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.
As of 2008:
Cook County, IL: 5,294,664 People (1,635 Square Miles)
Washington DC Metropolitan Area (MSA): 5,358,130 People (5,564 Square Miles) Difference: 63,466 People (3,929 Square Miles)
Chicago is more densely built than Washington DC. Cook County alone is just 64,000 short of having the same population as the Washington DC Metropolitan Area.
They are probably comparable sized when we look at the CSA level which is Washington DC-Baltimore. But Chicago by far and away has a much stronger core than Washington DC.
On amenities they truly are comparable in a draw. Throw in Los Angeles and its still a three way draw. Each of these cities offer something the other may have but to a smaller scale or something the other just doesn't have.
For example Los Angeles has a far better outdoor opportunity, Washington DC would be the next up follow, and Chicago last with little to no outdoor scenery besides Lake Michigan and some wooded areas.
But most people go after city life, which is where Chicago comes out on top in urban lifestyle and the style of life derived from that, Washington DC next, and Los Angeles last with much work needed for it.
The history sense goes to Washington DC, as well as monumental landmarks goes to Washington DC, then Chicago, and lastly Los Angeles. The food scene goes to Chicago first, then Los Angeles, and finally Washington DC. The sports scene goes to Chicago, then Washington DC, and finally Los Angeles which still doesn't have a NFL team. Weather goes to Los Angeles, then Washington DC & Chicago are tied with Chicago having a bit worse winter but much better summer.
These things here tend to alternate between our large cities. I find most comparisons on this site pointless. Lets get real we are comparing places with thousands and thousands of square mileage to each other and only taking such little criteria to compare them.
For anyone that has been to Chicago & Washington DC, (I am very familiar with both) they will know this is a draw, you can go back and forth all day about which one has more but truth is they are dynamically different and in a good way.
Chicago has better art galleries, Washington DC has better museums, Chicago has better theater scene, Washington DC has better monuments, Chicago has a better symphony & opera, Washington DC has better historic sites, Chicago has better urban parks, Washington DC has better natural parks.
You can honestly keep going at it all day long. Its a matter of preference and what combination of things you will end up liking the best to make one of the cities come out on top of the other.
Great summary. I agree for the most part. Chicago has better art galleries, huh? But isn't the National Gallery of Art in DC usually ranked #2 in the U.S.?
Great summary. I agree for the most part. Chicago has better art galleries, huh? But isn't the National Gallery of Art in DC usually ranked #2 in the U.S.?
He's referring to non museum art galleries. National Gallery of Art would be similar to Art Institute, Museum of Contemporary Art or National Museum of Mexican Art in Chicago, etc. They are all effectively museums.
If you aren't an art enthusiast then it probably doesn't matter to you though. Chicago has a big art scene as well as several of the best art schools in the country @ SAIC and Columbia.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,047,399 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
Great summary. I agree for the most part. Chicago has better art galleries, huh? But isn't the National Gallery of Art in DC usually ranked #2 in the U.S.?
Yeah National Gallery of Art is solely ahead of institutions like Chicago's Institute of Art, although both are roughly close. Both are great cities, actually scratch that, phenomenal cities for art, theater, symphonies, orchestras, museums, and parks in general. As a city, I do prefer Washington DC over Chicago (although both are among my favorite cities in the country), but for amenities they are roughly the same with different offerings for different things.
But I meant to say art galleries as in the privately owned ones, by local artists in the each of the respective cities. I know Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, & Washington DC have an abundance of them. Whenever I go to a city, I try to check out some of the private art showrooms from local artists, I have to hand it to the ones in Chicago, along with the setting (inside the loop), the views (the lake front and skyline), & their venues (most a very vast loft, trendy in design), their art work comes out nicely.
For example:
This is an example of a local artist in Chicago who paints and sells his own art but he's made a venue out of his loft where he's made much of it into an art showroom:
Here is the view from his art showroom window:
I like the collection of art he has especially given its his own work, along with the location and views from his place that gives more of a sense of "atmosphere" for the art itself.
