Chicago vs. Las Vegas (the attractive city crusher) (beautiful, state, better)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Las Vegas is really artificial and tacky . It's built in the middle of a dry hot desert where nothing can survive without massive human intervention . Most of their water is bused in from the hoover dam and other sources. In comparison to Chicago which is built on the shores of Lake Michigan and is the third largest metro in the US. One is world class city the other is more of touristy place for people let loose and to gamble and to party..
Las Vegas is beyond tacky. It's the definitive root word. It's 'tack.'
Which city is better for a minimum wage worker? I'm shocked that Las Vegas has such a low minimum wage, $8 in Vegas vs $15 in Chicago
Chicago and its not close. High minimum wage, good public transit and walkability so you don't need a car, higher pay in general, and similar rent prices, although chicago taxes are a killer, but if you're a minimum wage worker you're renting and dont have to worry about that.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,553,115 times
Reputation: 6685
Chicago.
I would likely to get away from both for a few months (Chicago, winter; Vegas, summer) but Chicago is a great city with excellent urban amenities (walkability, restaurants, nightlife, arts, cool neighborhoods, etc)
Chicago is the obvious choice because it actually is a real city and not a tourist trap surrounded by suburban sprawl like vegas is. Plus Chicago has better weather, a better music scene, better walkability, better transportation, better zoos and museums, better parks, and looks much better too.
Neither city is what I'd call attractive, but I'd pick Las Vegas to live.
I can't deal with Chicago winters. Although Chicago wins on nightlife.
Are you sure about that? Vegas is KNOWN for its nightlife, has more of a 24/7 presence, and has a much more active array of performers that attract a wider variety of talent. Chicago is more of a sports bar-type city with your standard sporting venues and concert halls found in a city its size, as well as Second City and a few nightclubs here and there. It wins on under 21-oriented nightlife (and overall Gen Z culture) and traditional highbrow performances, but it seems like technology has had a much more negative impact on Chicago's than Vegas. I'd wish Chicago had a better skywalk and/or subterranean pedway system though to make those winters a little less intimidating.
Are you sure about that? Vegas is KNOWN for its nightlife, has more of a 24/7 presence, and has a much more active array of performers that attract a wider variety of talent. Chicago is more of a sports bar-type city with your standard sporting venues and concert halls found in a city its size, as well as Second City and a few nightclubs here and there. It wins on under 21-oriented nightlife (and overall Gen Z culture) and traditional highbrow performances, but it seems like technology has had a much more negative impact on Chicago's than Vegas. I'd wish Chicago had a better skywalk and/or subterranean pedway system though to make those winters a little less intimidating.
I mean neither city is a slouch on nightlife. But Chicago has SO much more culture to work with. The only culture in Vegas is the drinking and gambling.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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.