looks a lot like this:
But when you really take the time to examine these two cities, you'll find that they have little in common. Here are some examples of ways London is different than Chicago:
Population
As many of you undoubtedly know, a general rule of thumb for cities is that awesomeness is directly related to population.* London has a population of 489,274 people (as of July, 2009). Chicago, however, has a population of 2,896,016 people (as of the 2000 Census). Adjusting for the difference in years with these two statistics, we can conclude that Chicago is approximately 600% cooler than London.
Road Etiquette
The best word to describe the driving conditions in Chicago, I find, is "anarchy." It's every man for himself out there, and if you happen to get run over/rear ended/scared silly in the process of getting from one place to another, well, better you than me. In London, however, this is not the case. Here are some things drivers in London do that rarely, if ever, happen in Chicago:
- They go the speed limit.
- They wait for pedestrians to cross the street.
- They allow others to make lane changes.
- They don't tailgate.
General Niceness
You know those (presumably) homeless guys who come up to your cars at red lights and offer to wash your windows in exchange for money? Don't you find them kind of annoying and very awkward? Well, in London, those guys are not homeless. They are just nice people who want to wash your windows for free. Seriously. That's really weird, right?
Wealth
As of the 2000 census, the median family income in Chicago was $42,724. According to the 2001 Canadian census, however, the median family income in London was $77,040. That difference is no small chunk of change. You know all those homeless people you see in Chicago? They don't have those in London. Flop houses? Nope. Garbage all over the place? Please. Poverty-related crime? Not so much. No, London is the kind of city where every family has a car, a house, and fifteen bikes on their lawn that they know won't get stolen. In short, London is like a giant suburb. And, as anyone who has ever lived in a suburb will tell you, suburbs are super, super boring.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about the lack of crime or anything. Crime is bad, and can be very frustrating for its victims. A little bit of grittiness, however, makes for a more interesting society. The art, for one thing, would undoubtedly improve if people here suffered more. And maybe there'd be some actual bands from London like there are from Toronto, Montréal, Winnipeg, and Vancouver (all of which cities have higher populations, worse drivers, fewer nice people, and less money. Hmmm....).
This awesome song is from Winnipeg, which is not London.
In conclusion, London has a lower population, better drivers, nicer people, and a higher median income than Chicago (and several other, cooler Canadian cities), all of which seem like good things, but totally contribute to its lameness.
*NOTE: This does not apply to towns. Unlike cities, towns' awesomeness is related to two factors: location, and whether or not hippies moved there in the 60s. A town's population, therefore, will not accurately indicate its awesomeness.
**NOTE: These are generalizations, not absolute truths. Today, for example, this crazy lady was tailgating me so closely that I was pretty sure I was about to get a love tap, so I stuck my hand out the window to give her a rude gesture, in hopes that it would deter her from endangering both our lives. She promptly passed me, and when she got in front of me, I saw that she had a bumper sticker on her car that said "Drive Safe," which immediately turned my anger and frustration into utter amusement.
Another delicious post. Great tone. I don't know about the "notes," though. Perhaps you can find a better way to present them--under a Notes heading?
ReplyDelete