In love with this city... (Chicago, Oak Lawn: sales, transfer to, schools)

[FlyiMetro]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

This is what posters are like on just about every other forum on city-data.com

If you look at just about anywhere else, there are posters that discuss both the good and the bad about any place. Thats what this forum is meant for.

On most other forums, I don't think I would be asked this, because people in other places know about and discuss the pros and cons.

I agree with what you are saying. Ive been on city data for a while now...you have your bashers that dont even live in said city, you have your over zealous homers who try so hard to make said city seem like the promise land, then you have normal people who like and dislike many things about said city...you really have to read through everything to see whats up about any city. getting the overall opinion is what is most important.

[sydbarrett]

Originally Posted by prairiestate

I live in an inner suburb southwest of Chicago...and the last bus is around 9:00.

Blame Pace.

[prairiestate]

Originally Posted by sydbarrett

Blame Pace.

What does Pace have to do with the 53A - S. Pulaski bus operated by the CTA?

[sydbarrett]

Originally Posted by prairiestate

What does Pace have to do with the 53A - S. Pulaski bus operated by the CTA?

You live in the burbs right? It is not the CTA's responsibility to provide good coverage to the suburbs.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Lorielicious

No, I'm not. I'm talking about the city limits of each place.


Then I am completely at a loss as to how you've come to the conclusions you have. You seriously sound like someone who's spend almost time time within either city.

This is just factually untrue. The south and east sides have the heaviest concentration of immigrants, and are not at all the most densely populated areas of the city by a long shot. I'm not even sure where that idea came from. The denser areas, and this should come as a surprise to no one, are the places people want to live most, like the West Side, Mid-Wilshire, Silverlake, and to an increasing extend, downtown (which has changed greatly and for the better over the last 5-10 years). Again, feel free to (dis)like whatever place you choose, but from what I've seen, your ideas are based almost entirely in fiction.

This is the only thing that makes any sense. Yes there's a lot more stucco in LA than Chi, so if you find that prettier to look at then I can't argue with subjective opinion. I actually prefer brick buildings. I live in one now and lived in one in LA.

Well, it isn't based on fiction. I spent three whole days in the LA area trying pack in as much as I could analyzing the maps to make efficient time of driving from one place to another.

Yes, downtown is much better than it used to be, but it is not really the biggest nightlife and entertainment hot spots in LA. Hollywood (Hollywood from Vine to Highland) and the Sunset Strip in West Hollywood is still the biggest nightlife hot spots. They are sort of like River North minus 3/4 of the high rises and with mountain foothills begining just a few blocks away.

These areas may be densely populated but the include some of the unbuildable ridges and canyon sides that are not far away, which brings down population density and provides space for local wlidlife.

That was the thing about LA, I was schocked how far away from the city you felt when you got up onto Mullholand Dr. The whole areas along Mulholland from Griffith Park to Topanga Canyon is a true urban oasis. There is NO equivalent of that in Chicago. You obviously have an enormous open space to the east of Chicago, but unless you can tread water for a very long time, or know how to sail you can't the most of it.

Mid Wilshire maybe a hot spot, I don't know I really didn't go through there.

But I was thinking of these spots when LA impressed me:

Hollywood: (H-wood and Vine/Highland)
Sunset Strip, West Hollywood
Yes - Downtown, but just as one place among many (I loved EL Pueblo/Olvera St.)
Ventura Blvd, (Sherman Oaks/Studio City)
Santa Monica (I love Santa Monica 3rd st. Promenade/Pier/Beach/Main Street, actually I like Main street the best - a little less commercial).
Westwood/Getty Center. (Amazing views from the Getty!)
Pasadena (loved Old Town, proximity to Angeles Crest highway, just missed the rose bowl).
Silverlake (drove through it, looks like a cool neighborhood - like a hilly Wicker Park with mock Spanish architecture).
Drove through South Bay (Hermosa/Manhattan on way back to airport).

Beverly Hills is overrated.

Also, one of these places alone might not "wow" somone, but collectively, its amazing how many cool areas there are to explore.

[5Lakes]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

See - thats the thing I really don't understand. Don't get me wrong, San Diego is nice, but its economy is not really founded on solid ground.

