Help me fall in love with Chicago... (Paris, Manhattan: calculation, living in)

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by boulevardofdef

Lots of good advice here already, but I'm going to try and add something.

I grew up in the New York suburbs and went to college in the Chicago suburbs. I was young and fascinated by the concept of living in a place other than New York and really wanted to get to know the city and the entire metro area. And though I immediately liked Chicago, in four years, I never really fell in love with it like I wanted to -- and like I think the OP wants to. Then I graduated, moved back to New York and started visiting Chicago frequently, and strangely enough, I did fall in love with it.

Why has my opinion of Chicago changed over the years? Well, part of it is because Chicago itself has improved. Awesome neighborhoods like Bucktown were pretty much nothing when I lived there, for example. Areas that once seemed very gray have been spruced up with flowers and greenery. The food scene is a lot better. But more than any of that, it's that I wasn't looking at Chicago in the right way. For four years, I was constantly comparing it to New York. But Chicago is never going to be as good a New York as New York is. You have to forget about New York and start appreciating Chicago on its own merits.

Another New Yorker who was disappointed by Chicago mentioned the idea that you hear a lot that Chicago is 90 percent of New York at half the price. That's exactly the wrong way to look at it -- exactly what my mistake was, what your mistake is and what that poster's mistake is. It's an untrue statement. Chicago does not have 90 percent of Central Park, it doesn't have 90 percent of the Village, it doesn't have 90 percent of the arts scene. But those are New York-centric measures. Chicago has 100 percent of Chicago's lakefront; it has 100 percent of Millennium Park; it has 100 percent of Andersonville and Wicker Park and Belmont Avenue. There's no direct New York analogue to any of these places; they all feel purely Chicago. Chicago is smaller and feels smaller. It's a third of the size of New York and, to be perfectly honest, it feels like less than a third of the size. But that's not necessarily so bad (says the guy who recently moved to a city of fewer than 200,000). Once you accept that, you may well find you love Chicago, too.

I am not gay, but I have a gay friend who's lived in both New York and Chicago and very much prefers Chicago. I met him in college. He stayed in Chicago after graduation, then lived in New York for a while, then moved back to Chicago, where he still lives and will almost certainly live forever. He loves New York, don't get me wrong. But he thinks Chicago's gay scene is much more accessible, with less pressure, better bars, more laid-back people. Again, don't compare Boystown to Chelsea or Hell's Kitchen! The New York gayborhoods have more foot traffic, more of a fun streetscape, more tourist appeal. But just know there are those who prefer the feel of Chicago.

Oh, and finally, about liberalism: I don't know a single person in Chicago who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool, Obama-sold-us-out-with-all-the-drones, income-equality-will-end-America liberal -- if not explicitly a smash-the-state radical. That's just me, I guess -- maybe these people aren't hanging out in Streeterville! But they're definitely there, and they're there in large numbers.

I've stated this before, how can anyone compare Chicago to New York; it really is apples and oranges. NYC is 8.5 million people; Chicago is 2.7 million people (population comparable to Queens of Brooklyn separately).

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Kamms

I've stated this before, how can anyone compare Chicago to New York; it really is apples and oranges. NYC is 8.5 million people; Chicago is 2.7 million people (population comparable to Queens of Brooklyn separately).

I agree that you can't compare NYC to Chicago on the whole, but I think that defaulting to population is a really basic way of doing things. There are many ways which you can compare two cities and population/density is just one of the ways, but there are many more. On the flip side, do you think that all cities that are closer to NYC's size are automatically similar just because they're more equal in population? Probably not - there's a lot more to consider than just size.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Kamms

I've stated this before, how can anyone compare Chicago to New York; it really is apples and oranges. NYC is 8.5 million people; Chicago is 2.7 million people (population comparable to Queens of Brooklyn separately).

People compare Tokyo to New York even though their populations are quite different - metro area population for Tokyo has a similar multipier compared to New York's metro as New York's metro has to Chicago's metro. Populations don't have to be identical to be comparable.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Kamms

I've stated this before, how can anyone compare Chicago to New York; it really is apples and oranges. NYC is 8.5 million people; Chicago is 2.7 million people (population comparable to Queens of Brooklyn separately).

People compare (often favorably even) SF to NYC all the time, that's something like a 1:10 ratio in terms of population.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

People compare (often favorably even) SF to NYC all the time, that's something like a 1:10 ratio in terms of population.

Another incorrect comparison: SF and NYC

[Standard111]

Originally Posted by emathias

People compare Tokyo to New York even though their populations are quite different - metro area population for Tokyo has a similar multipier compared to New York's metro as New York's metro has to Chicago's metro. Populations don't have to be identical to be comparable.

Not true. In relative size, the NYC and Tokyo Metros are somewhat close, while the NYC and Chicago Metros are nowhere close.

The Tokyo Metro has an official population of 35 million, the NYC Metro Area has an official population of 23 million, and the Chicago Metro has an official population of 9.5 million. So the Tokyo Metro is about 50% bigger than the NYC Metro, while the NYC Metro is about 250% bigger than the Chicago Metro.

Also, the NYC and Tokyo Metros have almost the exact same size economy, while the NYC Metro has nearly three times the economy of Chicago Metro. And, for the city propers, Tokyo and NYC have a difference of only a few hundred thousand, while NYC has nearly three times the population of Chicago.

[marothisu]

The point is that comparing two cities just by their populations is an extremely naive way of doing it. Just because two cities are similar in population doesn't mean they are alike - that's an extremely superficial way to compare two cities.

[Nafster]

Originally Posted by Standard111

Not true. In relative size, the NYC and Tokyo Metros are somewhat close, while the NYC and Chicago Metros are nowhere close.

The Tokyo Metro has an official population of 35 million, the NYC Metro Area has an official population of 23 million, and the Chicago Metro has an official population of 9.5 million. So the Tokyo Metro is about 50% bigger than the NYC Metro, while the NYC Metro is about 250% bigger than the Chicago Metro.

Also, the NYC and Tokyo Metros have almost the exact same size economy, while the NYC Metro has nearly three times the economy of Chicago Metro. And, for the city propers, Tokyo and NYC have a difference of only a few hundred thousand, while NYC has nearly three times the population of Chicago.

The population of Tokyo and New York is not somewhat close at all.

Tokyo is much larger. Don't get carried away here. There's a HUGE difference between 23 and 36 (that's more than another New York added in).

Now, the populations of the Los Angeles metro and New York (18 to 23).... that's somewhat close.

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

People compare (often favorably even) SF to NYC all the time, that's something like a 1:10 ratio in terms of population.

It might be more of a cost-of-living comparison--both are hideous.

[Standard111]

Originally Posted by Nafster

The population of Tokyo and New York is not somewhat close at all.

Well relatively close compared to Chicago and NYC. My point is that 50% bigger is nowhere near 300% bigger.

And you are comparing the largest first-world city to the second largest first-world city, both with about the same economy. That seems to be a more valid comparison than one between cities that have multiples of difference in relative size and economy.