Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And maybe it's just a different mentality, but a lot of folks in Metro Detroit just don't seem to be city folk or care for city life. They have less of an appreciation for it overall than folks in Chicago and even compared to the folks in the SUBURBS of Chicago. I've sort of seen a similar mentality whenever I've been up in the Milwaukee area as well. Metro Detroiters are far more likely to appreciate quick trips "up north" to Northern Michigan for camping, hunting, and other outdoorsy activities. It's just a different mentality, and I can't say that one is better than the other. We all have our preferences, but I just personally know I'm more of a city/suburban person than the suburban person that itches to get out to the country for camping all the time & can barely stand the city lol.
This is so true. I do not know where to begin. When I was a kid it was all about going up North to someones cabin.
"Lakecountylifer named off all these towns some not even 3 square miles as being superior to those in Metro Detroit...Hmmm, are they superior to Orchard Lake? Bloomfield Hills? West Bloomfield? Bloomfield township? Franklin? Northville? Plymouth? Grosse Pointe? Oakland? Rochester Hills?"
Yes! Every single town I mentioned, including Winnetka, Glencoe, Highland Park, Lake Forest, Deerfield, Northbrook, Glenview-----everyone of them----are vastly superior to the towns you mention in the Detroit suburbs. It's not even a close call. Now that doesn't mean Villages such as Plymouth and Northville aren't nice towns, because they are. But to state these Detroit burbs are superior or even equal par to what I listed makes me think you are just looking at the Chicago burbs on google maps.
eh, have you been to Grosse Pointe(s) or Birmingham or Bloomfield Hills? They're pretty darn nice and the Grosse Pointes and Birmingham can easily stack up against the nicer Chicago suburbs (maybe not Kenilworth, Winnetka and Highland Park), but easily the others.
Detroit cannot compare to Chicago-- no way, no how. Comparing Detroit suburbs to Chicago suburbs is altogether another matter.
Comparing Detroit suburbs to Chicago suburbs is altogether another matter.
Except for the fact that they are still part of the Detroit metro area, and the struggling economy there.
There are neighborhoods in the City of Detroit that are similar to neighborhoods in the City of Chicago, but they are still in Detroit. And the Detroit suburbs are still linked to Detroit, even if residents want to distance themselves from the city. Cities and their suburbs are inextricably linked, and metropolitain areas are more significant than municipal boundaries in today's world.
Except for the fact that they are still part of the Detroit metro area, and the struggling economy there.
There are neighborhoods in the City of Detroit that are similar to neighborhoods in the City of Chicago, but they are still in Detroit. And the Detroit suburbs are still linked to Detroit, even if residents want to distance themselves from the city. Cities and their suburbs are inextricably linked, and metropolitain areas are more significant than municipal boundaries in today's world.
I'm from Wisconsin, and have been tempted many times to move back to Milwaukee to nicer house in a suburb that offers many of the amenities that we are used to, but my wife always reminds me about the job market for our respective careers... That seemingly cheap house isn't so cheap if I don't have a job or have to take a large cut in pay.
You are correct. At least your state has a peak of Lake Michigan. Imagine if it didn't! Yikes. I am sure there are some hills and lakes in the Land of Lincoln. In fact, I am looking to travel in Illinois to see more of it. But the only thing redeeming about Illinois is Chicago (the north side of course)
You evidently haven't explored much of Illinois. Granted, overall Michigan has more natural beauty, but Chicago only redeeming thing about IL? Your hyperbole is amusing and narrow minded. That's like me saying there is NOTHING redeeming about the Detroit Metro area(obviously false).
Check out NW Illinois, Galena area. Southern IL is gorgeous, especially the Shawnee national Forest. Illinois River Valley is also pretty. Lake County has some nice areas; I could take you on bike ride with miles of less traveled roads that are hilly and wooded. If you're still keeping up with me on that fictitious bike ride, I will take you on some hills around Algonquin that will kick your butt.
So, please stop making stupid, blanket statements- it seriously erodes your credibility. And you have a valid point as there are some very beautiful suburban areas outside of Detroit.
