Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-20-2007, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,004 posts, read 77,392,370 times
Reputation: 10371

Advertisements

Thanks Gallo! My suspicions were confirmed. haha I know Seattle's area is far superior to Chicago's, but if you have to drive to get access to the good stuff, we have to drive to WI, MI or MN for ours, so I guess it evens out. There is whitewater rafting, spelunking, rock climbing, skiing, etc in WI, MI, and NW and southern IL too. But its a bit of a haul to get to some (expect 3-4 hour drives though). Thanks for replying!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-20-2007, 01:59 PM
 
148 posts, read 765,834 times
Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattlitefromNC View Post
I work in the outdoor industry; I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that business is much more profitable in Seattle than in Chicago. This is largely because the culture in Seattle is not one that sees rain or clouds as detrimental to the overall outdoor experience. Generally speaking, the average outdoor person in Seattle is looking for opportunities to use their gear year-round, rain be darned! There's a reason why backpacks are more popular here than briefcases.

You look at the weather and see a deterrent to being outdoors. People here do not see that. When it rains in the winter in Seattle, it means that snow is coming down in the mountains (especially by the Pass), so people go to Snoqualmie and points similar in droves to take advantage.

As to who feels the desire to hike/swim/boat in the drizzle, honey, that stops no one here! There is a sizable subculture of people who jog/run/walk in the rain (myself included); all you need is a poncho or some other nylon-based shell and you just keep moving!
There is some truth to this SeattleitefromNC, but it is exaggerated a lot.

Only the most hardcore individuals are out in the cold, rainy months in the Pacific Northwest, which happens to be from about November to May/June.

Still, even these hardcore people are often shunned away by the conditions. Snowfall levels and temperatures in the mountains are life threatening. Forests and wilderness areas are soaked and are pure mud. National Parks and forests are empty. Many, if not most, of the roads that lead to nature areas are closed for the winter months. Heck, the paradise visitors’ center at Mt. Rainier National Park doesn’t even open until early-June. Most roads to and from national parks and wilderness are closed from about November-May/June. I am not saying the only wilderness to enjoy are National Parks, but a lot of the time, a lot of wilderness here during this time are inaccessible, it is treacherous to do so, or the weather is just not plausible to do so.

Rivers become dangerously fast and powerful form November-May/June. They often overflow taking out anything in their path, including people houses. Not to mention it is 40 degrees outside and there is a constant drizzle/rain, one that has been going on for weeks. As such, you can be drenched in just minutes of arriving in the wilderness. I’m sorry, reality out here is that there are not that many people out in nature during the rainy season when it is 40 degrees, drizzling, and has been for days with no end in sight.

The vast, vast majority of people here just stays inside, or goes out to the movies, restaurants, etc. during this time.

Sure, some people will head out to a ski resort for the day if the weather is nice, but again, that would be a very small percentage of people. Also, yes, some experienced mountain climbers or die hard fisherman may be out, but everyone else is tucked away inside and is going no where near the outdoors for outdoor activates.

Sure, there might be some people covered in Gortex jogging or biking outside in the 40-50 degree rain, but they are in the minority. In fact, these are the same people who would be bundled up jogging during the cold winter months in Chicago. But again, this is definitely not the norm – for both areas.

Again, the reality is that you will hardly see the typical person, or even a lot of hardcore people, especially form Seattle, out in the wilderness, or just outside doing activities because they want to (jogging, biking, etc.) from about November/December to May/June. The vast majority of Seattle hibernates during this time. You will see people outside, but for the most part they are only doing what they have to do or going where they need to go, and heading home to get warm and out of the rain.

Last edited by gallo; 07-20-2007 at 02:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2007, 02:05 PM
 
148 posts, read 765,834 times
Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-o View Post
Thanks Gallo! My suspicions were confirmed. haha I know Seattle's area is far superior to Chicago's, but if you have to drive to get access to the good stuff, we have to drive to WI, MI or MN for ours, so I guess it evens out. There is whitewater rafting, spelunking, rock climbing, skiing, etc in WI, MI, and NW and southern IL too. But its a bit of a haul to get to some (expect 3-4 hour drives though). Thanks for replying!
No problem, Steve.

