Chicago vs New York City cost of living/friendliness comparison (best, better)
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 have waited a while to weigh in on this thread. I have lived in both cities and love them both, but for cheapness and friendliness - the terms of the OP, Chicago by a long way. There is very little that you can do in NYC that you can't do in Chicago for half the price, an eighth of the hassle, and none of the attitude. There is WAY more in NYC, and the hassle and the attitude help with the glamor.
The people saying Chicago has more in common with Detroit or Cleveland or Indianapolis or St. Louis have never never lived in Detroit or Cleveland or Indianapolis or St. Louis. NYC is in a league of its own, but if you want an urban experience in the US, Chicago is the only other city that comes remotely close.
Chicago is basically Queens with Midtown Manhattan thrown in the middle. Chicago is a third of the size of the NYC, and you feel that. Both cities for me have horrible weather, but in June and September, Chicago is one of my favorite cities in the world: Half Caribbean beach resort, half global metropolis. Pound for pound, given the differences in scale, Chicago has better architecture and food. NYC, even though it is much bigger, wins on everything else.
If money were no object, I would choose NYC, but on a budget, Chicago easily offers the best bang for buck in terms of urban living in the U.S., maybe on the English-speaking planet. It is much more cosmopolitan and sophisticated than SF, Boston and Philly, its closest, but distant competition. L.A. is a very different kind of city.
In my experience, New Yorkers are rude but friendly and open. I lived there for close to ten years. While friendly, they are the least hospitable people in the world in my experience, and I have lived on 4 continents. Maybe because their living quarters are so cramped, you will only be invited into their homes for sex or holidays. Chicagoans, who generally have more space, are much hospitable YMMV.
If the OP had provided almost any other set of criteria than cost and friendliness, I would have answered NYC, but for the criteria of cost and friendliness, the honest answer is Chicago, and frankly, it is not close AT ALL.
Chicago isn't more cosmopolitan or sophisticated than SF or Boston? I would argue that pound for pound, Philly, SF and Boston are more compact, walkable and urban as a whole compared to Chicago. Chicago is Dr. Jeykl and Mr. Hyde. Extremely urban on the Northside and the Loop but it looks quite suburbanish over a large area on the southside. Housing stock in Philly and Boston are more urban looking. Chicago has a bigger DT area but CC Philly is more like Manhattan in look and feel. Residential Boston also looks more like parts of Brooklyn.
Chicago isn't more cosmopolitan or sophisticated than SF or Boston? I would argue that pound for pound, Philly, SF and Boston are more compact, walkable and urban as a whole compared to Chicago. Chicago is Dr. Jeykl and Mr. Hyde. Extremely urban on the Northside and the Loop but it looks quite suburbanish over a large area on the southside. Housing stock in Philly and Boston are more urban looking. Chicago has a bigger DT area but CC Philly is more like Manhattan in look and feel. Residential Boston also looks more like parts of Brooklyn.
But you do realize that Chicago's northside is larger than San Francisco and also Boston?
I have waited a while to weigh in on this thread. I have lived in both cities and love them both, but for cheapness and friendliness - the terms of the OP, Chicago by a long way. There is very little that you can do in NYC that you can't do in Chicago for half the price, an eighth of the hassle, and none of the attitude. There is WAY more in NYC, and the hassle and the attitude help with the glamor.
The people saying Chicago has more in common with Detroit or Cleveland or Indianapolis or St. Louis have never never lived in Detroit or Cleveland or Indianapolis or St. Louis. NYC is in a league of its own, but if you want an urban experience in the US, Chicago is the only other city that comes remotely close.
Chicago is basically Queens with Midtown Manhattan thrown in the middle. Chicago is a third of the size of the NYC, and you feel that. Both cities for me have horrible weather, but in June and September, Chicago is one of my favorite cities in the world: Half Caribbean beach resort, half global metropolis. Pound for pound, given the differences in scale, Chicago has better architecture and food. NYC, even though it is much bigger, wins on everything else.
If money were no object, I would choose NYC, but on a budget, Chicago easily offers the best bang for buck in terms of urban living in the U.S., maybe on the English-speaking planet. It is much more cosmopolitan and sophisticated than SF, Boston and Philly, its closest, but distant competition. L.A. is a very different kind of city.
