Chicagoland has nothing regarding outdoor adventure. It's good for art fans and fans of lame music.

[Tex?Il?]

I have hiked, camped, canoed (multiple rivers in Illinois), rock climbed (Devils lake, WI) , explored caves (just over Miss river in Iowa) and skied (Cascade mountain/devils head) across everywhere within a three hour drive (during non-traffic times) of Chicago growing up in the northwest suburbs as a boy scout and later as an adult. There really is plenty of natural beauty and outdoor opportunities if one is willing to look and travel a little.

The issue with Chicago, is that there is a chain reaction and a circular reinforcement that leads to it being not only one of the least outdoorsy cities in the country, but simply one of the most inward looking cities (where the surrounding region doesn't even register on the radar for the majority of its citizens).

Chicago just has too much to do in such a small geographic area, in such an accessible urban core, that is so easy to get around without a car, with so litttle to do and see relative to other parts of the country in the hinterlands.

Those places I went to growing up are just too far, too often the beaten path, underwhelming to some, or simply not worth going to, when there is so much city stuff that is so easy to get to.

Even forest preserves on the edges of the city can be surprisingly vacant, and even though there are canoe and kayak rentals right within the city limits for the north branch, at Montrose point, etc. its kind of left out of the reinforcement that this Chicago is where people who love the city life go.

Bottom line, you can find what you are looking for in Chicagoland and everywhere within a three-four hour drive, just don't expect to really build and social life in anyway around these activities. If you're not into going to those music festivals, going to sporting events, and staying out as late as last call, it can feel like you are missing out socially from other people in Chicago(land).

[coldwine]

I live in a city to not be outdoors.

[Sunbiz1]

Originally Posted by andrew61

^This. One person's trash is another person's treasure and all that. Figure out what different areas have to offer relative to one another and then go where you think you'd be happiest. No one place -- not even a world-class city -- can be all things to all people.

Speaking of trash, they should re-open this place:
Sledding on Mount Trashmore - Chicago Tribune

Back in the 70's they had rope tows and a lodge.

[coldwine]

Originally Posted by eevee

See, I'm not really into music so I've always question why do people spend money to go to any concert or music festival when they could just play that band's album on iTunes/Spotify/etc. The only concert or music festival I've ever paid to go to was Bonnaroo about 5 years ago. It was fun but mostly because of the crowd/atmosphere (and yes, that atmosphere becomes far more enjoyable when under the influence of something stronger than caffeine).

I know plenty of black people spending their rent money to see Beyonce on the Formation tour, so it's not just white people (personally I'd rather buy tickets to a Broadway show than a concert), but hey, different strokes. Other than the traffic clusterfudge some music festivals can cause, I don't begrudge them one bit.

For me, it's honestly about supporting those artists that I love. I wouldn't go to just any festival, but if a band/group/artist I like is playing locally, I'll always buy a ticket.

That being said, there are events I wouldn't attend come hell or high water. Lollapalooza. Burning Man. Etc.

[frostopsy]

Wow... This post is freaking epic. I'll just go to say that most cities would kill to have a music scene like Chicago. Music enriches the culture, and in the case of riot fest, lolla, etc, a tourism boon that attracts people from all over the country and beyond.

My advice is that if you want a man made white water park, start a company or coalition and make it happen!

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by coldwine

I live in a city to not be outdoors.

Well, that's not the case for a lot of people.

A lot of people live in a city because a city provides career opportunities, cultural amenities, and social opportunities that make it easier to make friends and date, all which are much less in small towns and rural areas, but nonetheless a lot of people who still want the advantages, amenities and opportunities of a metropolitan area still desire to maximize their time spent in nature recreating and exploring.

And although for many in Chicago, a lack of interesting outdoor opportunities in the surrounding regions doesn't affect their love of their city, its very common for people to factor in diversity of natural environments and amount of public lands that are found in and around a metro area as high on their preference of a large metro area to move to.

Some people think this is mutually exclusive. In Chicagoland, any expression of a love of outdoor recreation and exploration often triggered inquiry from others about "why not move to Wisconsin, etc." However, out here on the west coast, even LA, you rarely hear that. In western cities even if people are not at all outdoorsy, they probably know people who are, and at least respond to peoples' stories of their weekend adventures hiking, camping, kayaking, surfing, etc. with a "oh that's cool, yeah I never been there, even though I lived in California my entire life" In Chicagoland, if you do the same, people will start suggesting that you move to Wisconsin or whatever, because like I said in my previous post, Chicago is an inward city, where, unlike in other parts of the country, people have little interest of stepping outside city limits.

[coldwine]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Some people think this is mutually exclusive. In Chicagoland, any expression of a love of outdoor recreation and exploration often triggered inquiry from others about "why not move to Wisconsin, etc." However, out here on the west coast, even LA, you rarely hear that.

I just returned to Chicago after living in LA for several years. There are outdoorsy types, but no one wants to sit in traffic for six hours to go skiing.

Furthermore, self-selecting bias. No one moves to Chicago for the gorgeous views afforded by inactive volcanoes. People pretty much know what they're getting.

[frostopsy]

Chicagoans go on vacation in Wisconsin and Michigan mainly because it's the fastest way to get away from people. At least in my opinion.

When I went to school down in Carbondale, there was a ton of things to do. I've Giant City park, Crab tree lake, rivers, national parks, etc. there was a ton of stuff to do.

Illinois is a big state. By focusing on just the Chicagoland area, you are rather limiting yourself.

[reppin_the_847]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Well, that's not the case for a lot of people.

A lot of people live in a city because a city provides career opportunities, cultural amenities, and social opportunities that make it easier to make friends and date, all which are much less in small towns and rural areas, but nonetheless a lot of people who still want the advantages, amenities and opportunities of a metropolitan area still desire to maximize their time spent in nature recreating and exploring.

And although for many in Chicago, a lack of interesting outdoor opportunities in the surrounding regions doesn't affect their love of their city, its very common for people to factor in diversity of natural environments and amount of public lands that are found in and around a metro area as high on their preference of a large metro area to move to.

Some people think this is mutually exclusive. In Chicagoland, any expression of a love of outdoor recreation and exploration often triggered inquiry from others about "why not move to Wisconsin, etc." However, out here on the west coast, even LA, you rarely hear that. In western cities even if people are not at all outdoorsy, they probably know people who are, and at least respond to peoples' stories of their weekend adventures hiking, camping, kayaking, surfing, etc. with a "oh that's cool, yeah I never been there, even though I lived in California my entire life" In Chicagoland, if you do the same, people will start suggesting that you move to Wisconsin or whatever, because like I said in my previous post, Chicago is an inward city, where, unlike in other parts of the country, people have little interest of stepping outside city limits.

This is probably why much of the 20's / 30's population in Chicagoland's north side is quite transient in nature. A lot of these folks probably move to other metro's if and when opportunities arise or lifestyle preferences change. I'm thinking of a couple close buddies from back in the day (we attended university in the city) that left Chicago behind years ago. One guy left for Atlanta, the other left for St. Louis, and I left for the Detroit area (probably odd for that move to occur unless it's a native Michigander returning home which I am not). I have successful acquaintances that also relocated to even pricier cities such as NYC & San Francisco.

[PJSaturn]

This thread has run its course and then some. Numerous inappropriate posts, including personal attacks and trolling, have been deleted and the thread is now closed. Everyone, please re-read the Terms of Service and take special note that personal attacks are never acceptable.

.