I think of Washington DC the same way with museums also, it has a great blend of atmosphere, it gives off a historic vibe along with such monumental architecture and content within the museums itself that makes it even more astonishing. Comparatively to maybe a museum in Downtown Los Angeles, it just wouldn't sustain that same feel and vibe, and causes the experience in general to be a little bit more of on the "underwhelming" side.
But I meant to say art galleries as in the privately owned ones, by local artists in the each of the respective cities. I know Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Boston, & Washington DC have an abundance of them. Whenever I go to a city, I try to check out some of the private art showrooms from local artists, I have to hand it to the ones in Chicago, along with the setting (inside the loop), the views (the lake front and skyline), & their venues (most a very vast loft, trendy in design), their art work comes out nicely.
I see what you're saying. There's actually quite a large number of private art galleries in DC and the list is constantly growing. I can never keep up with it:
Density is not the be all end all. You can have really high density and it doesn't matter if you don't have the infrastructure and amenities to accommodate the populace. How does every debate devolves into density equals better and more urban. it doesn't
Density is not the be all end all. You can have really high density and it doesn't matter if you don't have the infrastructure and amenities to accommodate the populace. How does every debate devolves into density equals better and more urban. it doesn't
Then why would Houston build all its museums in a centralized area if it doesn't matter?
As of 2008:
Cook County, IL: 5,294,664 People (1,635 Square Miles)
Washington DC Metropolitan Area (MSA): 5,358,130 People (5,564 Square Miles) Difference: 63,466 People (3,929 Square Miles)
Chicago is more densely built than Washington DC. Cook County alone is just 64,000 short of having the same population as the Washington DC Metropolitan Area.
They are probably comparable sized when we look at the CSA level which is Washington DC-Baltimore. But Chicago by far and away has a much stronger core than Washington DC.
On amenities they truly are comparable in a draw. Throw in Los Angeles and its still a three way draw. Each of these cities offer something the other may have but to a smaller scale or something the other just doesn't have.
For example Los Angeles has a far better outdoor opportunity, Washington DC would be the next up follow, and Chicago last with little to no outdoor scenery besides Lake Michigan and some wooded areas.
But most people go after city life, which is where Chicago comes out on top in urban lifestyle and the style of life derived from that, Washington DC next, and Los Angeles last with much work needed for it.
The history sense goes to Washington DC, as well as monumental landmarks goes to Washington DC, then Chicago, and lastly Los Angeles. The food scene goes to Chicago first, then Los Angeles, and finally Washington DC. The sports scene goes to Chicago, then Washington DC, and finally Los Angeles which still doesn't have a NFL team. Weather goes to Los Angeles, then Washington DC & Chicago are tied with Chicago having a bit worse winter but much better summer.
These things here tend to alternate between our large cities. I find most comparisons on this site pointless. Lets get real we are comparing places with thousands and thousands of square mileage to each other and only taking such little criteria to compare them.
For anyone that has been to Chicago & Washington DC, (I am very familiar with both) they will know this is a draw, you can go back and forth all day about which one has more but truth is they are dynamically different and in a good way.
Chicago has better art galleries, Washington DC has better museums, Chicago has better theater scene, Washington DC has better monuments, Chicago has a better symphony & opera, Washington DC has better historic sites, Chicago has better urban parks, Washington DC has better natural parks.
You can honestly keep going at it all day long. Its a matter of preference and what combination of things you will end up liking the best to make one of the cities come out on top of the other.
Good points but as another poster already pointed out, Cook county is only around 960 square miles or so. Anyway, Chicago's urbanized area is still more populated than DC-Baltimore's CSA and it's only 2200 square miles. You have to go a long way in DC to find 8 million people. It's not really comparable to Chicagoland.
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.
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.
I was totally off base on this one, because when I saw the title of the thread, I thought it was comparing the cities' public transport systems, LOL!
