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.
Absolutely. I think the concept of trendy bars, and sports bars in particular, is a Chicago invention. Chicago is more of hard-core sports city. New York, because it is so big and so diverse, really doesn't have a core of people who live and die with it's teams... For every Yankees' or Giants' fan, there is an equal number who are into NYC's cultural vibe (for example) who could give a damn about sports... In fact, it is that aspect that really turns me off about New York. (I call it the Ivy League mentality: that somehow being bad in sports proves that you are smarter); and, of course, New York is ground zero (pardon the expression) for the Ivy League ... It is full of cultural/intellectual snobs who look down on sports fans, as if it's some kind of anti-intellectual, lower class activity. Obviously, such a mentality is nonexistant in in Chi-town.
This is the most breathtakingly ignorant assessments of a city I have seen in C-D in a very long time, obviously written by a real snob -- of the reverse variety. Someone who resents anyone with a serious interst in the arts or someone highly educated.
Only to such a person would it never occur that New Yorkers could not like both the Met AND the Mets -- or whatever combination of the arts and sports you imagine.
But cities are great on their own terms and frankly, the people in them both are not too different when you stop throwing up all this reverse snobbery.
But there is at least one big difference in the sports culture of the two cities. Chicagoans love -- inexplicably to me -- the Chicago Cubs. In New York, we EAT losing baseball teams for lunch!
Last edited by citylove101; 06-12-2012 at 02:19 PM..
Other things? Chicago just projects as a cleaner, more open, less arrogant and friendlier atmosphere than NYC. .
Maybe downtown, but most of Chicago isn't particularly clean nor friendly. I wouldn't call the South and West Side ghettos clean or friendly. That's most of the city.
And Chicago's lakefront, while pretty to look at, isn't really all that great or super-functional. There's a big freeway separating the city from the lake, and the beaches tend to suck. Grant Park isn't really a everyday park, and is more of a special events space.
There are the occasional e coli warnings at Chicago beaches and the rare box jellyfish scare (just kidding on this one) but frankly, Lake Michigan is a sportsman's paradise!
I would agree that Lake Michigan is a sportsman paradise, but not around Chicago. The lake around Chicago/Gary is heavily polluted and too warm in the summer for most sea life.
The northern reaches of the lake have the most abundant fishing and recreational beach uses (sugar sand beaches in Northern MI, etc.). The southern reaches of the lake tend to be industrial and not really "beachy".
Maybe downtown, but most of Chicago isn't particularly clean nor friendly. I wouldn't call the South and West Side ghettos clean or friendly. That's most of the city.
And Chicago's lakefront, while pretty to look at, isn't really all that great or super-functional. There's a big freeway separating the city from the lake, and the beaches tend to suck. Grant Park isn't really a everyday park, and is more of a special events space.
Isn't that the case for NYC,Boston,DC,SF, and many other cites to have dirty or rundown neighborhoods. But Chicago on my opinion is a little a bit more friendly and clean than here in NYC.
Maybe downtown, but most of Chicago isn't particularly clean nor friendly. I wouldn't call the South and West Side ghettos clean or friendly. That's most of the city.
And Chicago's lakefront, while pretty to look at, isn't really all that great or super-functional. There's a big freeway separating the city from the lake, and the beaches tend to suck. Grant Park isn't really a everyday park, and is more of a special events space.
?? Most of the city? The population density and the population itself just from Hyde Park through Edgewater and the West Loop through the northwest side of the city are some of the best areas, and also happen to have about half of the city population. That's certainly not all of the "non-ghetto" areas in the city....just a solid slice of nice areas.
The ghetto areas on the west/south side aren't very clean (wayyyyyy more than they use to be in the 70's and 80's), but they're also some of the lowest density areas as most people who could leave have.
I've never heard anyone who knows anything about the city say that the west and south side ghettos are the "majority of the city".
Some of the worst areas of the city:
Englewood: 1.1% of city population
West Englewood: 1.3% of city population
Washington Park: 0.4% of city population
East/West Garfield Park: 1.4% of city population
North Lawndale: 1.3% of city population
Based on your other comments I'm assuming you're just going off stereotypes and haven't spent much time in Chicago, or for whatever reason you really just hate the city. Saying the lakefront isn't functional is silly. There are 45 access points over or under lakeshore drive during it's 15 mile course to access the parks/lake/beaches/marinas from the residential/downtown areas on the other side.
Last edited by Chicago60614; 06-12-2012 at 02:41 PM..
?? Hardly. The population density and the population itself of the north side and northwest side, along with areas from the Loop through Hyde Park and the southwest side near Midway and Oak Lawn make up a pretty large majority of the residental areas and population. Those areas are certainly clean enough.
The ghetto areas on the west/south side aren't very clean (wayyyyyy more than they use to be in the 70's and 80's), but they're also some of the lowest density areas as most people who could leave have.
I've never heard anyone who knows anything about the city say that the west and south side ghettos are the "majority of the city".
I hate threads like these because of the ignorance on both sides as someone pointed out to earlier. Some people get too passionate about their cities to go over the top.
Aside from the lake, should I consider visiting NYC a second time as opposed to checking out what Chicago's got to offer? The last time I was in NY was roughly 10 years ago, and it was only for a few days.
Amenities-wise, no, but Chicago does have it's own regional culture that is unique from New York's regional culture respectively. You could say the same thing about NY and Philly imho.
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.
