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.
But there's no way in heck that anyone would walk around anywhere in Los Angeles and say.....
"Wow, this has much better architecture and more beautiful urban charm than Chicago."
If they did, I'd recommend them either go to an optometrist or a therapist immediately.
During the hell-aweful winter, go ahead and try to convince a Chicagoan that their city is better than sunny LA because, you know, that building way over there is architecturally pretty. Yeah, that'll win you lots of eye-rolls and "shudd-app"s!
Outside the arrogant (delusional) circle-jerk that just happened in the last few pages, I'll do a comparison as unbiased as possible.
Iconic Status: LA (Chicago isn't a slouch, but LA passed Chicago somewhere around the 90s)
Diversity: LA (Chicago is more diverse than people like to credit it, but LA pushes its weight above it)
Weather: LA (besides the few people who claim they enjoy Chicago's brutal winters)
Public Spaces and interaction: Chicago (LA really has work to do in this department, I remember seeing giant inflatable Santa displays from Costco in Pershing Square for its Christmas decoration. Also, a lot of areas with foot traffic in LA don't really promote it for more than a few blocks)
Local Culture: Tie (They both have strong "Only in LA", "Only in Chicago" culture)
Nature/Scenery: LA (The only thing Chicago has over LA is 4 seasons and a lot more deciduous trees in its city, Chicago's Lakefront is underrated too)
Employment/Education: Tie (Both are really diverse, and major Industrial centers, Chicago has strength in Business/Finance, LA has strength in Entertainment obviously)
Urban Infrastructure: Chicago (LA still uses gutters to collect rainwater for Pete sake, and Chicago's inner-city park system is more extensive)
Music: Tie (Both are really top tier in the US, what Chicago lacks in Record Industry connects, it makes up for and more in sheer talent, festivals and venues i.e. LollaPolooza, Pitchfork)
Recreational opportunities: LA
Cleanliness: Chicago (LA can get absolutely grimy, the middle of the ghetto in Chicago isn't even as dirty as Skid Row)
Safety: LA (Chicago is pretty rough right now, but this can change easily, it would of been the inverse answer in the 90's)
Nightlife: Tie (LA gets points for having numerous places across the Metro, Chicago gets points for having easy accessibility, bar-hopping culture, and a later last call)
Transit: Chicago (I think this one is undeniable, even LA's transit plans are as a whole insufficient for its size)
Architecture: Tie (I think Chicago is more important to architecture as a whole, but I actually like LA's ecletic architecture)
But there's no way in heck that anyone would walk around anywhere in Los Angeles and say.....
"Wow, this has much better architecture and more beautiful urban charm than Chicago."
If they did, I'd recommend them either go to an optometrist or a therapist immediately.
No thanks, I would rather walk around my neighborhood in a t-shirt and shorts year round, admire the lovely residential homes, and then walk down to the beach in 65-80 degree weather. You can hae those buildings and the other stuff. Insignificant to me.
Outside the arrogant (delusional) circle-jerk that just happened in the last few pages, I'll do a comparison as unbiased as possible.
Iconic Status: LA (Chicago isn't a slouch, but LA passed Chicago somewhere around the 90s)
Diversity: LA (Chicago is more diverse than people like to credit it, but LA pushes its weight above it)
Weather: LA (besides the few people who claim they enjoy Chicago's brutal winters)
Public Spaces and interaction: Chicago (LA really has work to do in this department, I remember seeing giant inflatable Santa displays from Costco in Pershing Square for its Christmas decoration. Also, a lot of areas with foot traffic in LA don't really promote it for more than a few blocks)
Local Culture: Tie (They both have strong "Only in LA", "Only in Chicago" culture)
Nature/Scenery: LA (The only thing Chicago has over LA is 4 seasons and a lot more deciduous trees in its city, Chicago's Lakefront is underrated too)
Employment/Education: Tie (Both are really diverse, and major Industrial centers, Chicago has strength in Business/Finance, LA has strength in Entertainment obviously)
Urban Infrastructure: Chicago (LA still uses gutters to collect rainwater for Pete sake, and Chicago's inner-city park system is more extensive)
Music: Tie (Both are really top tier in the US, what Chicago lacks in Record Industry connects, it makes up for and more in sheer talent, festivals and venues i.e. LollaPolooza, Pitchfork)
Recreational opportunities: LA
Cleanliness: Chicago (LA can get absolutely grimy, the middle of the ghetto in Chicago isn't even as dirty as Skid Row)
Safety: LA (Chicago is pretty rough right now, but this can change easily, it would of been the inverse answer in the 90's)
Nightlife: Tie (LA gets points for having numerous places across the Metro, Chicago gets points for having easy accessibility, bar-hopping culture, and a later last call)
Transit: Chicago (I think this one is undeniable, even LA's transit plans are as a whole insufficient for its size)
Architecture: Tie (I think Chicago is more important to architecture as a whole, but I actually like LA's ecletic architecture)
Outside the arrogant (delusional) circle-jerk that just happened in the last few pages, I'll do a comparison as unbiased as possible.