This is true. In fact, the depressing situation within the city limits of Detroit are what have allowed certain posh suburbs of Detroit to have greater nightlife than one would find in Chicago's suburbs (except possibly Naperville). I'm not sure if outside of Naperville, Chicago has a suburban town that has the nightlife that Royal Oak (MI) has. Birmingham, MI also has nightlife that you'd be hard pressed to find in any of the North Shore suburbs of Chicago. I'd say Novi, MI and its nightlife might be about on par or better than what you'd find in Schaumburg, but certainly nothing to write home about. If you're into hookah bars, Dearborn isn't a bad town to chill out in. I'm quite sure the main street areas of Plymouth & Novi have some decent bars that could compare to those you'd find in Arlington Heights & Libertyville over here. And for those in the western Detroit burbs, it's an easy drive to Ann Arbor as well. Ann Arbor's nightlife is easily better than Evanston. But at the end of the day, Evanstonians can easily take the CTA or a cab into Chicago's north side for some real night life.
For those that like more crass entertainment (ie. gentleman's clubs), Detroit's selection actually towers over Chicago. Take one trip to 8 Mile or Inkster by DTW airport and you'll see what I'm referring to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigLake
eh, have you been to Grosse Pointe(s) or Birmingham or Bloomfield Hills? They're pretty darn nice and the Grosse Pointes and Birmingham can easily stack up against the nicer Chicago suburbs (maybe not Kenilworth, Winnetka and Highland Park), but easily the others.
Detroit cannot compare to Chicago-- no way, no how. Comparing Detroit suburbs to Chicago suburbs is altogether another matter.
I'd love to throw my two cents in - for what their worth.
This is a fascinating thread to me, I used to post lots trying to pump up the Detroit area back in the day.
First I want to say: Southeast Michigan does NOT have any more natural beauty, scenery, or recreational opportunities than NE Illinois.
As much as I like Michigan as a whole, I will say that the natural beauty of Michigan is NOT anywhere near SE Michigan. The natural beauty, includes a s coastal strip of forest-covered coastal dunes in west Michigan. The northern part of the lower peninsula and the UP. And frankly, even only the western half the UP, the most remote part of the state has scenic beauty that can compare to New England. The eastern half of the UP and the northern lower peninsula has northwoods recreation opportunity, yet they are still largely flat, either swamp/bog forest or sandy pine plains.
In fact, honestly I would actually say Michigan is honestly only a little more beautiful than Illinois.
What can account for the difference in perception?? Simple: Illinois' natural beauty is not perceived to be worth the effort to travel to - and Chicago overpowers all the tourism of the state. The few places downstate people would travel too, are surrounded by one big cornfield. The Shawnee Hills are out of the way, and the cliffs along the Mississippi near Galena and elsewhere are not as big of a draw as the West Michigan shore.
Now back to the immediate areas. The inland lakes of Oakland County have their counterpart in the inland lakes of Lake County, seriously they are not much different. On top of that, Chicagoland has the Indiana Dunes nearby, and two hours away are starved rock, and other parks along the Illinois river.
On top of this, the scenic parts of Michigan are really not much further or about the same, or slightly closer than they are to Detroit.
I know some would argue, but when it comes to scenery and natural beauty and outdoor recreation, comparing anything within the midwest is splitting hairs, when compared to the western US.
Whats the difference??
Easy: Compared to Metro Detroit (and the Twin Cities too, third largest metro) people in Chicagoland overall don't get out into the nature and outdoors nearly as much. They just don't. If they do, its seen as more of alternative, doing something different to go to a cabin. Its looked upon as a major diversion, a novelty, an alternative from spending time enjoying Chicago proper. Even if they are driving the same distance.
Even for areas RIGHT on the edges of greater Chicagoland, the lake areas of Lake/McHenry county with its wetlands and rolling hills, or the Indiana Dunes, or the vast Palos Forest preserves with their bluffs, ravines, (which are 100% unknown to 95% of Chicagolanders, who wouldn't believe something like it exists) are relatively overlooked compared to equivalent areas.
If Chicagoland were like metro Detroit or the Twin Cities, the Lake areas of Western Lake County would the hottest real estate in the region, instead with the exception of the north Barrington/Lake Zurich areas, they are for the most part blue-collared and relatively affordable. People move up to Grayslake because its cheaper, not because they can boat or fish. Sure there are a few people who might like those are for the nature and recreation, but for the most part everything revolved around distance to the city.
Same with NW Indiana. As it is, despite having the only real stretch of wild shoreline, most Chicagolanders look upon NW Indiana as a place you would have to pay them to live.
This is the key difference. And it is why I although I still love to visit downtown Chicago when I am in town visiting family, and believe the outlying suburban town where I grew up is a great place to be from, I can NOT fathom the idea of moving back to the area to live.