Its largely based on military spending, and with federal budget cuts over the next couple years, I'm not sure if its going to be the best place to be from an economic standpoint.

Everyone loves San Diego and its nice, but I disagree that it offers just about anything that LA has but with fewer downsides.

The city and metro area of LA is like 3 to 4 times as big as San Diego city and metro area. LA has more museums, more nightlife, more interesting things to do all around. Orange County would just be a day trip. Probably would less likely live there.

If I were, (which I have alluded to), to say that Detroit, Cleveland, or Cincinnati have just about anything that Chicago does without the downsides people would respond to me like I'm a crack smoking retard. (I mean no offense to the mentally challenged amongst us). (Apart from environmental and fiscal stewardship, I prefer driving to public transportation which I why I don't see eye to eye with people who love Chicago more than other cities which are seen as sprawled (although Cleveland does have a light rail system)).

I think if what you say concerning San Diego relative to LA, then I think there can be an argument of the above.

I appreciate the suggestion, but I have heard the exact same thing you said or expressed many, many times about San Diego.

BTW: I am not ga ga over celebrity gossip, but I have always found the entertainment industry a little fascinating. I really don't care per se about celebrities, but if were to choose, everything else being equal, between two vibrant urban night life districts in two different cities, I would probably choose the one that has people that work in the entertainment industry that hang around there. Its just a more interest thing to be around, than people who work for major financial institutions.

Yes, LA has better cultural amenities and trendier nightlife than San Diego but you know that is not the real appeal of SoCal. The appeal is the weather, beaches, and outdoor recreation; which San Diego offers just as well as LA does but with less traffic, ghetto areas, and annoying people. Saying that San Diego is a military town is ridiculous as well since it's a metro area of over 3 million people.

It's funny that you bring up the Cleveland to Chicago comparison since I'm originally from the Cleveland area. In my view Cleveland is not a smaller version of Chicago because it does not offer true urban life like Chicago does. Neither does any other Midwest city, and urban life is the appeal of Chicago over other cities in the Midwest.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by 5Lakes

Yes, LA has better cultural amenities and trendier nightlife than San Diego but you know that is not the real appeal of SoCal. The appeal is the weather, beaches, and outdoor recreation; which San Diego offers just as well as LA does but with less traffic, ghetto areas, and annoying people. Saying that San Diego is a military town is ridiculous as well since it's a metro area of over 3 million people.

It's funny that you bring up the Cleveland to Chicago comparison since I'm originally from the Cleveland area. In my view Cleveland is not a smaller version of Chicago because it does not offer true urban life like Chicago does. Neither does any other Midwest city, and urban life is the appeal of Chicago over other cities in the Midwest.

Why does the appeal of SoCAl have to ONLY be weather, beaches, and outdoor recreation?? Is that some kind of rule. Why not have these things plus greater nightlife oppurtunities and cultural amenities?

In terms of comparing Chicago to Cleveland I refer you to Andrew61s posts.

Many if not most people like urban amenities (whether cultural or nightlife/entertainment), but not necessarily the high urban population density and urban public transportation. To many, those things that set Chicago apart, don't necessarily add value to a place. To many density and transportation at that level are just a hassle. So like Andrew61 said, smaller midwestern big cities offer some of the similar cultural urban amenities, with less of urban hassle.

I really don't understand this idea that a place has to be valued either for weather/beaches/outdoor recreation OR only the ultimate urban lifestyle.

Its very strange to me, and you are not the only one that sees it that. I simply go against what people are supposed to think about and categorize cities and see things my own way.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Tex, how old are you, and what do you do for a living?

[Lorielicious]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Well, it isn't based on fiction. I spent three whole days in the LA area trying pack in as much as I could analyzing the maps to make efficient time of driving from one place to another.

Ah, well those DAYS surely trump my 25 years of residence. I'll defer to your knowledge.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Lorielicious

Ah, well those DAYS surely trump my 25 years of residence. I'll defer to your knowledge.

Jeez, I'm just saying I enjoyed the places that I visited and had a good impression of the place!

The point was . . . it wasn't based on fiction, it was based on actual visit.