Is Chicago a boring city when you stack it up next to New York City and LA?

[Ericthebean]

And LA is the opposite of Chicago. Chicago is more livable, better public transportation, better arts district, more of a community, easier hub for traveling coast to coast...way way way more intellectual

LA? Wins on outdoor weather, daytrips, asian and Mexican cuisines ...that's about it...personally I am not a fan of LA I find it to be very showoffish and people who do the same stuff in LA that everybody else does everywhere else, they seem to think only the LA parties deserve to be videoed for all the world to see.

The LA makes a movie like its a first...about 2 guys going through a taco bell drive thru and chatting about their ex gfs. It becomes a movie like this is some kind of original anecdotal story. The same stuff happens in all 50 states but LA thinks only when they do it...the world cares! As you and I know, most of what hypes LA is stuff that is nothing exclusive to LA, but marketed up by Hollywood. They can make a girl in LA who spits on the floor seem
Like it's never been done anywhere else...a feature film

Chicago in contrast, is unmistakably original

LA makes mountains out of molehills. A guy who refuses to work at McDonald's and instead go on EBT foodstamps is not a loser in LA...it's a guy resorting to "civil disobedience!!! Starting a movement!!!! Re-instigating the labor strike...causing a riot man!"

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

Your impression is wrong. It's called the Second City because it is really the second largest city. Yes LA technically has more people, but it doesn't feel like a big city like Chicago or NY, and most people who live there will tell you that.

LA definitely has more cool/celeb/global cachet, and NYC is, well, NYC. San Francisco is probably more sophisticated, especially with all the tech.

But SF and Boston are relatively puny, not to mention nonstarters like Atlanta and Houston.

I don't really know why some people like to insinuate that Chicago is basically a Cleveland or Indianapolis on steroids, but that opinion is basically moronic.

Hell even Detroit is cool in its own way.

Your post is biased and frankly a little insulting, no offense.

You say Chicago "really is the second largest city", but then you go on to admit "Yes, LA technically has more people, but it doesn't feel like a bit city like Chicago or NY" Well, which one is it?

Sure, from a perspective of a brief visit, yes Chicago will feel bigger than LA, because so much of what Chicago offers is found in the greater downtown/urban core and easy to access, whereas LA can be confusing. But living in LA and getting to experience ALL the different areas of LA, thats when it feels bigger than Chicago.

Yes, DC, SF, and Boston are much smaller than Chicago proper, but the north side and south side function as separate cities in many ways, almost as much as SF and Oakland, or as much as DC and Baltimore. The last one is a stretch obviously. Those three cities may be smaller, but most of the entire city propers of those cities are at least somewhat on the radar screen for "yuppies and hipsters" looking for cool, hip, vibrant, up and coming neighborhoods to move to. Whereas in Chicago, you have much larger areas of the city proper that are either more suburban (far NW and far SW sides), or swaths of depopulated, deindustrialized areas on the south and west sides that don't exist in those three cities. When you just count the urban, hip, vibrant parts of Chicago its population and area are only a little more than that of those three cities. Plus, those three cities have metropolitan populations (especially DC-Baltimore which is neck and neck with Chicagoland).

No one is saying Atlanta and Houston are in the same league as Chicago. They are newer, more suburban cities that have grown mostly in the last 30-40 years, and haven't had the time to develop culture on the same level. Its almost like comparing a European and an Asian city of the same size. But as long as one doesn't mind having to drive everywhere, live in a vanilla suburban style condo/apartment buildings, its possible for someone to move there as a compromise for a major city with a lower cost of living, yet one that is still cosmopolitan, with a strong economy, and stuff do, even if not on the same level as Chicago. People who love Chicago, will always use cost of living as an advantage of Chicago over NYC.

Again, no one is saying that Chicago Is Winnipeg on same level or just as cosmopolitan as Toronto?? Of course not. Do they have certain things in common culturally, accent and demographics, common neighborhood architecture because they are both Canadian cities, of course.

Having a social scene that is very heavy on big ten alumni or having large swaths of depopulated and deindustrialized areas (cities in other regions have similar bad areas, but they are not "depopulated") similar ethnic roots of people, and similar accent might make some people draw comparisons between Cleveland (not so much Indy) and Chicago, even if Chicago is way bigger, more vibrant, etc.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Ericthebean

And LA is the opposite of Chicago. Chicago is more livable, better public transportation, better arts district, more of a community, easier hub for traveling coast to coast... way way way more intellectual

LA? Wins on outdoor weather, daytrips, asian and Mexican cuisines ...that's about it...personally I am not a fan of LA I find it to be very showoffish and people who do the same stuff in LA that everybody else does everywhere else, they seem to think only the LA parties deserve to be videoed for all the world to see.