Its very difficult for me to connect and relate to people there, I NEED to live in a metro area, where road trips and recreation is a MUCH higher relative priority than people in Chicagoland. Its how I socialize. Since I've moved to the LA area, once you get past all the glitz and glamour BS there are simply a LOT of people who love spending the day in the local mountains, and who love going to Santa Barbara or Palm Springs for the day, or who plan a couple camping trips to the Sierras/Yosemite for the year, or a trip up to Big Sur or Monterey. I have gone on so many dates from women I met through meetup groups who do this stuff, and I'm even an assistant organizer. Also as a community college professor, I need to have a certain % of students, who get my references to parks, resort places, when I talk about natural features and processes. In California, even "diversity" gets into the nature and outdoors than what is typically encountered in Chicagoland. (IE: I know many hispanic, Asian, AA, and Middle Eastern people who hike, including cute women , which is great, because I can have friends and aquaintances of different backgrounds who like the same stuff I do). Which is less possible in Chicagoland, where the only outlets were "dorky" conservative institutions like the boy scouts when I was growing up.
Any midwest counterpart to these, are not really on the radar for Chicagoland people, at least not as much. Its a much more narrow niche interest.
This is a little off topic, but to add on to Reppingthe847 and Stephies comments, thats probably what appealed to me about metro Detroit in the past, the metro area outside the city, looks just like where I'm from but where a great portion of the people, will get references to outdoor destinations across the region and states/surrounding states.
1. Detroit suburbs are about 2/3 blue collar (Wayne and Macomb mostly), 1/3 white collared (Oakland mostly), Chicago about 1/3 blue collar (South-southwest burbs), 2/3 white collar (west and north)
2. Big difference is between INNER burbs. The age of housing stock, era of building and progressive distance from respective cities is very similar, difference in Chicago, ESPECIALLY in the north inner burbs, and some in the west burbs, is that there is a lot more reinvestment/revitalization. This can be seen in teardowns, infill. If Park Ridge and Skokie were placed outside Detroit, they would not be as thriving today. Middle and Outer burbs are similar -very little difference.
I think you could argue there are some exceptions to that rule of all south/southwest burbs being more blue collar(say when you look at Flossmoor, Olympia Fields), and that most west/northwest/north burbs being all white collar(i.e. Waukegan/Park City/Gurnee/Zion being an example that'd definitely not fall into the white collar category). Without a doubt, yep the majority of white collar suburbs would be in the north suburbs(particularly the 'North Shore' suburbs from Wilmette up to about Lake Bluff), and the suburbs along the BNSF line(particularly La Grange west to Naperville).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
And of course, the south side of Chicago is similar to the city of Detroit, although the South Side is much less abandoned, and when buildings do get abandoned, the city is pretty quick to tear down abandoned buildings, and approve new buildings. Although the upper middle class, "buppy" (contraction of black yuppy) culture and neighborhoods of Detroits far NW side are as nice, or even a little nicer compared to Hyde Park Kenwood, Beverly, etc.
Its downtown and the north side that have comparisons to NYC, with downtown like a mini Manhattan, and the north side being like Brooklyn/Queens. (Brooklyn close to the lake, Queens like away from the lake). Even when Detroit was in its heyday and gaining on Chicago population wise, with magnificent architecture, it never quite was like Chicago.
True, but a lot of buildings on the west and south sides are still abandoned to this day, and slow to be demolished. I wouldn't be surprised if much fewer abandoned buildings had been demolished in Detroit, vs. Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Republic of Michigan
You are correct. At least your state has a peak of Lake Michigan. Imagine if it didn't! Yikes. I am sure there are some hills and lakes in the Land of Lincoln. In fact, I am looking to travel in Illinois to see more of it. But the only thing redeeming about Illinois is Chicago (the north side of course)
LMAO! Agree with cubssoxfan that this is an extremely ill-informed statement. To add to his great reply to this very misinformed comment, also check out Mississippi Palisades State Park, Starved Rock State Park, the river cities of Quincy and Alton, the Metro East city of Belleville, and the Chain 'O Lakes area of far north Lake County and eastern McHenry County(which IMHO is very similar to southeast Wisconsin west of Lake Michigan in character), and I bet you a million bucks you wouldn't be saying Chicago's north side is the only interesting part of Illinois. *smfh*
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.