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.
Actually, New York overshadows Los Angeles. New York is much more popular, and when compared against L.A., is praised for it's density, architecture, and lifestyle. I can't think of anything that gives Los Angeles a plus over New York.
I was talking about media coverage and exposure not popularity.
LA and NYC overshadow all other cities in the nation for the reason that you hear about them more, and the reason for that is they are the two leading media centers for the nation. LA for digital media (film) and NYC for print media (advertising, publishing).
It's as simple as that.
They overshadow, but not equally. There's one boss city in this country, and that's New York. The title isn't shared. I still say that Los Angeles and Chicago do about an equal amount of "overshadowing". I just hope this isn't some kind of pity thread for Chicago because the city is already major enough. What more do they want? All that's left is to share positions with NYC, and that's not going to happen.
They overshadow, but not equally. There's one boss city in this country, and that's New York. The title isn't shared. I still say that Los Angeles and Chicago do about an equal amount of "overshadowing". I just hope this isn't some kind of pity thread for Chicago because the city is already major enough. What more do they want? All that's left is to share positions with NYC, and that's not going to happen.
It seems to bear mentioning, yet again, that THE OP IS NOT FROM CHICAGO. We don't need anybody's pity, we don't "want" any more than we already have, we're just fine with who/what we are, thankyouverymuch.
NYC and LA overshadow Chicago because they are more interesting, have better restaurants, and there is more to do there. They are also not as geographically isolated from the beach (ocean), mountains, and other cities as Chicago is.
Chicago simply put has zero natural beauty. Anything its given is landscaped, the suburbs are constructed on a vast and bleak prairie-grid system. I guess the lake is pretty but so is any body of water like the Pacific Ocean or the East and Hudson Rivers. The suburbs of Chicago are overpriced and a total snore. I lived in Lake Forest and there was nothing special about it. I would much rather live in Greenwich or the North Shore of Long Island where you have so much more at your fingertips. Or if in LA in Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, Rolling Hills, or Malibu.
Downtown Chicago has a lot of law firms, corporations, and business offices. Michigan Avenue is cool as is Lincoln Park and a few areas like the Oak Street Beach, Hyde Park, and the museum areas. There are great musical performances, shopping, and movie theatres. Except for Volare's on Grand I am hard pressed to find a good Italian restaurant anywhere. The restaurant scene in Chicago is boring and not really that good -- the concept restaurant of a former meatlocker being converted into a trendy loft and be called Blu or True is stupid and overrated. Okay well New Yorkers do that too.
In New York you have so many different neighborhoods and flavors. There are even better jobs there than in Chicago. So many better restaurants too. The vintage buildings in the Upper East and West Sides and the natural beauty of Central Park cannot be matched. The suburbs are a whole lot more physically interesting and there is more to do than just eat and shop. You have beaches all over Long Island, the Palisades in New Jersey, hiking in Westchester and in Connecticut.
In LA the possibilities expand ten fold. There is awesome beaches and mountains, tons of music and performances, nightclubs that are actually fun, many diverse neighborhoods, and a skyline that isn't bleak 6 months out of the year. Who cares about Chicago's skyline when you can look at palm trees and mountains? Barring traffic nothing beats a twisty drive from the hills or up the PCH. You can lie on a beach with palm trees and in a couple hours be skiing up in the mountains.
The restaurant scene in Chicago is boring and not really that good --.
Hon, even the nytimes disagrees with you on that one. I read that paper regularly and am constantly reading articles about innovative restaurants here. I've read your posts and you seem jaded and bitter from too much time in the northern suburbs. If you can't find interesting neighborhoods or good restaurants in Chicago, I think that says more about you than the city.
I'll give you the 'natural beauty' thing though, that is a weak point of this city.
And before you dismiss me as a midwestern rube who has never left town, let my say that my grandfather and his family were from nyc and the majority of my family is from the New England area, and I have spent a fair amount of time in that region of the country and know it fairly well, and still hold my opinions.
LA is not overshadowed by anyone. Because of Hollywood, it's front and center 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
I would imagine the electronic media coverage and exposure as well as the references to NY and LA in print media each day are about the same, with Washington, DC following next.
N.Y.C. and D.C. are in the news everyday; these cities produce the most important news. The only time I hear about L.A. is in the entertainment news. No wonder the West is so insignificant, the East has the money and power.
NYC and LA overshadow Chicago because they are more interesting, have better restaurants, and there is more to do there. They are also not as geographically isolated from the beach (ocean), mountains, and other cities as Chicago is.
Chicago simply put has zero natural beauty. Anything its given is landscaped, the suburbs are constructed on a vast and bleak prairie-grid system. I guess the lake is pretty but so is any body of water like the Pacific Ocean or the East and Hudson Rivers. The suburbs of Chicago are overpriced and a total snore. I lived in Lake Forest and there was nothing special about it. I would much rather live in Greenwich or the North Shore of Long Island where you have so much more at your fingertips. Or if in LA in Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, Rolling Hills, or Malibu.
Downtown Chicago has a lot of law firms, corporations, and business offices. Michigan Avenue is cool as is Lincoln Park and a few areas like the Oak Street Beach, Hyde Park, and the museum areas. There are great musical performances, shopping, and movie theatres. Except for Volare's on Grand I am hard pressed to find a good Italian restaurant anywhere. The restaurant scene in Chicago is boring and not really that good -- the concept restaurant of a former meatlocker being converted into a trendy loft and be called Blu or True is stupid and overrated. Okay well New Yorkers do that too.
In New York you have so many different neighborhoods and flavors. There are even better jobs there than in Chicago. So many better restaurants too. The vintage buildings in the Upper East and West Sides and the natural beauty of Central Park cannot be matched. The suburbs are a whole lot more physically interesting and there is more to do than just eat and shop. You have beaches all over Long Island, the Palisades in New Jersey, hiking in Westchester and in Connecticut.
In LA the possibilities expand ten fold. There is awesome beaches and mountains, tons of music and performances, nightclubs that are actually fun, many diverse neighborhoods, and a skyline that isn't bleak 6 months out of the year. Who cares about Chicago's skyline when you can look at palm trees and mountains? Barring traffic nothing beats a twisty drive from the hills or up the PCH. You can lie on a beach with palm trees and in a couple hours be skiing up in the mountains.
Everyone's entitled to their opinions, and some of yours above are pretty valid. But as j33 points out, your take on Chicago's culinary scene is just way out of touch. The vibrant, innovative culinary scene is one of the things Chicago is best known for. There are nearly 10,000 restaurants in the Chicago area of every type, variety, price range, style, presentation, et cetera, from fast-food to sit-down chains to contemporary fusion spots on up to Mobil 5-Star restaurants. Within a 1 mile radius of my apartment, there are several Mexican restaurants, a Peruvian restaurant, a Chilean sandwich shop, at least two Middle Eastern restaurants, two Romanian restaurants, numerous Italian restaurants, one German restaurant, a couple Korean restaurants, plus a number of old-school greasy-spoon burger-and-dog huts & diners. What more do you want? And my neighborhood is extraordinarily average by Chicago standards -- this is not a hip or "dining destination" neighborhood. If I want even more options or if I want a more contemporary dining experience, I hop on a train or a bus and 15 minutes later I'm there.
Like I said, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but it's a little harder to take them seriously from someone who claims there is only one good Italian restaurant in a city with over 400 of them -- and that's just in the city alone, not even counting the suburbs. When you can make a claim like that, it occurs to me that you weren't looking very hard.
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.
Chicago = Snore - shop, eat, go see a show repeat
