Chicago vs. New York (Washington, Paris: sales, 2014, condo)

[TheSunshineKid]

As for "Chicago vs. NYC"? I'd pick Chicago, simply because I don't see Manhattan as a desirable place to actually live in. I did think about Queens and Brooklyn, but I'd still pick Chicago. Even if I had an income that would afford me a luxurious lifestyle in the most desirable neighborhoods in the three boroughs mentioned, I'd still pick Chicago.

I'm fully aware of what Manhattan offers over Chicago, but that gives me little persuasion to move there. Though I consider myself fashionable, I don't really care much for high couture. Street fashion is getting better here in Chicago, year by year. Even then I'm not compelled to pick up my stuff for NYC. I do envy the different museums that is found in Manhattan, though. Food? Sure, I consider myself a "foodie" but if you can't find good food in Chicago then you aren't trying. I tend to make my own meals -- only eating out once a week. Movies? Depending on what movie it is, Chicago may get put on "2nd shift" for limited releases but eventually they find their way towards the city. Not really a big deal for me. Education? This is irrelevant since I already graduated. None of the universities I'm looking at for my doctorate are in NYC. Transportation? If you have a car then Chicago is better. Public transportation is better in NYC since it's faster and more comprehensive; Chicago does fine but it's much slower. What may take 15 minutes for NYC Metra takes twice the amount of time for the CTA.

Also, part of me, naturally, is really turned off by "Living/attending [insert city/university] because it's #1" mentality. In terms of undergrad, though Harvard is ranked as the top university in the US and top five in the world, it means little down the road unless you want to become the next POTUS. You can get a much better if not equal undergrad education at other universities that aren't Harvard and that aren't even an Ivy, believe it or not.

As with numerous options of higher education in the US, the US is a wide country, filled with many cities. It's much more than NYC, BosWash corridor, LA, SF Bay Area and Chicago. In other words, life can thrive in other places than the coasts. It's still America.

Anyways, if this was "Chicago vs NOLA" I'd be more interested since NOLA is a city I'm wiling to move to if I had the disposable income. In fact, my dream to own a shotgun house iin NOLA and split my time between Chicago. Some people have other cities that they admire and wish to invest in that aren't named LA or NYC when it comes to American cities.

[richrf]

Chicago is cheaper especially in housing and is cleaner. New York is more alive and you can trust what people say to you. None of that Midwest, fake saccharin politeness. New York is corrupt but the residents think it's wrong. Chicago is corrupt to the core and the residents embrace it as part of life. If you are considering Chicago, the only place to live is Lakeview where you can meet a diverse population, some of whom actually believe that there is something wrong with corruption. New Yorkers actually watch the ballgame while Chicagoans use the game as background noise for drinking.

I think this basically sums it up.

[Atlwarrior]

Originally Posted by Avondalist

There is an old question, "Would you rather be a big fish in a small pond or a small fish in the ocean?" I think this is an aspect of the NYC-Chicago debate.

NYC is a true alpha world city in that it dominates at least one industry, namely publishing, media, and fashion, and shares dominance in finance with London. This has an effect on competition and status in these industries, with compensation and status following a Poisson distribution and stars receiving many multiples in pay and notoriety what the rank-and-file receive. This is great if you are a star (no matter how accidental your stardom may be), but it stinks if you are a great performer who nevertheless never cracked the big leagues. Such as your typical upper-middle-class 95%er, or even 98%er. These otherwise talented and hardworking people can become demoralized living in NYC because they see they will never "make it", or even attain a comfortable existence, when in fact they are perfectly deserving of such.

Chicago is, I believe, not a true alpha world city because it does not dominate any industry. This has a plus side because it means compensation and status are normally distributed. Chicago is a better city for normal people. In this way, the 95%er is a big fish in a smaller body of water. What I think separates Chicago from, say, Houston, is that these big fish are well aware of the big, bad ocean out there, but have instead chosen to settle in Chicago for peace of mind and comfort. So there is awareness and urbanity (and necessary humility) along with comfort and attainability. Chicago can be insular in places, but you can easily find perfectly up-to-date, aware people who simply don't want to run the rat race to the nth degree.

Anyone else confused?

[makes no sense at all]

I think what he was trying to say was: new yorkers know how bad their lives are and are depressed about it, chicagoans know how bad their lives are but aren't depressed about it because at least they don't live in new york, but everyone in houston is so stupid they don't even realize how bad their lives are.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

Of course NY still has finance, and the finance money will ensure it remains a player in everything else. But in everything else it is pretty much second fiddle.

In almost every industry NYC is #1 nationally, and in many industries #1 globally. Finance is just one of many industries. It's (by far) the biggest corporate center, biggest cultural center, biggest media center, biggest fashion center, biggest real estate center, etc.

NYC has the largest or second largest economy on earth. Obviously you can't have such a large economy without large local industries.