The LA makes a movie like its a first...about 2 guys going through a taco bell drive thru and chatting about their ex gfs. It becomes a movie like this is some kind of original anecdotal story. The same stuff happens in all 50 states but LA thinks only when they do it...the world cares! As you and I know, most of what hypes LA is stuff that is nothing exclusive to LA, but marketed up by Hollywood. They can make a girl in LA who spits on the floor seem
Like it's never been done anywhere else...a feature film

Chicago in contrast, is unmistakably original

LA makes mountains out of molehills. A guy who refuses to work at McDonald's and instead go on EBT foodstamps is not a loser in LA...it's a guy resorting to "civil disobedience!!! Starting a movement!!!! Re-instigating the labor strike...causing a riot man!"

How much time have you really spent in ALL areas of LA between Santa Monica and Pasadena and everywhere in between??

A lot of what you said about LA can be said about Chicago. (theres great architecture, great food in other cities).

Frankly, although I don't care for the length of winter, I think the change of seasons is where Chicago DOES win. Christmas is way better in Chicago than in LA, as are the other holidays (Halloween with fall colors, Easter with early spring, 4th of July with deep green of summer).

In fact, I'll flip it around. Chicago wins in changes of season, freedom from natural hazards and droughts, and white Catholic ethnic culture and cuisine (Irish/Polish/Italian/German), and Black/AA culture and cuisine (southern).

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Ericthebean

Chicago has good architecture, good scenic features "lake shore, Riverwalk, museums, layout, really good steak and deep dish pizza, theatre

It is not as big as New York but because of this, Chicago is able to offer more concentration in certain key features of a grandiose city at an arguably better quality and more affordably. Also, some may say Chicago is more livable than other large more expensive cities, which translates to more local charm and more of a real vibe from within.

Where as NYC is a magnet for tourism drowning out the local vibe, Chicago may be more authentically a hometown city.

The real hometown cities to me though are Austin, Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Boston. But Chicago is a good hybrid between this and New York City.

For one thing, being a magnet for tourism drowning out the local vibe, is simply a major indicator of what it means to global and cosmopolitan. If you hold that back, then it becomes less of a global city.

Secondly what makes those other cities more of a hometown city than Chicago?? Just because they are smaller, Minneapolis I can maybe understand . . . maybe. But currently, all those places have just about the same percentage of transplants from outside the area that moved there for career opportunities, or because they are seen as cool (or both). That's not "hometown" to me.

And ESPECIALLY Boston. Boston is more expensive, and is THE center for some of the most prestigious universities and medical research facilities in the country. Not exactly a "hometown" at all. I could understand Chicago being a good hybrid between say Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St. Louis or Baltimore and NYC. As those cities have a higher % of locals due to a less sexy image and a less vibrant economy. But those cities you mentioned absolutely have their local flavor watered down by transplants in the last couple decades.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

YSure, from a perspective of a brief visit, yes Chicago will feel bigger than LA, because so much of what Chicago offers is found in the greater downtown/urban core and easy to access, whereas LA can be confusing. But living in LA and getting to experience ALL the different areas of LA, thats when it feels bigger than Chicago.

Obviously, yes, LA feels enormous. The only cities in North America comparable to LA's size and feel are NYC and Mexico City.

No one could even fly into LA without recognizing its vast size. At night your jaw drops looking at the endless city.

[StreetLegal]

Originally Posted by rzzzz

Chicago has the most stuff to do after NYC.

...

No, not the case at all...Los Angeles or even San Francisco>Chicago.

Originally Posted by rzzzz

I'm not sure what you heard was interesting about Atlanta, Houston or Philly...

Yes, Chicago has more to do than these cities..for sure.

[RJ8089]

Chicago is a great city. It's lively and plenty of things to do. Boring is Cleveland, Detroit, Toledo, Buffalo........... the list goes on.

[rzzzz]

SF can feel small. It is kinda small, you can walk across it in 2 hours. However the Bay Area is "hella" big.

That said, SF itself has quite a lot of stuff to do. It has a lot of unique stuff that one simply can't find anywhere else.

[steeps]

Originally Posted by Nafster

Is Chicago boring compared to New York? Not boring, but different enough that its missing the edge that makes NYC so amazingly great. Then again, there are very few cities in the planet (none in the US) that do have the same edge.

Compared to LA? Certainly not! There are as much things to do day and night in both cities (I give my edge to Chicago on this one, living in both cities).

Chicago is still my favorite.... But I think this ⤴ sums up the answer to the Thread topic question best.

[PJSaturn]

Originally Posted by steeps

Chicago is still my favorite.... But I think this ⤴ sums up the answer to the Thread topic question best.

This is a good place to close the thread. Numerous off-topic posts and personal attacks have been deleted. People, if you can't stay on topic and/or can't resist the temptation to personally attack other members, then please move on to another thread.

.