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.
Location: Cleveland, OH USA / formerly Chicago for 20 years
4,069 posts, read 7,312,310 times
Reputation: 3062
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attrill
^^^ To clarify, I'm not bashing Cleveland at all, it has a lot of great things. It is just very different than living in Chicago and isn't a mini Chicago or something.
I've lived in both cities for extended periods of time. I'd say there is a sense in which Cleveland is like a mini-Chicago, in some aspects, at least. In others, not so much.
To me, Chicago is kind of like a cross between Cleveland and NYC. If NYC and Cleveland got together and had a kid, I'd venture that kid would look a heck of a lot like Chicago.
Chicago is kind of like Cleveland on steroids.
Here's a link to an old thread on the Cleveland forum that compared and contrasted both cities (I think Tex might find this interesting):
Location: Cleveland, OH USA / formerly Chicago for 20 years
4,069 posts, read 7,312,310 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
Doesn't it really just come down partially to opinion?
Example: Cleveland has a little Italy, a Slavic Village, an Asian Village, A Puerto Rican neighborhood.
It has early to mid 20th century architecture that has counterparts to what you can see in Chicago.
You have a great art museum on the campus of Case Western. An outstanding symphony, etc. etc. (an art museum that has all genres from ancient to contemporary from every region of the world. Hindu 6-arm goddesses in the Asian exhibit, religious Italian rennessaince paintings, 1920s modern) with a university nearby with art school students there to give the whole bohemian vibe, etc.
If you are not so huge of a connousieur(sp) of ethnic cuisine but still like places where you could get it, well I think one can simply say that well the
well I can get pierogis, pazcki, Kielbasa, galambki just like in Chicago. Just Chicago has 100 places, where Cleveland has 10. And the cost of living in Cleveland is lower, and less traffic. I can live in a suburban environment closer to downtown than I can in Chicago, but still have museums, sports, architecture, ethnic cuisine, etc.
Maybe I'm not as cultured as others, but IMO, for most things, midwestern metro areas over 1.5 to 2 million and above do have counterparts to what Chicago has.
Maybe not for everyone. Some very much prefer the vast variety that Chicago has. Others find it redundant. Its just ones preferences. Thats all.
Just like someone who cares nothing about the entertainment industry, etc. WOULD find San Diego to have everything that LA has, but without the hassle.
This is a very good post, overall.
Not only does Cleveland have a Little Italy, Cleveland's Little Italy is probably one of the top five in the country. I don't find Chicago's version to be anywhere near as good.
Cleveland's Slavic Village was a great area not that long ago, but it has gone woefully downhill over the past ten years or so. The foreclosure crisis really hit that neighborhood hard, and now it's blighted in a way I never imagined it would be.
Cleveland's Asia Town shows some promise and has a lot of potential... Personally, I prefer Chicago's Asian areas (Chinatown, Argyle Street, the Koreatown on Lawrence Avenue, etc.). And Chicago does have that wonderful mile-long "Little India" strip along Devon Avenue, of which Cleveland has no counterpart.
And whereas Cleveland has a substantial Puerto Rican presence (the neighborhood I grew up in had many Puerto Ricans moving in at the time), it doesn't have a huge Mexican presence the way Chicago has.
Both Cleveland and Chicago boast orchestras that are among the best in the world (a ranking I saw put Chicago's in 5th place worldwide, and Cleveland's in 7th). And Cleveland's art museum is likely among the top ten nationwide, although Chicago has the bigger collection by far, and really shines with its collection of Impressionist paintings.
Etc., etc., etc. I'd say Chicago outranks Cleveland overall in terms of culture, recreation, entertainment, etc., but Cleveland still has those things in abundance, which is particularly impressive given the city's much smaller size... it probably ranks in the top ten nationwide for those things, even though it's only the 45th-largest city population-wise.
Cleveland does have lower density -- which means much more breathing room, and psychological space to engage in contemplation -- and a slower pace and lower cost of living... and IMHO those qualities can greatly appeal to the person who wants all the urban amenities without all the hassles of living in a big city, so they shouldn't be underrated.
And, although it's possible to get by without a car in Cleveland, and rely on public transit exclusively, IMHO it's a lot more difficult than it is in Chicago. But again, it's a matter of one's individual priorities and preference.
