Is Cleveland a 'lil Chicago? (Lakewood, Erie: house, rent, travel)

[TheProf]

I've heard travelers mention this often, including some from Cleveland. I think it stems from similarities in:

- overall Midwestern character, architecture and unpretentious (steak 'n potato; sports lovin') people

- climate (of course)

- arts superiority, across the board

- large Polish and Eastern European communities

- (negative) high degree of segregation and racial suspicion -- traditionally East vs. West, in Cleveland; North vs. South in Chicago

-- neighborhood orientation with many walking district's (in Cleveland, in the City and close-in, urban-like suburbs); Chicago's are denser and more- 24-hour, generally, but Cleveland's are gaining ground and some: Little Italy, Coventry, Edgewater/Lakewood match Chicago's best, imho).

- lakefront orientation (Chicago's being 10-times better, of course)

- public transit, both cities being superior to most Midwestern cities

- generally flat, wide, straight streets in both (at least until you reach Cleveland's Eastern suburbs, which are more like ones in suburban Philly, NY or Boston).


These are just a few, there are more. Agree? Disagree? … your thoughts.

[andrew61]

Is Cleveland a lil' Chicago? As one who has lived an extensive amount of time in both cities, I'd say yes and no.

There are many similarities, as your list points out. I'd add to your list that the Cleveland Memorial Shoreway is eerily reminiscent of Chicago's (Outer) Lake Shore Drive... with Chicago's being the more scenic and spectacular of the two, in general. Chicago's done much more with its lakefront... parks, residential highrises... Cleveland has lakefront parks, but they're much more spotty and scattered and interspersed with a lot of manufacturing dreck...

And the two cities are laid out very similarly in some respects... If you look at a map of Cleveland, it even looks somewhat like Chicago lying on its side.

But unlike Chicago, Cleveland's downtown tends to be very eerie and deserted... not much bustle, not many people around... few really tall buildings... and very little shopping of note... no department stores anymore... certainly no counterpart to Chicago's "Magnificent Mile"... although the theater district (Playhouse Square) is pretty decent, and the Warehouse District is coming up, and reminds one of River North or Printer's Row...

And gentrification is much further along in Chicago... and Chicago has terrible traffic compared to Cleveland... and a much faster pace, IMHO. In general, Chicagoans tend to be more forward and aggressive than Clevelanders...

As for the public transit, I think Chicago's got it over Cleveland by far. I do just fine without a car in Chicago... going carless can be done in Cleveland, of course, depending on where you live... but IMHO would be much more of a hardship, especially given that Cleveland's retail shopping, good restaurants, etc. are more spread out and require traveling all over the suburbs... whereas living in Chicago, you could easily forget the suburbs even exist (unless you want to go to IKEA or something).

(BTW, Cleveland's Little Italy blows Chicago's away, IMHO... I find Chicago's Little Italy to be a big disappointment for a city this size.)

[intek]

I'd say Cincinnati is closer.

I mean of course if you took Chicago, sucked out every last ounce of culture including its thriving music scenes and quality restaurants and bars, leaving a graying hulk of skyscrapers and a complete lack of night life, then you would have Cincinnati.

[TheProf]

Nice job, andrew. Really good, inciteful stuff like what I was looking for. Hopefully more like it will follow.

[TheProf]

To pick up on a couple things andrew hit on:

- yes, I think there are similarities in the Cleveland's Shoreway vs. Lake Shore Drive, but LSD has it all over Memorial Shoreway (which, interestingly, officials have been planning to downgrade from a high-speed freeway to a low-speed, residential-friendly boulevard which, btw, ceases to serve as a barrier from people from the Lake Erie shoreline, which it tends to be in its current incarnation.

Chicago planned from the late 19th Century for residential development along Lake Michigan (I've also read, somewhere, too that much of the close-in lake shore is too shallow for large industrial ships and that canals, including the Sanitary waterway, was a way to get ships into the interior – I could be wrong on that, but that’s what I recall). But Chicago, I'm pretty sure, was the 1st metropolis to grow through railroads, the hot new transport technology of the Industrial Age 19th century... bottom line, Cleveland built a freight rail line along its lakefront around the time Chicago was growing. The result: Un people-friendly industrial development.

-another similarity is the diversified industrial + white collar base. Cleveland was, until the early 90s, the 3rd largest Fortune 500 headquarter city – it’s slipped since, but it’s still both blue and white collar, with a super strong presence in the medial profession.

Also, andrew's right about downtown retail -- Chicago blows Cleveland (and most cities) away. I think, however, the ghost town aspect for Cleveland is changing -- it's changed radically in just the last year.

One of the points in this thread that needs to be emphasized is that Chicago is naturally going to whip a Cleveland on sheer size alone, which on some levels, can make it a bit of a hassle and more expensive. One school of thought is that, in this sense, in Cleveland you can have your cake and enjoy it, too... The other school is that, the hassle and expense shows how popular and sought-after Chicago is compared to a Cleveland which, while a 'best kept secret' to a lot of us born and raised here, is unknown; even a negative; to much of America; even the world...

[TheProf]

^^ btw, Andrew, I don't even know where Little Italy in Chicago is.

[Drover]

Little Italy = Taylor Street corridor from approximately Halsted to Western.

Y'all have forgotten one more similarity: same accent.

[Avengerfire]

Can you say Milwaukee?

[Cle440]

I would say Milwaukee and Cleveland are tied on being like Chicago. Milwaukee seems kind of generic to me though it has no history like Chicago or Cleveland. Milwaukee is just a place where people go who cant afford to live in Chicago or want to be in a smaller city. If you put a map of Cleveland on its side so that west is facing north its just like Chicago, even the ghettos are in the same place (Eastside of Cleveland and Southside of Chicago). The weather is about the same except Chicago is a little colder and more windy in the winter. Chicagos beaches are definetly better and it seems more clean than Lake Erie. They both have pretty good sports teams. They have a lot of similarities but are both unique. I would say Chicago is the best area to live in the Midwest and Cleveland is 2nd.

If you want to live near a large city in the Midwest Chicago and Cleveland are the best places and have the most to do. There is nothing special about Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Columbus, Cincinnati, or even Detroit. If you dont like Chicago or Cleveland dont move to the midwest.

[Fishtacos]

The biggest difference between Milwaukee and Cleveland is the downtown area. Many people live and play in downtown Milwaukee safely. It isn't a ghost town at nights or on weekends. Thrid Ward, East Side, Brewer's Hill, and Central downtown to the Lakefront are the best things about Milwaukee. Crime is much further Northwest. ...and Milwaukee has upscale burbs on the Lakefront starting just a mile from downtown.

As a metro, Cleveland is bigger than Milwaukee, but more people live in the city in Milwaukee than Cleveland.