Warm city with a similar vibe to Chicago? (Charleston, Forest Park: lofts, lawyers)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Just a tiny bit, nothing appreciable though. It's also a lot snowier, and if you get inland from Boston a bit (i.e. Worcester) it isn't really warmer at all. I grew up in Boston and there's no way you can compare Boston to Chicago, it is MUCH smaller. The only similarities are that you can get by without a car and there is a lot to do there (but not as much as in Chicago).
This fictional city doesn't exist (in the USA anyway). There are some cities, primarily in the northeast / mid-Atlantic that may somewhat compare to Chicago in terms of being large, cosmopolitan cities with a vibrant downtown and cool neighborhoods, but none of those are really warmer than Chicago.
Once you get into year-around warm climate areas, I don't think there's anything that comes close. Cities like Houston, LA, or Atlanta probably have many amenities that you'd find in Chicago (high-end shopping, museums, Chinatowns, good amount of ethnic restaurants, theaters, universities, etc.) but they will feel nothing like Chicago in terms of being urban, walkable, etc. I suppose you could also say that a city like Savannah is kind of like taking a neighborhood like Lincoln Park in isolation. It offers some urban living in its historic core with walkable shopping, restaurants, and nightlife to a degree that may be similar to a northside neighborhood in Chicago, but it lacks all of the other things that a large city like Chicago has so it doesn't really compare either.
This fictional city doesn't exist (in the USA anyway). There are some cities, primarily in the northeast / mid-Atlantic that may somewhat compare to Chicago in terms of being large, cosmopolitan cities with a vibrant downtown and cool neighborhoods, but none of those are really warmer than Chicago.
Once you get into year-around warm climate areas, I don't think there's anything that comes close. Cities like Houston, LA, or Atlanta probably have many amenities that you'd find in Chicago (high-end shopping, museums, Chinatowns, good amount of ethnic restaurants, theaters, universities, etc.) but they will feel nothing like Chicago in terms of being urban, walkable, etc. I suppose you could also say that a city like Savannah is kind of like taking a neighborhood like Lincoln Park in isolation. It offers some urban living in its historic core with walkable shopping, restaurants, and nightlife to a degree that may be similar to a northside neighborhood in Chicago, but it lacks all of the other things that a large city like Chicago has so it doesn't really compare either.
If you look at it like that, in its purest sense, there isn't a city like Chicago in a warm weather climate anywhere in the world. To get the feel of a city like Chicago, a city needs to have industrial roots and be moving toward a post-industrial economy (with skyscrapers, associated density patterns and all that stuff). The industrial revolution on the scale you'd need to create a 5 million + metro is generally a cold weather, northern hemisphere thing throughout history.
The only warm weather city anywhere in the world that might be comparable is Sydney.
If you like HOT summers, you will love St. Louis. That being said, I thought the summers were every bit as miserable as Chicago winters, which I don't really mind. If you like 90 degree plus with 70%+ humidity every day from May to September, you will love it. St. Louis does have some nice architecture, but everyone lives in the suburbs, and the city itself is a ghost town. They are sorely lacking in civic pride for their urban core. You will learn very quickly that during any city event, people will be on their way home (burbs) shortly thereafter.
It's definitely a good place to raise a family though, but if you're looking for a vibrant and dense city, you're not going to find it in St. Louis. As you mentioned though, there are only a couple of other cities that share that with Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76
There is not good answer, but St. Louis is probably the best answer, IMO. Similarities:
Neighborhoods: both have distinct neighborhoods with specific identities. These include more dense areas full of 4-6 flats, 3 story standalone homes, a bungalow belt, etc.
Economy: both have rust belt roots that have delved into diversified branches. These include companies in food processing/beverages (AB in STlL). St. Louis has companies like Monsanto, a Boein presence like Chicago, financial/technical services (AG Edwards), etc.
Suburbs: both have their not so great burbs, highly walkable burbs like Oak Park v. Clayton, middle class bungalow burbs, some burbs with walkable downtowns built around existing or former rail lines (like Kirkwood).
Education: both have prestigious private national univeristies (WashU is probably the next closest thing to Northwestern or U of C in the Midwest), old urban catholic universities (SLU), a satellite campuses of their state systems (UMSL). Both also have a very strong history of catholic education at the high school and primary school level.