Granted, there are some industries where NYC isn't #1. Detroit is #1 in autos, Houston #1 in energy, Bay Area #1 in tech. But even in the industries whre NYC isn't #1, it's usually ranked pretty highly. All the Detroit auto firms have sizable presence in the NYC area (and some divisions, like Cadillac and the marketing divisions are based in NYC), the Houston energy firms often have their traders in NYC, the Bay Area tech firms almost all have their second largest office in NYC.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by TheSunshineKid

As for "Chicago vs. NYC"? I'd pick Chicago, simply because I don't see Manhattan as a desirable place to actually live in. I did think about Queens and Brooklyn, but I'd still pick Chicago. Even if I had an income that would afford me a luxurious lifestyle in the most desirable neighborhoods in the three boroughs mentioned, I'd still pick Chicago.

It depends on where in Manhattan. I personally don't find much of Midtown Manhattan a place I'd live, but parts of Lower Manhattan, Upper East Side, Upper West Side, etc are a lot better for that IMO. I think the problem is that many tourists stay in Midtown, which in places is a lot dirtier than other parts of Manhattan. There are definitely clean, nice, and more breathable parts of the borough. I do personally think that Brooklyn and Queens on average are nicer if you are looking for more balance.

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

In almost every industry NYC is #1 nationally, and in many industries #1 globally. Finance is just one of many industries. It's (by far) the biggest corporate center, biggest cultural center, biggest media center, biggest fashion center, biggest real estate center, etc.

NYC has the largest or second largest economy on earth. Obviously you can't have such a large economy without large local industries.

Granted, there are some industries where NYC isn't #1. Detroit is #1 in autos, Houston #1 in energy, Bay Area #1 in tech. But even in the industries whre NYC isn't #1, it's usually ranked pretty highly. All the Detroit auto firms have sizable presence in the NYC area (and some divisions, like Cadillac and the marketing divisions are based in NYC), the Houston energy firms often have their traders in NYC, the Bay Area tech firms almost all have their second largest office in NYC.

It does not exert the largest cultural influence or anything close to it. Traditional media exerts about 5% of the influence it did even 20 years ago.

Yes of course it is a financial and business hub and always will be. But it's status is hugely diminished overall.

20 years ago it had an absolute lock on virtually everything except TV/film. Those days are over.

Tech has decimated traditional media and Hollywoods cultural influence has become the hamburger that ate the world.

I would bet even the lowliest social media apps have far greater valuations than, for example, GQ magazine these days.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

It does not exert the largest cultural influence or anything close to it. Traditional media exerts about 5% of the influence it did even 20 years ago.

That makes no sense. What city has a greater overall cultural influence?

The only city on earth that I can think of would be LA, and LA only tops NYC in terms of Hollywood. And even with Hollywood, the studios are mostly NY owned, and the small screen has more of a presence in NYC than LA. LA doesn't have tremendous cultural capital outside the entertainment industry.

In global terms LA isn't a particularly huge foodie town or classical music center or dance hub or literary nexus or expat base.

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

Yes of course it is a financial and business hub and always will be. But it's status is hugely diminished overall.

This also makes no sense. NYC's economic growth has generally outpaced the nation over the last 20 years. If anything, NYC has widened its economic lead.

[CitizenJoe]

A lot of you have some misconceptions about NY's economy. While it does have more Fortune 500 HQs than Chicago (many more, actually), that number is greatly reduced from what it was thirty years ago. Also, aside from the sort of jobs immigrants typically land, the jobs you may be thinking of when you think of NY are jobs with banks and law firms that are in the main available only to a relative handful of recent grads from top schools with good grades. It is very difficult to find employment here of the sort that pays a living wage and offers regular benefits. Instead, people get hired on as temps or as contractors, positions that offer no security and no benefits. Not true of all of course, but of many. Making it in NY is very difficult. There is little to no industry left in the city, and the glamor "industries" really don't employ that many people. But there are some bright spots, like tech (chiefly software development, not hardware). Also, you are in competition with the children of the wealthy for many jobs, and they are often willing to work for free as interns, at least to start out.

To me, the two big differences remain quality of governance (at least before de Blasio), and safety. New York City as a whole is much safer than Chicago as a whole. (I refer to the legal definition of each city, i.e., the area so incorporated, and not the suburbs, and not cherry picking neighborhoods for inclusion or exclusion.) You can walk just about anywhere day or night in New York and not feel menaced (with a handful of exceptions). Not so Chicago! Huge swaths of Chicago are dangerous both day and night, as evidenced by its much higher crime rate. Chicago is no Detroit in that respect, but it simply cannot match New York for public safety. Were it otherwise, billionaires would not be clamoring to spend tens of millions of dollars on apartments here.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by CitizenJoe

Huge swaths of Chicago are dangerous both day and night, as evidenced by its much higher crime rate. Chicago is no Detroit in that respect, but it simply cannot match New York for public safety. Were it otherwise, billionaires would not be clamoring to spend tens of millions of dollars on apartments here.

Billionaires buying condos in NYC has nothing to do with the relative differences in crime rate between cities or across time.

Back in the 70's and 80's, when crime in NYC was at its peak, NYC still had more millionaires and billionaires than anywhere on earth.