Location: Cleveland, OH USA / formerly Chicago for 20 years
4,069 posts, read 7,312,310 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attrill
There are also plenty of cuisines that Cleveland doesn't have - things like Molecular Gastro, Moroccan, Russian, Belgian, British and Persian.
I'm absolutely positive that Cleveland does have Moroccan cuisine, and I'm fairly certain that it also has Russian and Persian, at least to some extent. I'm not sure about the others you listed, however.
(I didn't even know there was such a thing as Belgian cuisine... and I wonder how many Chicagoans ever bother with it, anyway?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attrill
Even in the areas where Cleveland may have a smaller number of places the fact that Chicago will have 100 of something also means those places have to work harder to stand out and the quality improves. This isn't just true for restaurants, it's true for almost all businesses.
Ehh... I'm not so sure having more necessarily translates into greater quality. For example, Chicago probably has 200 Thai restaurants, but most of them seem pretty much the same to me, not bad but not spectacular either, except for the three or four that I already discovered a long time ago that have become my favorites. Sometimes greater quantity simply translates into greater quantity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attrill
You have to be kidding about architecture - there is no comparison. Chicago is basically one huge architecture museum that very few cities can match. If someone is interested in architecture Cleveland doesn't come close to Chicago.
Well, Cleveland doesn't have any Mies, and it has just a small smattering of Frank Lloyd Wright and stuff like that, if you're into famous world-class architects, and the modern architecture is mostly "meh", but there's quite a bit of good Victorian and Edwardian and Art Deco around town. True, you don't find many architectural styles that are really unique to the city, unlike Chicago with its greystones and brick bungalows and "prairie school", etc., but even so, I find much of Cleveland's architecture aesthetically pleasing in its own right, especially in the residential areas. Check out the Ohio City area for great old restored Victorian houses, for example, or Shaker Square with its Tudor and Georgian-inspired apartment buildings built in the early 20th century... and those are but two examples.
BTW, one thing I absolutely hate about the vintage residential architecture in many of Chicago's neighborhoods, apartment buildings and single-family houses alike, is how you'll find wonderful brick or stone fronts, really full of character and detail and color, but then the sides and back of the structures are all that same old ugly brown "tenement" brick (for want of a better term). It's like everything is designed to be a facade, and I for one find that visually unappealing. And I don't find the old "Chicago cottages" to be all that inspiring architecturally, at least not the wood-framed ones... they just appear flimsy and cheaply built compared to their Detroit and Cleveland counterparts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attrill
The fact that you're writing about driving and traffic shows you're missing one of the main differences - solid public transit and density. You don't have to drive in Chicago, you do in Cleveland. That is a HUGE difference in day to day living and quality of life. If that doesn't matter to you, great - but for many people who choose to live in Chicago it does matter.
If you want/need to go carless and rely on public transit and walkable areas, Chicago is the clear winner, definitely. But of course, not everyone cares about that. If you prefer to drive, Cleveland is by far the easier city to get around in... very little traffic most of the time, and you can get from most any part of the metro area to most any other part in 45 minutes or less. (You can live in an inner-ring suburb similar to Evanston or Oak Park and be only five to ten minutes' driving distance to downtown!) And drivers on Cleveland expressways are actually sane and courteous compared to their Chicago counterparts. I always enjoyed driving in Cleveland, whereas in Chicago I found it irritating and stressful and a chore. I got rid of my car here once I no longer had to commute to the suburbs for work.
P.S. Attrill, have you ever checked out Cleveland's West Side Market? Chicago has absolutely nothing I can see that compares... and no other American city I've visited seems to, either.
Of course the two cities are comparable
Both Major Centers in the Midwest , both have large centers of immigrants
Both sit on a great lake, Both cities have a history of Industry
Both sit in the Midwest Mega region/great lakes Great Lakes Megalopolis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you want/need to go carless and rely on public transit and walkable areas, Chicago is the clear winner, definitely. ...
I live in an inner suburb southwest of Chicago. It takes me at least an hour and a half to get to Lakeview on the CTA, and the last bus is around 9:00. This doesn't exactly seem like world class transit to me.
Not only does Cleveland have a Little Italy, Cleveland's Little Italy is probably one of the top five in the country. I don't find Chicago's version to be anywhere near as good.