In my experience, New Yorkers are rude but friendly and open. I lived there for close to ten years. While friendly, they are the least hospitable people in the world in my experience, and I have lived on 4 continents. Maybe because their living quarters are so cramped, you will only be invited into their homes for sex or holidays. Chicagoans, who generally have more space, are much hospitable YMMV.
If the OP had provided almost any other set of criteria than cost and friendliness, I would have answered NYC, but for the criteria of cost and friendliness, the honest answer is Chicago, and frankly, it is not close AT ALL.
+1, I don't rep very often, primarily because most posts don't deserve it, but in this case I did. Good post.
. If there is no interest people will not engage in a conversation about baseball just because it is a polite thing to do but if you have something interesting to say you can make new friends within minutes in a place you have never been before.
I have noticed this and I have not spent too much time in New York, but live in Chicago. I love would love to strike up a conversation and be instant friends. People are clickly in Chicago. You have a be a "regular" there for people to warm up to you. It is pretty annoying. I would love to go somewhere and people be as friendly as I am regular all the time.
However, the lack of politeness would drive me crazy too. I notice immigrants from other countries are not as polite and do not like that feel. As I know New York is more diverse and might contribute to some of rudeness That might strike somebody as rude if you are use to that Midwestern style.
I think if you combined genuine friendliness with politeness you would have a great combination.
Also is New York really all that competitive. I was in the modeling industry for some time and was looked at by Ford Models in New York and never in Chicago. If New York is so competitive why was it easier to get look at New York.
I have waited a while to weigh in on this thread. I have lived in both cities and love them both, but for cheapness and friendliness - the terms of the OP, Chicago by a long way. There is very little that you can do in NYC that you can't do in Chicago for half the price, an eighth of the hassle, and none of the attitude. There is WAY more in NYC, and the hassle and the attitude help with the glamor.
The people saying Chicago has more in common with Detroit or Cleveland or Indianapolis or St. Louis have never never lived in Detroit or Cleveland or Indianapolis or St. Louis. NYC is in a league of its own, but if you want an urban experience in the US, Chicago is the only other city that comes remotely close.
Chicago is basically Queens with Midtown Manhattan thrown in the middle. Chicago is a third of the size of the NYC, and you feel that. Both cities for me have horrible weather, but in June and September, Chicago is one of my favorite cities in the world: Half Caribbean beach resort, half global metropolis. Pound for pound, given the differences in scale, Chicago has better architecture and food. NYC, even though it is much bigger, wins on everything else.
If money were no object, I would choose NYC, but on a budget, Chicago easily offers the best bang for buck in terms of urban living in the U.S., maybe on the English-speaking planet. It is much more cosmopolitan and sophisticated than SF, Boston and Philly, its closest, but distant competition. L.A. is a very different kind of city.
In my experience, New Yorkers are rude but friendly and open. I lived there for close to ten years. While friendly, they are the least hospitable people in the world in my experience, and I have lived on 4 continents. Maybe because their living quarters are so cramped, you will only be invited into their homes for sex or holidays. Chicagoans, who generally have more space, are much hospitable YMMV.
If the OP had provided almost any other set of criteria than cost and friendliness, I would have answered NYC, but for the criteria of cost and friendliness, the honest answer is Chicago, and frankly, it is not close AT ALL.
Um, I am from Detroit and the whole Chicago is basically Queens with Midtown Manhattan thrown in the middle is basically just the northside. A lot of the Southside looks like Detroit especially around the Dan Ryan Expressway.
Also, why if money is no object you would chose New York. You are basically doing and having the same experiences for double the price. It is still an urban city. Is it to have more of the sophisticated East Coast feel?
Which has zero to do with the thread title/subject. Why do people continue to focus on size? NYC had a much bigger headstart on many cities and grew at a much more rapid pace than anywhere else did, and its location on the East Coast made it easy for immigration. Its not as if NYC inherited 8.3 million people one night last week. No other city will come close in population except for a city out West settled in a more "reactionary" layout, like an LA. Thats been established. Move on.
For the average American, your dollar goes much further in Chicago and its not nearly as claustrophobic a city.