Iconic Status: LA (Chicago isn't a slouch, but LA passed Chicago somewhere around the 90s)
Diversity: LA (Chicago is more diverse than people like to credit it, but LA pushes its weight above it)
Weather: LA (besides the few people who claim they enjoy Chicago's brutal winters)
Public Spaces and interaction: Chicago (LA really has work to do in this department, I remember seeing giant inflatable Santa displays from Costco in Pershing Square for its Christmas decoration. Also, a lot of areas with foot traffic in LA don't really promote it for more than a few blocks)
Local Culture: Tie (They both have strong "Only in LA", "Only in Chicago" culture)
Nature/Scenery: LA (The only thing Chicago has over LA is 4 seasons and a lot more deciduous trees in its city, Chicago's Lakefront is underrated too)
Employment/Education: Tie (Both are really diverse, and major Industrial centers, Chicago has strength in Business/Finance, LA has strength in Entertainment obviously)
Urban Infrastructure: Chicago (LA still uses gutters to collect rainwater for Pete sake, and Chicago's inner-city park system is more extensive)
Music: Tie (Both are really top tier in the US, what Chicago lacks in Record Industry connects, it makes up for and more in sheer talent, festivals and venues i.e. LollaPolooza, Pitchfork)
Recreational opportunities: LA
Cleanliness: Chicago (LA can get absolutely grimy, the middle of the ghetto in Chicago isn't even as dirty as Skid Row)
Safety: LA (Chicago is pretty rough right now, but this can change easily, it would of been the inverse answer in the 90's)
Nightlife: Tie (LA gets points for having numerous places across the Metro, Chicago gets points for having easy accessibility, bar-hopping culture, and a later last call)
Transit: Chicago (I think this one is undeniable, even LA's transit plans are as a whole insufficient for its size)
Architecture: Tie (I think Chicago is more important to architecture as a whole, but I actually like LA's ecletic architecture)
That's pretty fair. We can pretty much leave it at this. Surprised you didn't go into education though.
Well, both have two universities in the top 20 (U of Chicago, Northwestern, Caltech, UCLA), LA has more in the way of Entertainment while Chicago has more in the field of Business.
Another similarity is that their both Industrial cities at heart, yet diverse enough to where other industries overshadow it.
No thanks, I would rather walk around my neighborhood in a t-shirt and shorts year round, admire the lovely residential homes, and then walk down to the beach in 65-80 degree weather. You can hae those buildings and the other stuff. Insignificant to me.
There's more to cities than good weather you know. I hope that's not the only response one can come up with when people throw many facts about Chicago's greatness at them. Winter in Chicago seriously sucks but the fabulously fun summers and autumns make up for it (and yes, the past 10 years the Octobers and even Novembers in Chicago haven't been that bad).
I hate the architecture here in LA.....It's god awful. That's one of the laundry list of problems that I have with it. Yes there are beautiful mansions and all in places but on major streets its (dirty) white stucco strip malls and suburban style mid-rises mixed up.
I do believe architecture is part of culture and I still believe LA wins this thread overall but saying LA beats Chicago in every aspect when the two cities are so completely different is ridiculous.
So in the summertime when my friends from Chicago are calling me telling me they're walking five minutes to the beach in flip flops and tank tops with a beer cooler in hand from their apartment, I'll have been sitting in bumper to bumper traffic for over an hour on the 405 just waiting to get to Santa Monica.
There's more to cities than good weather you know. I hope that's not the only response one can come up with when people throw many facts about Chicago's greatness at them. Winter in Chicago seriously sucks but the fabulously fun summers and autumns make up for it (and yes, the past 10 years the Octobers and even Novembers in Chicago haven't been that bad).
Summers in LA are much more pleasant than in Chicago. Midwest summers are extremely humid.
And fall is pretty cold in Chicago. Waking up in below freezing temperature isn't most people's image of "fabulously fun", especially in a city where the rail transit is 90% outdoors, and open to the elements.
So in the summertime when my friends from Chicago are calling me telling me they're walking five minutes to the beach in flip flops and tank tops with a beer cooler in hand from their apartment, I'll have been sitting in bumper to bumper traffic for over an hour on the 405 just waiting to get to Santa Monica.
I don't see how this is an advantage for Chicago. Obviously there are many more people in LA than in Chicago living near a beach. The beaches are also much better in LA, and can be enjoyed year-round, not 2-3 months. So you have far more people in LA "five minutes to the beach", and the beaches are like 10,000 times better.
The nice Great Lakes beaches are four hours north, around Traverse City, MI. And even those can't remotely compare to ocean beaches.
And the traffic is horrible on Lakeshore Drive on summer weekends. it's the same as the summer traffic problems in LA, along the PCH or 405. That's why people with money generally try and get out of town, and go to Michigan or Wisconsin.
I don't see how this is an advantage for Chicago. Obviously there are many more people in LA than in Chicago living near a beach. The beaches are also much better in LA, and can be enjoyed year-round, not 2-3 months. So you have far more people in LA "five minutes to the beach", and the beaches are like 10,000 times better.
The nice Great Lakes beaches are four hours north, around Traverse City, MI. And even those can't remotely compare to ocean beaches.
And the traffic is horrible on Lakeshore Drive on summer weekends. it's the same as the summer traffic problems in LA, along the PCH or 405. That's why people with money generally try and get out of town, and go to Michigan or Wisconsin.
There's public transportation in Chicago. People can get to the beach without waiting in traffic easily. If you live in Chicago (unless you live in the far west part of town) you usually do not have to drive to the beach so the traffic on Lake Shore Drive isn't an issue.
We're talking about LA and not the outer ring suburbs? Yes there are more people that live near beaches (including Venice) but in the actual city of LA most people do not live near the beach (WeHo, Santa Monica, etc.) or at least within walking distance.
I agree with you that the beaches are prettier and nicer in the LA area because the scenery is much better. The water is too. I just think the ones in Chicago are extremely unique because they are very accessible to almost everyone in the city without a car and they are in the middle of an extremely urban setting.
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.
