Anyone Move from New York to Chicago? Thoughts? (Lombard, Rome: movies, school)

[blacknwhiterose]

Originally Posted by RonnieJonez

The point is really being missed. It has absolutely nothing to do with X amount of ethnic restaurants or a large immigrant base in a certain neighborhood. Midwestern culture by default sets the bar very low.

The OP is trying to ask in a polite way if Chicago feels like an international cosmopolitan city. The answer is no, and no amount of foreigners, museums, or ethnic restaurants can offset this. The vibe is extremely midwestern and it's a sportsbar city (Yes, there are martini lounges but the culture decidedly leans toward midwestern sportsbars). For being such a big city, there really is no cosmopolitan flair to it (sort of understandable when a city is sandwiched between Wisconsin & Indiana). Yes, there's very wealthy neighborhoods, high-end shopping/nightlife, but it really lacks the cosmopolitan flair you'd find in parts of NY or LA. Even the more "boring" parts of those cities can still feel a bit more cosmopolitan simply by virtue of knowing you're in that city.

Also, Miami & Vegas, being much smaller than Chicago, have a stronger cosmopolitan flair to them.

I recently moved to Chicago suburbs after some years in Los Angeles and I think the Chicago metro has lots of cosmopolitan flair, moreso than LA in some ways. Chicago has hustle-and-bustle, architecture, Millenium park, an amazing array of amazing restaurants, lounges and edgy dive bars. Chicago has top-notch public museums, quirky art galleries, a great underground music scene, a happening Salsa/Latin dance scene and creative festivals right and left. I've only been around here for a few months and I'm meeting other transplants and ethnic immigrants in spades. This city has a cool latino population, a historic black community, ethnic europeans (my family roots), asians and south asians... Chicago also has the sports bars, Wrigley Field and the "fratty" neighborhoods you speak of, it's sound like you've chosen to limit yourself to these experiences. I think your problem lies in your statement of "knowing you're in that city". This is true. Life is what you make of it. There are people who move to LA for entertainment, camp out on the west side, then wind up believing that the whole city is all about wannabe actors, pink drinks, beaches, and wannabe actors...Sad, it's their loss.

[tollfree]

LA & Chicago have nothing in common besides being in the same country.

I'd hope a city of 3 million has more than just sports bars.

[BigLake]

Originally Posted by RonnieJonez

LA & Chicago have nothing in common besides being in the same country.

I'd hope a city of 3 million has more than just sports bars.

You are right, LA and Chicago have literally nothing in common. In some ways, they are polar *opposites*. I am so thankful that I live in Chicago... big and clean, brash but friendly, cosmopolitan, bustling, culture-ridden, incredible dining and bars, affordable, green, urban, walkable/public transportable, four seasons, on and on. We have to put up with some crap (crime, schools) but all in all a wonderful place.

[usamathman]

Posted earlier.

Wanted to post once more before I got on the plane.

Spent this past weekend in chicago. Getting ready to head back to New York.

Like many have already said, no two cities are alike.

However, after exploring many areas of the chicago this weekend, I can easily say that someone that has lived in New York would not need much time to get acclimated if they were to relocate to downtown Chicago.

Downtown Chicago is probably as close a city as one can get if they want the NY highrise experience.

I found three neighborhoods that I absolutely love: Printers Row, Greektown, and River North.

Looked at craiglist for prices on studios and was shocked to see that there are such nice available units for $1400.

You cannot rent a room in Manhattan or north Brooklyn for that price.

Chicago does have its differences. I think New York still has it beat when it comes to entertainment options and unexplainable "pulse" that many talk about.

Still, in my opinion, this Chicago is as good of a city as any. I'm sold on the place.

One of the few places that a person can make $60K in and still afford to live in a nice downtown urban area.

[blacknwhiterose]

LA and NY do not hold the patent on cosmopolitan.

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by RonnieJonez

.

Also, Miami & Vegas, being much smaller than Chicago, have a stronger cosmopolitan flair to them.

