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.
These are both terrific cities to live in and have been cited by many as being in the top 10 cities to live in. I find that both offer high quality life, good entertainment, moderate cost of living, solid public transportation and nice variety of eateries. Even the climate is similar except for slightly colder temps in Chicago and more rain/overcast in Portland, Oregon.
Usually we compare Portland and Seattle because of their similarities but I feel Chicago and Portland bare more similarities than most people realize. No question Seattle is a great city to live in but it's cost of living has surpassed both Portland and Chicago. It appears that Portland and Chicago are running neck to neck in everything except the obvious, culture, diversity, variety, and history which goes to Chicago, but that's because Chicago population by far exceeds Portland. Overall, I feel that these are both very good cities to live out your life, do you feel the same? Which city do you like better and why?
I see a lot of similarities between the cities. The size factor is obvious and you're right Chicago is much bigger but Portland isn't tiny either. I'm implying to the atmosphere, cost of living, mobility and density to name a few things.
Does anyone else see similarities between these two great cities?
Both cities are well panned/developed, both have good public transit and both are on the same cost of living scale. It just seems like a subdivision of Chicago only a little "too clean" can anyone see that?
Both cities are well panned/developed, both have good public transit and both are on the same cost of living scale. It just seems like a subdivision of Chicago only a little "too clean" can anyone see that?
There are plenty of Chicago suburbs that are meticulously clean. And both are well planned and developed, but so is Boston, NYC, etc, etc. Chicago's public transporation system is immense, unlike Portland's. I still dont see any similarities.
Yes, I know this. I was referring more to the actual city and its direct comparison (excluding the suburbs) That's what I meant by a (subdivision) of Chicago, Portland has many of the same features on a (smaller) scale given the population size. Oh well, maybe I'm then only seeing this, I don't know.
That just means you have a good imagination. Im glad you see similarities, because Portland is a great city, which means that you see its same good qualities in Chicago.
Both are great cities but it's hard to compare the two because of the size. I think part of Portlands appeal is that it has a small town vibe to it and doesn't have really bad traffic and overcrowding like a lot of other major US cities. Chicago on the other hand is appealing because there is a lot to do there and it has a good big city vibe to it. I see some similarities between the two but it's easier to compare Seattle and Chicago then Portland and Chicago.
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.
And both are well planned and developed, but so is Boston, NYC, etc, etc. Chicago's public transporation system is immense, unlike Portland's. I still dont see any similarities. 
