonly the Indiana Dunes.  Personally I'd preferred to drive up to the Sleeping Bear Dunes when time permitted.

There are plenty of units that are part of the USDA , these could easily be considered national parks . Just because the people that you know didn't want to doesn't mean that no one else wants to. The beaches are part of why Chicago is one of the most visited cities in the US and keeps winning Best big city YoY.

Fair to say though, that I've had a fair greater sampling of parklands to base my opinion.  You can cherry pick your Illinois data, units and factoids all you want it still doesn't chance the fact that most of your travels/experiences are confined to your home state.  How do you expect anyone except Illinois homers such as yourself to get on board with what you say with such limited exposure?  Can you even plausibly give fully informed opinions on Illinois considering you haven't even visited all the counties?
Same here even though he wants to try to discredit where I have been and where I haven't been in Illinois. I guarantee I have more counties clinched in Illinois than he does. Looking at my mob-rule I have 84 counties out of 102 clinched, that's 82.4% of the state's counties. The only part of Illinois I haven't been in is the western part from just south of the Quad Cities to a little north of St. Louis and a little west of Peoria. I would say a state that I have 82.4% of the counties from I have seen plenty of that state I would think.

Again, I find that hard to believe with all the statements you make. How's it possible that we've likely been to the same counties and you not have seen either a lake,state park, forest/nature preserve and a good restaurant while I have?
Do you really think I care what you do and don't believe? What do you even mean with all the statements I make? My statements are based on actually traveling to those places unlike you. I bet I've been in more counties in Illinois than you have btw. How do you figure that I haven't seen a lake, state park, forest preserve or a good restaurant? Where do you get that odd idea from? Just because I don't rank Illinois very high in catergories doesn't mean I haven't been there, doesn't mean that my travels are limited there. I've been to Chicago thousands of times in my life and I really don't care if you believe that or not. Your opinion means nothing to me.

Flint1979

The 18 counties I haven't been to in Illinois are Mercer, Henderson, Warren, Hancock McDonough, Fulton, Adams, Mason, Menard, Cass, Morgan, Scott, Greene, Jersey, Calhoun, Pike, Brown and Schuyler. All the other 84 counties in the state I have been to.

TheHighwayMan3561

Maybe it's just familiarity breeding contempt but I've never really enjoyed living in the Twin Cities, going back to being a kid. That said somehow I have only found one area I would choose to live in over this area. MSP is one of those cities that's deceptively small in the sense that the reputation of not being the most welcome to outsiders (matching the frosty weather) is definitely still perceptible even though I'm not an outsider. The city feels...fake, somehow, I guess.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

Max Rockatansky

#70
For me with Detroit, Metro Detroit and Lansing the factors that spurred me to move primarily were:

1.  I didn't want to work in the auto industry (working at a garage in high school sucked, but paid well)
2.  I didn't want to compete with tenured union employees for jobs.
3.  I was tired of Midwest winters. 

With Chicago, I could have gone back there and moved in with my Dad after high school.  All the same I didn't want to live with either of my parents after I turned 18.  Chicago didn't have much to offer someone entering the workforce to compel me enough to go back.  To that end, Crash keeps saying Chicago is great for millennials because "insert site"  said.  What are is the criteria being used by those sites?  The kitchen was certainly bare when I was entering the job market two decades ago, what has supposedly changed?. 

I ultimately drove across the country to Phoenix and rented a room from my brother for a year until I got established enough to get my own apartment.  I was definitely much happier in Phoenix and there was a lot more opportunities (especially at the time) for someone out of high school trying to establish themselves in the job market.

hotdogPi

#71
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2023, 02:13:21 PM
Crash keeps saying Chicago is great for millennials because "insert site"  said.  What are is the criteria being used by those sites?

kphoger agrees: low cost of living with decent public transportation.

Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2020, 12:32:27 PM

...

