Chicago shrinks by over 200,000 in the 2000's Part 1 (Henry, Greenfield: universities, casinos)

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

Not true, the boulevards and parks and Cook Co. forest preserves are not often replicated in other large cities.

Have you ever seen the "Emerald Necklace" that rings around the entire city of Cleveland? It puts the Cook County Forest Preserves to shame, IMHO.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Chicago South Sider

I can't agree with that statement. If Cleveland offered anywhere near 3/4 of what Chicago does I would probably live there.

Have you actually spent time exporing all of what Cleveland or similar size city (St. Louis, Cincinnati, etc.) has to offer??

Its just my opinion.

Example: How many Italian restaurants does one need? What is the difference between 20 and 80? This is what I am getting at.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by stephei2000

Yeah, maybe that is true I have not been to Texas yet so it is just a thought. Also, I comparing Chicago to my hometown Detroit. The Detroit areas has much more greenery and trees. This is the first shocking thing when I moved to Chicago the lack of trees and bushes. I guess I am comparing mostly the northside which I told was the place to move. The southside is a little more green and normal looking. Lastly, I have not been to Phoenix but I would never live in the desert.

The interesting thing Steph, is that even the north side of Chicago believe it or not was once more like that. There was a time, if one looks at old photos where the Gold Coast was dominated by mostly mansions and few high rises. Same with Uptown, etc. back in the 50s. It was starting in the 60s that the high rise building craze took off on the north lakefront.

But you are right the south side is definitely more green, and generally more like Detroit in that regard, same thing in general for most of the outer neighborhoods and inner ring suburbs that have similar housing stock as the city of Detroit.

[Chicago South Sider]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Have you actually spent time exporing all of what Cleveland or similar size city (St. Louis, Cincinnati, etc.) has to offer??

Its just my opinion.

Example: How many Italian restaurants does one need? What is the difference between 20 and 80? This is what I am getting at.

I just spent a week in Cicinnati. I've also been to Cleveland and St. Louis. And Detroit. And Minneapolis. And Indianapolis. Etc, etc...

Anwyay, St Louis is kind of cool but Cincinnati was one of the most boring places I've ever been to. I have similar feelings about Cleveland.

What I'm wondering is why this argument only applies to Chicago. Using your thinking New York is the most redundant place in the country. I mean, why do you need 20,000 restaurants? Isn't 4,000 enough? Or 7,000?

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

"One could also say that ""Cleveland has 2/3 to 3/4 of what Chicago has for 1/2 the price"" and it would be just as true."

It is a far bigger exaggeration than the New York analogy, which at least is within reason.

Depends on how you look at it. In many smaller midwestern cities, its not all about the waterfront. For example, in Cleveland, its art museum and other museums (natural history ,etc.) are on the campus of Case Western University five miles from downtown Cleveland.

Detroits art museum, and museum district are a couple miles up Woodward near Wayne State and College of Creative Studies. In St. Louis, its most cultural area is also 5 miles west of downtown around Forest Park, where the 1904 olympics were.

Many Chicagoans, believing that the waterfront is always where its at, come home underwhelmed driving through the Illinois side of St. Louis and coming to the Arch.

Personally I love how other cities have their museums somehwat integrated with their college campuses. It give it so much more of an intellectual vibe. Rather than having them. Three of Chicagos great museums are almost off on Northerly Island, on the other side of LSD, (almost a freeway) next to a footbal stadium, giving it a more touristic, rather than an intellectual juxtaposition.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Chicago South Sider

I just spent a week in Cicinnati. I've also been to Cleveland and St. Louis. And Detroit. And Minneapolis. And Indianapolis. Etc, etc...

Anwyay, St Louis is kind of cool but Cincinnati was one of the most boring places I've ever been to. I have similar feelings about Cleveland.

What I'm wondering is why this argument only applies to Chicago. Using your thinking New York is the most redundant place in the country. I mean, why do you need 20,000 restaurants? Isn't 4,000 enough? Or 7,000?

Where did you go in Cincy? Did you check out the better part of Over-The-Rhine? Where Music Hall and the Main Street entertainment is. This neighborhood is older and more densely built (in a European/east coast style) than anywhere in any other midwestern city. Personally I also LOVE the food in Cincy. The neighborhoods really feel like neighborhoods. There are a lot of hidden gems. To each his own.

I love European-esque architecture in the midwest. And other midwestern cities have quite a lot of this.

Personally, while I don't necessarily care about celebrities and famous people throughout history, I do believe that where they congregate is a strong indicator of where the action is.

And there is that feeling in New York. Although I prefer LA myself.

I'm more into hidden gems and exploring, than hanging out in some spectacular, grand center. And therefore I'm attracted to places that require exploring to get the most out of it. Chicago is more about the grand, spectacular, and stunning, although, I do like Chicagoland for the hidden gems. I am a geographer, and I study the guidebooks.

[Chicago South Sider]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Where did you go in Cincy? Did you check out the better part of Over-The-Rhine? Where Music Hall and the Main Street entertainment is. This neighborhood is older and more densely built (in a European/east coast style) than anywhere in any other midwestern city. Personally I also LOVE the food in Cincy. The neighborhoods really feel like neighborhoods. There are a lot of hidden gems. To each his own.

I went all over Cincinnati. There were some interesting neighborhoods near downtown and by the university. I was surpised that there was a park full of bums right outside of downtown. Downtown was lame with businesses closed in the middle of the day on the weekend. The Underground Railroad Museum was interesting. I actually walked right by Demi Moore during my visit. One thing that did surprise me about Cincinnati were the hills.

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Personally, while I don't necessarily care about celebrities and famous people throughout history, I do believe that where they congregate is a strong indicator of where the action is.

And there is that feeling in New York. Although I prefer LA myself.

Eh, I didn't see any celebrities in LA on Crenshaw Blvd or in the gritty parts of Brooklyn in New York. Just like Chicago both those cities have a whole lot of the ordinary to go along with the extraordinary. Personally, I think Hollywood is vapid to say the least.

[tonythetuna]

Originally Posted by stephei2000

But what I have learned over the years is that I do not like urban cities.

Move then. Bye.

[tonythetuna]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

Also, we like to argue about minorities and Indiana, always good for another 150 or so posts mixed in.

You forgot about the south side and south suburbs.

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by Chicago South Sider

I can't agree with that statement. If Cleveland offered anywhere near 3/4 of what Chicago does I would probably live there.

Have you actually spent any time in Cleveland? Perhaps you didn't know what the city has to offer, or where to go and how to get there.

Not your fault. Cleveland's not the sort of city that wows you at first glance -- it's not like Chicago or NYC in that regard -- but everything one would want of a big city can be found there, somewhere or other. Its gems are hidden and waiting to be discovered.

It would be very difficult for me to list all Cleveland's attractions in one post, but here's a link that attempts to do just that (just ignore the rather annoying writing style; this website offers plenty of good facts):

Welcome To CLEVELAND!

Cleveland's main disadvantage over Chicago (and it is a huge one) is the relative difficulty of living without a car. Truly walkable areas tend to be small, and are few and far between, and instead of blending into one another seamlessly, are often separated by miles of desolation, sadly. Plus public transit is not as frequent or efficient, likely due to the city's lower density. In addition, lots of what Cleveland has to offer is spread out all over the metro area -- much of it is in the suburbs -- often requiring traveling great distances. But it's all there.

I also wish Cleveland would do more with its lakefront to make it more attractive and accessible to the people. Chicago is the clear winner in this category, by far.

But hey, those disadvantages are offset by a much lower cost of living (particularly housing).