As far as friendliness? Midwesterners are typically friendlier in my experiences, and more genuine.
It's not about the city's size at all, all of that talk is about having more things to do which New York leads in by a country mile, only in it's fanboys wildest of imagination will it ever even be close on that. Bickering about how New York is not friendly but Chicago is so friendly is not going to change that.
And like I have been saying just about any argument you can make with Chicago over New York, you can turn it around on Chicago if you switch to city to let's say Houston or Detroit. For the average American, your dollar goes much further in Houston and Detroit and its not nearly as claustrophobic a city. You see how easy you are making this now? I'll be willing to bet all of you guys talking so much about cheap will jump out of your seat in anger if people said Houston and Detroit is on Chicago's level though.
It's not about the city's size at all, all of that talk is about having more things to do which New York leads in by a country mile, only in it's fanboys wildest of imagination will it ever even be close on that. Bickering about how New York is not friendly but Chicago is so friendly is not going to change that.
And like I have been saying just about any argument you can make with Chicago over New York, you can turn it around on Chicago if you switch to city to let's say Houston or Detroit. For the average American, your dollar goes much further in Houston and Detroit and its not nearly as claustrophobic a city. You see how easy you are making this now? I'll be willing to bet all of you guys talking so much about cheap will jump out of your seat in anger if people said Houston and Detroit is on Chicago's level though.
But do Houston and Detroit offer a true and standard urban experience? Detroit offers you a bombed out ghetto urban experience and Houston offers a suburburan experience. Chicago offers a very urban experience without the hassle of NYC. I am not saying that Chicago is on NYC"s level , but let's be honest, Chicago when it comes to urbanity has a lot more in common with NYC than it does with Houston.
But do Houston and Detroit offer a true and standard urban experience? Detroit offers you a bombed out ghetto urban experience and Houston offers a suburburan experience. Chicago offers a very urban experience without the hassle of NYC. I am not saying that Chicago is on NYC"s level , but let's be honest, Chicago when it comes to urbanity has a lot more in common with NYC than it does with Houston.
That's being very generous, since it's not even close. Exactly, it's not on NYC's level. Hence why it's so cheap. Regarding Detroit, you get that same exact "bombed out ghetto urban experience" in Chicago's South Side which is over 60% of it's land area. Not to even mention the west side. And it's not really about urban, it's about things to do. Majorty of Americans don't really care about urban. Is LA more urban than Chicago according to you since Chicago is so cheap?
But do Houston and Detroit offer a true and standard urban experience? Detroit offers you a bombed out ghetto urban experience and Houston offers a suburburan experience. Chicago offers a very urban experience without the hassle of NYC. I am not saying that Chicago is on NYC"s level , but let's be honest, Chicago when it comes to urbanity has a lot more in common with NYC than it does with Houston.
I agree with you that Chicago offers a whole lot at a great price point. And the COL disparity between NYC and Chicago is not something to be taken lightly.
But at 22 years of age? I guess I wasn't too practical then and saving money for a downpayment on a house wasn't a priority. Sure, it's cheaper to live in Chicago. But I liken it to having All Season tires. They're cheaper than dedicated season tires, and they ride perfectly fine, but no matter the season they're always second best.
I agree with you that Chicago offers a whole lot at a great price point. And the COL disparity between NYC and Chicago is not something to be taken lightly.
But at 22 years of age? I guess I wasn't too practical then and saving money for a downpayment on a house wasn't a priority. Sure, it's cheaper to live in Chicago. But I liken it to having All Season tires. They're cheaper than dedicated season tires, and they ride perfectly fine, but no matter the season they're always second best.
Ok but what about at 30 years of age when you are looking to buy property?
Listen I am not saying Chicago is better than NYC, I am just saying that Chicago offers a great balance, it's not too cheap but not too expensive, it's not to dense but not too spread out, not too fast paced but not too laid back, all set in a very urban city. So I really thing that Chicago offers a great bang for your buck if you want to live in very cultural and urban city without a lot of the hassles that other cities have. Now if you want a hyperurban, exhilrating and high energy global city NYC takes that cake big time.
I was just pointing out that there aren't many cities that offer what Chicago offers at that price tag.
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.
u