Parkland: both have nice urban parks, although Chicago's are more lakefront oriented vs. St. Louis' Forest Park, Tower Grove Park, etc. The Jefferson National Memorial parkland is cut off from downtown, but like Chicago's lakefront, it is the "front door" to the city, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Culture: both have their local food specialities and distinct accent. Both were huge recipients of African Americans from the south during the Great Migration. Both have musical history rooted in Jazz and Blues.
History: the history of both cities intertwine. Both were competing to be the primary financial engine of the MW. St. Louis was the early leader, but fell behind thanks to delays in getting a rail bridge across the Mississippi. Both were initially permanently settled by someone of French origin (du Sable and Chouteau). Both cities hosted World's Fairs and St. Louis even "stole" Chicago's 1904 Olympics as organizers thought it would be more practical to couple it with the Fair in STL the same year.
Differences: Chicago is obviously much more dense and central city-focused, although you could say that about Chicago when comparing it to all but maybe 3-4 cities in the country. Lakefront is a huge difference.
Whether or not you think STL qualifies comes down to how warm someplace needs to be before you consider it significantly "warmer". STL has awesome springs and typically gets 2-3 65-75 degree days in Feb a year, which is plenty "warmer" to me.
When people ask me what STL is like, I usually tell them to imagine if Chicago and New Orleans had a baby. It's obviously more rust belt than south (and more Chicago than NOLA), but it's not really rooted in any region. More massive mansions like NOLA. The inner neighborhoods south of downtown seem more like NOLA than Chicago to me. A bit slower. It feels a little more beat up/lived in than Chicago (more similar to NOLA in that respect), and the segregation feels more stark than Chicago to me.
Disclosure: I'm moving back to STL (where I spent my college years) after 12 years in this wonderful city. It was a job-related move, but I've been doing a lot of soul searching before taking the plunge to head back. STL has some serious flaws, but I think the good outweighs the bad by far. I feel like there is a lot of opportunity and freedom in STL in terms of doing your thing, getting a nice place, doing some rehabbing in a changing area. Kind of like how I felt when I moved to Wicker Park in the late 90s. Outside of winters here, the only thing I don't love about Chicago is that in it's success in terms of neighborhood revitalization, things in many parts of the city have become a little too whitewashed and sterile. Too many rules, and the "law and order" regime seems a little heavy handed at times. Some of the authenticity is gone.
Washington is smaller than Chicago, but no way that city has any less to offer than Chi. Significantly warmer than Chicago as well. You will get some cold weather, but it won't be grey skies for 6 months, nor will it be miserable, sub zero cold. Neighborhoods, walkable, public trans, sports teams, more international feeling.
Has all the drawbacks of Chicago as well. It's expensive, bad public schools, hellified traffic.
Washington is smaller than Chicago, but no way that city has any less to offer than Chi. Significantly warmer than Chicago as well. You will get some cold weather, but it won't be grey skies for 6 months, nor will it be miserable, sub zero cold. Neighborhoods, walkable, public trans, sports teams, more international feeling.
Has all the drawbacks of Chicago as well. It's expensive, bad public schools, hellified traffic.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
I can see it, but to me the lack of skyline for a city of DC's size + its gov't focus (rather than rust belt influences) make it a "no" for me. It has a lot of the big city amenities of Chicago, but it doesn't "feel" like Chicago.
I can see it, but to me the lack of skyline for a city of DC's size + its gov't focus (rather than rust belt influences) make it a "no" for me. It has a lot of the big city amenities of Chicago, but it doesn't "feel" like Chicago.
It certainly doesn't. Having lived in both, it's like night and day. D.C. lives to work, while Chicago works to live (if it even works at all, it's been hell trying to find a job here). That's the biggest difference, though there are many others.
Just a tiny bit, nothing appreciable though. It's also a lot snowier, and if you get inland from Boston a bit (i.e. Worcester) it isn't really warmer at all. I grew up in Boston and there's no way you can compare Boston to Chicago, it is MUCH smaller. The only similarities are that you can get by without a car and there is a lot to do there (but not as much as in Chicago).
But seriously, although Chicago may be larger, and has more things to do, see, and experience there, Boston does have more to do realtive to its population. If you add Cambridge and other areas, I would say Metro Boston is actually very comparable to metro Chicago. And if you are talking about cultural amenities related to university life, then Boston might exceed Chicago on that level. I teach college, so I biased towards college/university amenities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