Aside from, say, the top five most expensive cities to live in, where can a single person not find a studio apartment for less than $800 a month?  Or at least a two-bedroom apartment that he or she could split in half with a roommate?  Chicago, for example, which has excellent transit and whose monthly transit pass is just a hair over $100, has plenty of 2BR apartments for less than $900 a month.  Split that with a roommate, and your rent is less than $450.  Back in 2005 or so, I used to live in Wheaton (a nice suburb of Chicago) and split a nice 2BR apartment with two roommates, and rent for each of us was less than $300 a month.

...
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

Flint1979

As Detroit has continued to decline I have found myself to like it less and less. When I was a kid I thought Detroit was cool, it was one of the largest cities in the country I believe it was 6th when I was born, it's out of the top 25 now. About 20 years ago I would go to Detroit about as often as I could which was just about every weekend I would stay in the city with my uncle who lived off of Greenfield near Grand River he lives in Fenton now but it didn't seem to be that bad of a neighborhood back then. I remember on my birthday in 2003 I went to the Yankees-Tigers game where Roger Clemens was going for this 300th win, Comerica was packed and the Tigers were awful (that was the year they lost 119 games) anyway I went down to Detroit early that day and went up to the box office as soon as they opened at 9 got tickets to the game and my dad was still in Saginaw coming toward Detroit so I thought well I'll drive to Rosedale Park which is a neighborhood on Detroit's west side, drove around there then got the idea of driving around Brightmoor which is another neighborhood on Detroit's west side where there was a lot of crime. I never felt unsafe driving around there or even getting out of my car to go inside a gas station or fast food restaurant or whatever. But now I think about it and Detroit is a shithole it truly is. You think I attack cities and places out of my state, the truth is I attack the cities in my state more than anywhere else. I attack Detroit, Saginaw, Flint, Lansing, Kalamazoo, the only one I don't attack is Grand Rapids even though I could probably find something about that city to attack too. And as a Chicago sports fan I have been to several games in Chicago. At no point did I feel unsafe anywhere I went in Chicago either. I walked all over the Bridgeport neighborhood which is just west of Comiskey Park, I walked from the Blue Line station to the United Center and that's in an even rougher part of town than Comiskey is. I remember being at Wrigley one time in 2005 and I was rooting for Boston, I was putting on a pretty good disguise telling everyone that I was from Boston, talking in a Boston accent and everything. This Cubs fan at Wrigley tells me that it's much safer around Wrigley than it is Comiskey and acting like a tourist I went along with him and was like oh ok guess I won't go there, even though I had been to several more Sox games than Cubs games since I'm a Sox fan and not a Cubs fan. As far as that goes I find the area around Wrigley to be a bit more unsafe than the area around Comiskey. When I drove through Englewood I wasn't scared. Same with Auburn-Gresham or Greater Grand Crossing or any of those Southside neighborhoods.

Flint1979

One thing Chicago has going good for it is it does have a pretty good public transportation system. You have the CTA, Pace and Metra. The CTA runs the city buses and the L, Pace is the suburban bus system and Metra is the commuter rail system. All three do pretty well.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: 1 on January 27, 2023, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2023, 02:13:21 PM
Crash keeps saying Chicago is great for millennials because "insert site"  said.  What are is the criteria being used by those sites?

kphoger agrees: low cost of living with decent public transportation.

Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2020, 12:32:27 PM

...

Aside from, say, the top five most expensive cities to live in, where can a single person not find a studio apartment for less than $800 a month?  Or at least a two-bedroom apartment that he or she could split in half with a roommate?  Chicago, for example, which has excellent transit and whose monthly transit pass is just a hair over $100, has plenty of 2BR apartments for less than $900 a month.  Split that with a roommate, and your rent is less than $450.  Back in 2005 or so, I used to live in Wheaton (a nice suburb of Chicago) and split a nice 2BR apartment with two roommates, and rent for each of us was less than $300 a month.

...

That's actually not as bad as I thought it might be.  For comparison same I was paying between $525-$639 monthly for one bedroom apartments during the 2002-2006 and 2010-2013 eras in Phoenix.  I paid about $800 for a one bedroom in Orlando during 2014-2015 and $1,100 for a two bedroom from 2016-17 in Hanford, CA.  Our mortgage is about the same as what I was paying for the apartment in Hanford.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.