Better scenery: Los Angeles or Chicago (market, size, development, live)
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 a more current article. I didn't read, anywhere, where it said Chicago would be severely impacted. This thread is about Chicago, not Illinois. Also, have you ever heard of an earthquake in the Midwest causing damage like the ones in California? I didn't think so.
That won't effect Chicago. Chicago has virtually 0 risk of a major earthquake.
Edit: a 5.2 in Southern Illinois shook skyscrapers in Chicago? I don't buy it.
There was definitely an earthquake downstate several years back that definitely made a rumble in the Chicago suburbs, but nothing huge. That could definitely move a skyscraper, but very slightly. Then again, wind can also move skyscrapers.
Regardless of any seismic zone that California or Illinois sits on I'm not worried for either place. California has been inhabited for thousands of years. It ain't going nowhere
I'd be more worried about another vehicle sliding on some ice and hitting my car head on than an earthquake.
This thread isn't about earthquakes, or how you don't have to worry about sharks in Lake Michigan. It's about scenery. If we're talking city alone, Chicago wins. If we're talking surrounding the city, LA wins. SO, a win for both cities.
An edit here: An earthquake, just now, happened in southern CA...hopefully, no injuries.
A 5.2 in southern Illinois shook skyscrapers in Chicago and a 7.0 is 500 times stronger so you better hope not.
Earthquakes aren't good, but unfortunately, LA is multitudes more prone. Fingers crossed that a major one does not occur in our lifetimes. The 6.6 one today was probably a good thing because it relieved some stress on the fracture, but I'm not a seismologist.
It's not just Metro Rail that has more miles of track than Chicago, Metro Link also has about 50 more miles than Chicago Metra. Amtrak also gets plenty of use with plenty of stations within L.A. county.
It's somewhat debatable now but we're about 2 years away from this not even being an argument anymore.
Public transportation in LA is significantly underrated by both the general public and by the people that live here in LA. That said, it's not caught up to Chicago and is a tier behind imo. Will be in two years as well, but by 2028...hmmm. I think that heavy rail to the westside and through the sepulveda pass, plus lots more light rail will put LA significantly past 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.
pics I took around LA