But yes, our outdoor activities are usually only a 45 mins to 2 hours drive. So yes, quite a bit of difference in drive times.

Take care,

gallo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2007, 01:57 PM
 
1,008 posts, read 4,026,605 times
Reputation: 258
Wow...lot's of good posts so far. The reason I started this thread is because I see these two cities as being very similar to each other. The cost of living has skyrocketed in Seattle but still it's a nice little dense city with a variety of resources. Though Chicago's population by far exceeds Seattle's I think the vibe/feel of both cities just swoops you in. I can't say that I have ever felt anything like that in other cities. Maybe I just love cities with a "real city" feel and can live without seeing rainbows, mountains and prairies. Not that those things aren't nice to look at but I just don't need them.

How's the public transportation in Seattle now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2007, 01:58 PM
 
607 posts, read 2,981,410 times
Reputation: 139
seattle. it has alot more attractions, things to do, skyline ...etc. chicago just has boring boxes for skyscrapers on the lake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2007, 02:09 PM
 
1,008 posts, read 4,026,605 times
Reputation: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by j33 View Post
I don't doubt you've been to Chicago hon, but next time perhaps you should leave the LOOP, unlike Manhattan, it is not where people live, eat-out, or play, they do that in the neighborhoods. I've lived in Chicago for 11 years, and the wicker-park area for 4 of those years, and let me tell you, 'dead', is the last place I'd call it at midnight on a Friday night (and there are more restaurants, clubs, stores, bars, etc than you can shake a stick at). I have friends who live in NYC (born and raised) who have visited me and love my neighborhood and call it a 'laid-back williamsburg, brooklyn with a bit of a midwestern feel', and having spent a bit of time in Williamsburg, I'd have to agree. Next time you come to town you should check it out, it is only 4 stops on the 'el' away from downtown.

If you were downtown on Superbowl Sunday, I'm not surprised at all that it was dead as a doornail, as it was about 5F outside (and who the hell hangs out in the LOOP on Sunday, I know I never do), and everyone was in their neighborhood pub watching the Bears lose the game
Oh yeah, most certainly leave downtown if you want to "really explore" Chi-Town. Downtown is good for architectural observations, pictures and a stroll through Grant Park. Maybe hit the Shed-Aquarium etc... To get a "real feel" check out Wicker Park, Rogers Park, Lincoln Square, Logan Square, Wringleyville etc... I believe it's impossible to be "bored" in Chicago. At least I never was when I lived there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2007, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,004 posts, read 77,392,370 times
Reputation: 10371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova7 View Post
Oh yeah, most certainly leave downtown if you want to "really explore" Chi-Town. Downtown is good for architectural observations, pictures and a stroll through Grant Park. Maybe hit the Shed-Aquarium etc... To get a "real feel" check out Wicker Park, Rogers Park, Lincoln Square, Logan Square, Wringleyville etc... I believe it's impossible to be "bored" in Chicago. At least I never was when I lived there.
True. Real Chicago exists in its neighborhoods, most of which are lovely and extremely lively. Downtown offers TONS to do: ie Art Museum, MIllenium Park, Navy Pier, Shedd Aquarium, Adler Planetarium, Field Museum, Bulls/Bears/Blackhawks games, fine dining, TONS of shopping, Sears Tower and John Hancock observatories, lakefront cruises, Oak Street beach, architectural tours, etc, etc, etc.... Downtown is extremely lively and fun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2007, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,004 posts, read 77,392,370 times
Reputation: 10371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke66 View Post
seattle. it has alot more attractions, things to do, skyline ...etc. chicago just has boring boxes for skyscrapers on the lake.
You must be thinking of some other Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2007, 02:31 PM
 
607 posts, read 2,981,410 times
Reputation: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-o View Post
You must be thinking of some other Chicago.
no I'm thinking of the windy city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2007, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,004 posts, read 77,392,370 times
Reputation: 10371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke66 View Post
no I'm thinking of the windy city.
Just curious why you think Seattle has "more attractions", "things to do" and "skyline"? All 3 of which Seattle has less of....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:32 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top