cleveland or chicago (Parma, Lakewood, Rocky River: school, live in, restaurant)

[welder]

They say Pittsburgh is the "poor man's San Fransico". Clevand would be the "poor man's Chicago". There's no sense of even trying to compare the two. Chicago is a 'World Class City', and cleveland ain't. Compare Cleveland to Pittsburgh, Buffalo, or Cinnci, not to Chicago.

[The Cactus Leaguer]

Originally Posted by airics

just curious of the ages of the posters on this topic, i am assuming in the 20s

40's - healthcare CFO - I study demographics from time to time whenever we look at possible expansion. Not that it matters, I could be a wide-eyed 13 year old kid or a grumpy 70 year old... facts and logic usually win the day (unless the moderators are asleep at the wheel).

[The Cactus Leaguer]

Originally Posted by alexmarison

Reading all these posts, what i'm coming away with is that most of those who live in Cleveland are partial to it and are most of the people responding.

It's a Cleveland board, what do you expect?

I'm from chicago, but disclaimed that in my first post. I've lived in the cleveland area now for about 7 years. I've lived in several cities in CA (Bay area and San Diego area), San Antonio, Tamp Bay area, New York City, Boston area, Fargo, ND, Cincinnati, Birmingham, Memphis, etc.

Ummmm... wow, you've lived in a lot of places. Either you have lived a long and full life, or Cleveland is one of your longer stints.

I've tried to be honest in all my posts and unbiased. Really, I don't even think anyone that has been to Chicago disagrees with anything I've said, except that if they are biased toward Cleveland they will make excuses for why it is so much worse of a life experience to live there compared to the "incomparably great" city of Chicago. To that I responded with my "no excuses" post.

I don't think anyone, even the total Cleveland homers, has argued that Cleveland is better than Chicago in terms of things to do, nightlife, etc. It's just the implication that there is zero diversity, nothing to do, etc. in Cleveland that makes people bristle

The point is, ok: if you've been abroad (outside of other rural mid-westerern and bible-belt cities), you know cleveland sucks as a place to live, in comparison -

This comment has been bashed enough (most of it justified). I'll just add this - downtown Cleveland is great and getting better; the inner ring is a mixed bag with many problem areas, some OK, and some are gems; and the outer ring is a terrific place to raise a family and still be within a reasonable distance to the city's amenities.

if you haven't, but have been stuck in cleveland or other cites like it all your life, take my advice and get out and experience what this great country has to offer. Fear not leaving behind all you know. At least try for a little while a Chicago or San Francisco or San Diego, Boston, etc.. You will not be sorry.

I agree, get out, travel, and see the world. But stay in Cleveland... especially if you are a young professional who wants to buy a home, raise a family, and help a great region revive itself. You won't be sorry.

[TheProf]

Cle440 you are dead on. Alexmarison, look aroud the web, esp travel sites. People like Cle and myself are not the ONLY ones who have used terms like "Little Chicago" or "Chicago Lite" in describing Cleveland: many travelers and travel writers have said it as well and most of them are NON-Cleveland natives. So, no, this talk is not generated by a bunch of Cleveland yokel/homers, it's by travelers who often feel Cleveland is an oft overlooked gem...

And Cle440's right on another score: some of the most negative comments about Cleveland are from Cleveland natives who haven't been exposed much to other areas; so again, you're 'homer-ism' premise goes right out the window.