Cleveland's Slavic Village was a great area not that long ago, but it has gone woefully downhill over the past ten years or so. The foreclosure crisis really hit that neighborhood hard, and now it's blighted in a way I never imagined it would be.
Cleveland's Asia Town shows some promise and has a lot of potential... Personally, I prefer Chicago's Asian areas (Chinatown, Argyle Street, the Koreatown on Lawrence Avenue, etc.). And Chicago does have that wonderful mile-long "Little India" strip along Devon Avenue, of which Cleveland has no counterpart.
And whereas Cleveland has a substantial Puerto Rican presence (the neighborhood I grew up in had many Puerto Ricans moving in at the time), it doesn't have a huge Mexican presence the way Chicago has.
Both Cleveland and Chicago boast orchestras that are among the best in the world (a ranking I saw put Chicago's in 5th place worldwide, and Cleveland's in 7th). And Cleveland's art museum is likely among the top ten nationwide, although Chicago has the bigger collection by far, and really shines with its collection of Impressionist paintings.
Etc., etc., etc. I'd say Chicago outranks Cleveland overall in terms of culture, recreation, entertainment, etc., but Cleveland still has those things in abundance, which is particularly impressive given the city's much smaller size... it probably ranks in the top ten nationwide for those things, even though it's only the 45th-largest city population-wise.
Cleveland does have lower density -- which means much more breathing room, and psychological space to engage in contemplation -- and a slower pace and lower cost of living... and IMHO those qualities can greatly appeal to the person who wants all the urban amenities without all the hassles of living in a big city, so they shouldn't be underrated.And, although it's possible to get by without a car in Cleveland, and rely on public transit exclusively, IMHO it's a lot more difficult than it is in Chicago. But again, it's a matter of one's individual priorities and preference.
I'd rep you, but I already did, and it won't let me.
Great post though!
This is what I was trying to say earlier. Especially the bolded.
I'm absolutely positive that Cleveland does have Moroccan cuisine, and I'm fairly certain that it also has Russian and Persian, at least to some extent. I'm not sure about the others you listed, however.
(I didn't even know there was such a thing as Belgian cuisine... and I wonder how many Chicagoans ever bother with it, anyway?)
Ehh... I'm not so sure having more necessarily translates into greater quality. For example, Chicago probably has 200 Thai restaurants, but most of them seem pretty much the same to me, not bad but not spectacular either, except for the three or four that I already discovered a long time ago that have become my favorites. Sometimes greater quantity simply translates into greater quantity.
Well, Cleveland doesn't have any Mies, and it has just a small smattering of Frank Lloyd Wright and stuff like that, if you're into famous world-class architects, and the modern architecture is mostly "meh", but there's quite a bit of good Victorian and Edwardian and Art Deco around town. True, you don't find many architectural styles that are really unique to the city, unlike Chicago with its greystones and brick bungalows and "prairie school", etc., but even so, I find much of Cleveland's architecture aesthetically pleasing in its own right, especially in the residential areas. Check out the Ohio City area for great old restored Victorian houses, for example, or Shaker Square with its Tudor and Georgian-inspired apartment buildings built in the early 20th century... and those are but two examples.
BTW, one thing I absolutely hate about the vintage residential architecture in many of Chicago's neighborhoods, apartment buildings and single-family houses alike, is how you'll find wonderful brick or stone fronts, really full of character and detail and color, but then the sides and back of the structures are all that same old ugly brown "tenement" brick (for want of a better term). It's like everything is designed to be a facade, and I for one find that visually unappealing. And I don't find the old "Chicago cottages" to be all that inspiring architecturally, at least not the wood-framed ones... they just appear flimsy and cheaply built compared to their Detroit and Cleveland counterparts.
If you want/need to go carless and rely on public transit and walkable areas, Chicago is the clear winner, definitely. But of course, not everyone cares about that. If you prefer to drive, Cleveland is by far the easier city to get around in... very little traffic most of the time, and you can get from most any part of the metro area to most any other part in 45 minutes or less. (You can live in an inner-ring suburb similar to Evanston or Oak Park and be only five to ten minutes' driving distance to downtown!) And drivers on Cleveland expressways are actually sane and courteous compared to their Chicago counterparts. I always enjoyed driving in Cleveland, whereas in Chicago I found it irritating and stressful and a chore. I got rid of my car here once I no longer had to commute to the suburbs for work.
