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.
There's been threads before comparing Chicago and New York. The similarities/differences/pros/cons. Comparing neighborhoods, etc.
Well I'm a little curious about comparing regions just outside these cities. I'm quite familiar with suburbs, towns, attractions, etc. outside Chicago.
However my only knowledge I have about regions outside New York is limited to things other than personal direct experiences, . . . so these maybe iffy.
From what I get from maps and what people from there tell me.
Places immediately outside Manhattan such as Hoboken, Weehawken, and other nearby communities sound like they might best compared to Chicago area places such as Oak Park/Forest Park. (Urban/dense lifestyle but for those who don't want to or just don't actually live in the city?)
From the sounds of it the Jersey Shore can somewhat be compared to NW Indiana. Tourism based on beaches (and summerhomes) and a lot of casinos. Gary sounds like it has a lot in common with Newark, NJ. Both experiences white flight and urban decay, and very close to their respective big cities.
Places 30-50 miles north of New York city along the Hudson sound a little similar to Illinois towns alongside lakes and the Fox River in Lake and McHenry counties. Basically affluent exurbs with water as a major attraction.
This one might be iffy: New Yorks Woodstock can maybe compared to East Troy, WI with Alpine Valley music theater. The huge (raucous) outdoor rock concerts out in the country association.
The Catskills of New York might be best compared to the Driftless area of SW part of Wisconsin, and IL's NW corner. With towns like Galena, Spring Green, and Sauk City, the more "classy" towns.
These are shots in the dark. Tell me what you think, if you have dual familiarity.
The only thing I see is comparing Long Island to the North Shore communities, but even those are very different!!!
Chicago and New York have both completely different feels, people, layouts, structures, food, nightlife, and things to do (well, some similar things to do, but New York has a lot of what Chicago doesn't have, and Chicago has a lot that New York doesn't have).
The comparison are that both cities are THE best in the country!!! No, but seriously!
well I guess I started this thread, because many people believe that Chicago is a great city, but interesting things to do outside the city (day trips, etc.)are lacking compared to those on the coasts. I don't really believe that at all.
Belief that the landscapes flat, the Lake Michigan isn't exciting like the ocean, and the towns and other cities are boring outside Chicago. Debunking that myth was really more of the aim I guess.
So I guess the question/comparison was not so much a direct comparison with anywhere in the northeast, but rather are the regions and places outside Chicago as interesting/fun as areas outside NYC.
I posted this in another thread, but I think it's relevant:
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldwine
Like anything else, when we compare cities what we're really comparing are cartoons; they highlight the themes we've all "seen", but don't really exist.
Secondly, there is a gross flaw in the idea that it's Chicago vs. NYC. Because it's not. It's Chicago vs. Manhattan. Especially because Manhattan is the actual "New York county".
Chicago stacks up immensely well against Manhattan. It's always been an incredibly close draw and, to my best judgment, there hasn't been a clear winner since the early 19th century. It was around that time that, threatened by Chicago, Manhattan forcibly annexed the other boroughs and created this "New York City" thing. The Bronx is basically another city unto itself even to this day, and the culture/lifestyle is much closer to the real New York we dream of from the 70's. It's also much less glamorous; that real NYC has always been considered by the elites of the east coast to be as gauche and tacky as wearing a brown belt with black shoes.
The startling difference is this: People live in Chicago. By contrast, people move through Manhattan. No one's ever going to be able to afford to live there, not unless you have millions to deal with property taxes if by some miracle of god you find a pantry cupboard for sale.
This is such a fundamental difference between the two cities that it's completely changed how I view both of them. It makes Chicago a real city in my mind, and it makes Manhattan a very nice hotel. Consider that when you judge Chicago vs. NYC, because those people in Chicago are real city folk, while those people in Manhattan are increasingly New Jersey/CT/Bronx suburban folk.
I posted this in another thread, but I think it's relevant:
I don't understand what you mean.
Manhattan is part of NYC and New York City should be compared to Chicago. I don't know why you think the other boroughs don't compare to 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.