That you would say a place like Vegas is more cosmopolitan than Chicago makes me think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term.

International tourism =/= cosmopolitanism. Vegas is "cosmopolitan" in the same way that Walt Disney World is cosmopolitan - it offers cheap thrills for the foreign masses but lacks much substance. When it comes to high culture places like Vegas and Miami look so cheap compared to Chicago. But I guess since they've got more people coming in from abroad you would say they're more "cosmopolitan"?

For me, cosmopolitan means the extent to which a city is competent based on global standards. When it comes to things like cultural institutions, dining, nightlife, hotels, attractions, etc. I don't see how you could say Chicago is not a competent global city. It certainly checks far more boxes than does a place like Miami or Vegas.

And who is saying Chicago isn't Midwestern? Is New York any less Northeastern because it's cosmopolitan? Is LA any less "West Coast"? No, Chicago helps shape the definition of Midwestern the way those other cities shape the definitions of their respective regions. It's not a region to be painted with a broad brush the way you seem to be trying to do.

[tollfree]

Cosmopolitan has a slightly different meaning to some. In terms of history, foreign consulates, direct airport connections, food variety, shopping, then yes, Chicago is very cosmopolitan.

However, to most, "cosmopolitan" also implies a glamour factor, which Vegas & Miami have more of. Those cities are far more evocative internationally, even being much smaller..

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by RonnieJonez

However, to most, "cosmopolitan" also implies a glamour factor, which Vegas & Miami have more of. Those cities are far more evocative internationally, even being much smaller..

That is not the meaning of the word "cosmopolitan". And I have no idea what "evocative internationally" is supposed to mean. That is a nonsensical phrase. Cosmopolitan can be somewhat synonymous with "worldly", but I really don't see that in Vegas. Miami is sort of the gateway to Latin America, so it's very cosmopolitan.

Now, if you had said that Vegas and Miami were more glamorous than Chicago, you might have had a case. But that's not what you said.

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by RonnieJonez

Cosmopolitan has a slightly different meaning to some. In terms of history, foreign consulates, direct airport connections, food variety, shopping, then yes, Chicago is very cosmopolitan.

However, to most, "cosmopolitan" also implies a glamour factor, which Vegas & Miami have more of. Those cities are far more evocative internationally, even being much smaller..

Well when I look at that definition the word "iconic" comes to mind. In that regard I would agree that Vegas and Miami definitely are more iconic than Chicago. And probably Disneyworld/Orlando too. And Mount Rushmore. And the Grand Canyon.

But when I think of cosmopolitan I think of cultural sophistication. And I think Chicago is a more culturally sophisticated city than those other two, which rely on rather unsophisticated aspects as the cornerstones of their international image (gaming/nightlife, beaches/weather/nightlife, respectively). Miami is a BIT different in that it is arguably the cultural center of the Spanish speaking world, but that by itself doesn't really make it cosmopolitan as the Spanish-speaking world is still just one part of the world.

[jonnynonos]

"Cosmopolitan" doesn't really mean anything. It's some sort of term pretentious people use to conflate fashion with worldliness and intellectual savvy.

You could go to any third rate university in the country and find "salons" where grad students are exploring the world of ideas; no sane person wants to go to them. Similarly I think you can find people in skinny jeans and thick glasses virtually anywhere these days.

Don't get me wrong, yes, London and NY are certainly more sophisticated than Chicago by nearly any measure. That is why I live in Chicago. Enough is enough. There is far more than enough theater, music, restaurants here for my taste. I don't feel a need to be in he eye of the cultural hurricane, which, in my opinion, is essentially meaningless these days anyway: there was a time when NYC was producing really cool, gritty art and music, but those says are long gone. CBGB is a John Varvatos store. It turned into Disneyland a long time ago. Culture these days is driven by third rate celebrity.

Anyway, my two cents. I think living in NY sounds fun at 22; at my age you couldn't pay me to live there.