P.S. Attrill, have you ever checked out Cleveland's West Side Market? Chicago has absolutely nothing I can see that compares... and no other American city I've visited seems to, either.
This is exactly what I mean by "Chicago gritty!!" Exactly.
In fact its probably why I am no so keen on Chicagos El. You have to look at the back sides of those tenement style residential units when you are riding on it. To remind my of how beautiful Chicago is, I shoot straight for LSD and try to use it get around as much as possible. When I take the El, I think my gosh Chicago looks hideous.
I agree, I mean as run down as Detroit and parts of Cleveland are, the actual quality of working class house construction was inarguably better back in the day. The sides and back of houses there, basically more or less look like the front.
I agree about archictecture. If you are into older architecture, and indifferent about modern post war architecture, then other midwestern cities can compete with Chicago. Which isn't suprising because they were all booming and becoming wealthy cities at the time. I love Tudors, Victorians, Colonials more so than greystone two-flats and Chicago bungalows. The Craftsman style bungalows and four-squares look roomier from the outside.
Good comment about the restaurants too. Seriously, how many Moroccan restaurants are there in Chicago anyway?? There are LOTS of "core" Arab restaurants with an emphasis on Lebanese/Palestinian/Syrain, etc. And there really aren't that many Persian restaurants anyway.
The point I was making about Polish restaurants, is because Chicago is the capital of Polish in America. Once you talk about middle eastern, Chicago despite having a large population of middle easterners, it is definitely not the largest. Dearborn-Detroit has the biggest Arab population by far, and LA has the biggest Persian population by far. And restaurant offerings usually reflect the demographic mix often times.
Location: Cleveland, OH USA / formerly Chicago for 20 years
4,069 posts, read 7,312,310 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
This is exactly what I mean by "Chicago gritty!!" Exactly.
In fact its probably why I am no so keen on Chicagos El. You have to look at the back sides of those tenement style residential units when you are riding on it. To remind my of how beautiful Chicago is, I shoot straight for LSD and try to use it get around as much as possible. When I take the El, I think my gosh Chicago looks hideous.
OMG... You can't believe how many times I've thought the same thing while riding the Red or Brown Line trains, even through nice areas like Lincoln Park or Lakeview.
Take a walk down Bissell Street, for example, from Armitage north to where the street ends. You'll ooh and aah at the gorgeous vintage architecture. Then look at those same buildings from the train, and if you didn't already know better, you'd swear you were in a really scary neighborhood.
After living here for a decade and a half, I've gotten used to that, of course, but in the beginning, it psychologically threw me for a loop, and I much preferred to take the bus over the el due to the scenery.
You are talking the immediate downtown areas of the two cities.
No, I'm not. I'm talking about the city limits of each place.
Quote:
But what I am referring to is the entire city limits.
Then I am completely at a loss as to how you've come to the conclusions you have. You seriously sound like someone who's spend almost time time within either city.
Quote:
In LA it is the opposite, the most dense areas are generally heavy immigrant neighborhoods in the flatlands. The more desirable areas but up against the foothills of the Santa Monica mountains.
This is just factually untrue. The south and east sides have the heaviest concentration of immigrants, and are not at all the most densely populated areas of the city by a long shot. I'm not even sure where that idea came from. The denser areas, and this should come as a surprise to no one, are the places people want to live most, like the West Side, Mid-Wilshire, Silverlake, and to an increasing extend, downtown (which has changed greatly and for the better over the last 5-10 years). Again, feel free to (dis)like whatever place you choose, but from what I've seen, your ideas are based almost entirely in fiction.
Quote:
I think stucco and tile is more beautiful than brick. There are hip and happenin neighborhoods such as the west loop/near west side where a lot of the housing stock are renovated warehouses. And its great that they make use of otherwise obsolete buildings, but I still think its like putting "lipstick on a pig."
This is the only thing that makes any sense. Yes there's a lot more stucco in LA than Chi, so if you find that prettier to look at then I can't argue with subjective opinion. I actually prefer brick buildings. I live in one now and lived in one in LA.
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.
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.