Unfortunately alexmarison, you reveal your semi-trolling motives when you keep repeating the silly phrase: 'Cleveland sucks compared to Chicago.' That's just childish and anti-intellectual. Chicago is not as overall bustling and crowded and transit-pedestrian-oriented as New York, but do you think anyone in their right mind would say: Chicago "sucks" compared to New York?... Obviously not... Chicago is not exactly on par with all the great things (and thankfully, all the bad things: rudeness, filth, etc) that are New York -- but obviously, that doesn't mean Chicago is not an awesome city in its own right. Ditto Cleveland viz Chicago. Cleveland's vibrant, diverse, cultural, historic and has tons of character. One thing that always has been Cleveland's trait is it often belies its size: it often SEEMS like a bigger city than it is. Much of that is our large, old-line, well endowed cultural institutions, like one of the 10 public library systems (#5 or 6 last I've looked), a spectacular art museum, one of the biggest theatre districts outside of Broadway and an Orchestra that even the erudite NYTimes rates as usually one of the top 2 or 3 in the nation. Oh yeah, and then there are factors like University Circle, the character rich Heights area and a rail transit system that's nearly as old as Chicago's (Cleveland had rapid transit before any Midwestern city even thought about it, and even now, there are only 2 others: St. Louis and the Twin Cities with its 1 line, 4-year-old LRT)...

As Cle440, if 1 objectively stepped back and weighed Midwestern Cities, Cleveland would come out as a clear no#2 to Chicago for many if not most.

[welder]

Originally Posted by TheProf

Cle440 you are dead on. Alexmarison, look aroud the web, esp travel sites. People like Cle and myself are not the ONLY ones who have used terms like "Little Chicago" or "Chicago Lite" in describing Cleveland: many travelers and travel writers have said it as well and most of them are NON-Cleveland natives. So, no, this talk is not generated by a bunch of Cleveland yokel/homers, it's by travelers who often feel Cleveland is an oft overlooked gem...

And Cle440's right on another score: some of the most negative comments about Cleveland are from Cleveland natives who haven't been exposed much to other areas; so again, you're 'homer-ism' premise goes right out the window.

Unfortunately alexmarison, you reveal your semi-trolling motives when you keep repeating the silly phrase: 'Cleveland sucks compared to Chicago.' That's just childish and anti-intellectual. Chicago is not as overall bustling and crowded and transit-pedestrian-oriented as New York, but do you think anyone in their right mind would say: Chicago "sucks" compared to New York?... Obviously not... Chicago is not exactly on par with all the great things (and thankfully, all the bad things: rudeness, filth, etc) that are New York -- but obviously, that doesn't mean Chicago is not an awesome city in its own right. Ditto Cleveland viz Chicago. Cleveland's vibrant, diverse, cultural, historic and has tons of character. One thing that always has been Cleveland's trait is it often belies its size: it often SEEMS like a bigger city than it is. Much of that is our large, old-line, well endowed cultural institutions, like one of the 10 public library systems (#5 or 6 last I've looked), a spectacular art museum, one of the biggest theatre districts outside of Broadway and an Orchestra that even the erudite NYTimes rates as usually one of the top 2 or 3 in the nation. Oh yeah, and then there are factors like University Circle, the character rich Heights area and a rail transit system that's nearly as old as Chicago's (Cleveland had rapid transit before any Midwestern city even thought about it, and even now, there are only 2 others: St. Louis and the Twin Cities with its 1 line, 4-year-old LRT)...

As Cle440, if 1 objectively stepped back and weighed Midwestern Cities, Cleveland would come out as a clear no#2 to Chicago for many if not most.

The only thing that Cleveland is "Chicago like", is that both cities sit on a lake. When you start comparing stats per capita, Chicago is "NYC like". In fact, as far as tourism goes, there about neck and neck. Both over 40 million. Wiki even shows Chicago with more annaul visitors.

[BelieveInCleve]

Originally Posted by welder

The only thing that Cleveland is "Chicago like", is that both cities sit on a lake. When you start comparing stats per capita, Chicago is "NYC like". In fact, as far as tourism goes, there about neck and neck. Both over 40 million. Wiki even shows Chicago with more annaul visitors.

If you look into it and compare the two together, and then to other cities, you will notice how much in common they actually have. The only big differences are obviously the size and what comes with it, and then that Chicago has fared better than Cleveland over the years as far as diversifying its economy which was already helped by the size factor.

As I said before though, obviously Chicago is better to most people and is more diverse, there is no argument there. It offers more than Cleveland, but thats to be expected. But that doesnt change the fact that Cleveland is a great city and area with a lot to offer and a lot of diversity compared to most areas. You cant really compare NYC and Chicago, so you cant compare Chicago and Cleveland.

[alexmarison]

OK, i admit it, i have no social life. but that is really why i can't fathom why you say that cleveland is like chicago in everything, except for the numbers. i could care less about numbers. i like the very simple things in life: city living; nice clean, quaint apartment; excellent neighborhood and neighbors; excellent places to eat, whether hole-in-the-wall ethnic resturants of which there are like 4 or 5 around the block from my place, as well as many other great choices in a variety of price ranges; convenient, 24 hour public tansportation to anywhere in the metro area; occupied storefronts on along every busy street making everything available one might ever be interested in, like antiques, army/navy store, used store, ethnic eateries, cafes, bookstores, etc. etc.....I see absolutely none of that in any part of the city of cleveland, much less any suburb. Just abandoned storefronts; condemned houses; overgrown lawns in front of delapidated houses; just mcDonald's and burger king's every mile or so; and nothing but hooligans trolling pot-holed, filthy, and dangerous streets. maybe the university circle/little italy area, maybe downtown shaker, maybe around John Carrol, might be more "chicago-like" - but even those place have suffered and their core good areas have greatly shrunk. At least 60% of the entire city of Chicago and many surrounding suburbs will give you the life i painted above - which is about 1 million times more square blocks to choose from than the decent areas of city life cleveland metro has to offer, which i consider more like little prisons inside a terrible place to live, in comparison. Even if there are upscale areas on the west-side of cleveland and several classy suburbs on both the eas and west side of the city, these do not afford a city life, they are cut off from that and are just houses among blocks of houses, which though could be a good place to raise a family, as long as you and your kids understood the city was a not a great choice to live for a single adult or a couple until they started a family - and then, defintely not a place for children to grow up.

[airics]

you are right, no social life, if you are in chicago, why are you here? granted cleveland has some issues but it has good things too.. coventry, progressive field, little italy.. i personally would choose cleveland over chicago (yes ive been to chicago)... besides they dont call chicago the windy city for nothing

[alexmarison]

Originally Posted by airics

cleveland ... has good things too.. coventry, progressive field, little italy"

(that list was exhaustive, btw)

One more thing, these people praising cleveland must be talking from some ivory tower in Pepper Pike, who from their well-off neighborhood, far away from the disgust of most of the meto area, only go from there to work, perhaps in University Circle, then back home again - venturing downtown once in awhile for some special event where they might only see a bunch of other well-to-do's like themselves there for the same thing. I am downtown every day, walking around, not tucked away in some classy office building; i have driven an ice cream truck all over the entire metro area - city and near suburbs - scouring every block for a decent area to sell in, that wasn't already taken: with my truck i drove all through Shaker; warrensville; cleveland heights; the eastern border of the city; and every block of the entire west-side of the city; Parma; Middleburg; Independence; Seven Hills; Olmsted Falls; Lakewood; etc. - i finally setled in Rocky River. I also worked as a canvaser, so i walked and drove every single city block of the entire the east side of Cleveland, projects included - was robbed only one time. I know cleveland like the back of my hand. As for Chicago, where i was born and raised, i have lived in every single neighborhood there is on the north side of the city; lived in several north and west suburbs; and had a delivery job where i drove all throughout the west and south side of the city (there is no east side there): i know chicago very, very well, too. Whence comes the grounds of my characterization of cleveland, compared to Chicago: basically that there is nothing chicagolike about cleveland, as in anything significantly more than any other mid-western or bible-belt city can offer; and, with respect to a stand alone comparison between the 2 cities in question: cleveland just plain "(insert some less offensive word than sucks)".

[andrew61]

I think alexmarison makes some good points. Here in Chicago, for example, I can walk from the Loop all the way to my Wrigleyville apartment five miles north without ever once going through a bad or economically depressed neighborhood, or even one that is anything less than bustling and lively.

In Cleveland you can't do that. You do have some very small pockets of thriving urbanity here and there, but they're separated from one another by vast stretches of dilapidation and decay.