Chicagoland is a better place to LIVE than NYC area (Manhattan: low crime, luxury)
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.
Well, I was talking to someone from Chicago, so I assume I didn't need to tell them about what Chicago has. It was the original poster (OP) that said that Chicago didn't have "trashy" parts, which is not true. Chicago has just as much if not more, like most cities. Maybe the OP had only ever been to fancy suburbs, I don't know.
Chicago has good transportation by American standards, but it doesn't approach New York City's size or London's size or Tokyo's size. I mean in terms of how people live and how most people in many of these cities don't even need a car, they really are a different type of city from Chicago, where it still very much is like a suburban city with a big Downtown. That's basically what it is.
Also, Chicago does have some world-class museums and lots of classy restaurants, but it doesn't have enough. It's a problem that not only Chicago has, but most cities in the United States have. They're not like European cities that are almost made to have numerous museums and monuments and a bigger take on what a city can be. Maybe at one time most Americans cities were grander, but the suburb and car has perhaps ruined that aspect of Americana. That and also the fact that most Americans prefer camping and being outdoors to being in urban areas.
I think Chicago is limited by it's location (a port that's inland and doesn't really lead to anywhere) and so that limited the growth of the city, but the city obviously served a big role during the 1850's when it became the center of the railroads that crisscrossed the farmlands of the midwest. Chicago became a huge meat-packing place and food distribution center. Chicago was the first city to have skyscrapers in the world (I think), so Chicago did have a history of building skyscrapers, so I'm well-aware of the large number of skyscrapers that are in the area. In terms of skyscrapers it definitely is the number 2 city (although Miami may surpass it eventually, especially if you include Miami Beach), but Chicago is missing something that keeps it from being in the pantheon of big cities around the world. It needs more museums. More transportation systems. More public display of art. I think they've concentrated all of this in the Downtown area and along the lakeshore, but outside of the Downtown area, is there anything out there. It needs to be more urbanly connected in an way that it right now is not. In New York City (London/Paris, etc.) You can get to any part by subway. That's not how it is in Chicago. Chicago is afraid to be a truly urban experience. It's just more like a traditional American city. It really isn't that much different from Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston or Dallas, except that it has a glorified Downtown. Like almost all American cities, Chicago chose to embrace suburbanism and the city went from being like New York City in the 1930's to switching and becoming Los Angeles-like with sprawl.
I feel like the only other city that kind of replicates New York City in North America is Toronto, Canada. They have a good transportation system and neighborhoods just like New York City and it's not afraid to be urban, but at the same time be suburban. Toronto is what most cities in America should be like. I really do think it comes down to politics and how suburbs chose to become independent from cities and took all the money away, and people not wanting be a part of the Downtowns. All of Canada's cities are better in that regard. They all are much more walkable and urban and have better transportation systems, even the littler cities. It really is a sad state of America, that there isn't that much leadership in modern cities, the way that there used to be (like in the early 1900's), and certainly not all aspects of the cities are getting the proper treatment they deserve. No city should have excessive blight, but in America we've chosen to disregard most cities and suburbanization is partly the cause of that. One part of a city choosing to not associate with another part of the city. Chicago is just not worthy of being recommended as a city that truly represents something worth showing. Yeah, they've got a nice Downtown and a nice waterfront and some museums and some good pizza and interesting neighborhoods, but is it really a place that can hold the attention of a Londoner or Parisian or Tokyo resident? Does it have the artistry of a Venice, Italy or Rome, Italy. No, it doesn't.
Maybe someday things can change, though. At this point, I think almost all cities (including New York City to some extent) in the US need a really big shake-up to redefine what it means to live in great cities.
Really you have this need to downplay Chicago and try some passive/aggressive ANC give it a hint of things but far from enough. No one should need to downplay a city that seems to be personal? Yet you say what others told you? Its overkill. I personally prefer the grandeur, clean and more refined feel to Chicago. It even polishes its grit and as I noted. Chose to rebuild NOT AS A NYC.
No matter how you downplay Chicago's offerings, as if it lacks attributes wealthy desire and appreciate and mere give it a meh to Toronto (I'm not bringing that here) I TOTALLY DISAGREE. I understand that any New Yorker will downplay it. It was in the past and for you merely still flyover.
It usually is boastful Torontonians who bring their city in and usually a boast of better then Chicago. They still give it a hell of a lot more credit then you. Honestly, to BRING in Toronto to DEMEAN CHICAGO EVEN MORE IS REDICULES.
I applaud NYC's subway system. But it NEGLECTED IT FOR DECADES. Some stations were awful and most many times worst then 3rd world cities. But it was New York. Fa'geta'bout it. You want to downplay Chicago's L by praising Toronto's? I actually love Chicago's L. But I'm not getting in a pissing match where I feel a need to defend Chicago over even Toronto here.
I like Chicago's demeanor of keeping as much Classy new and old and can still pull of gritty that it polishes up. I love how it has totally restored old skyscrapers that is outside as well as inside. I love its currently restoring its L Stations though the Loop to original look and repaint the elevated structure.
Chicago comes across as far more polished, clean and grand it how its vistas of old and new blend so well. It gives off a elegance with NO ARROGANCE. Its parks showcase the core as a front lawn to the Palace. Its shopping offerings with restaurants that utilize its sidewalk for dining and flowers encircling the outdoor seating is pure CLASS too.
I Love how NO GATED SHOPS are seen in Chicago's core and good neighborhood. MANHATTAN SHOULD BAN THEM TOTALLY HECK, ITS A SAFE CITY RIGHT? But its NYC.... just fa'geta'bout'em. I see bags of garbage on sidewalks 3rd world. Last time choosing a place for lunch just off of Times Square and seated on the balcony overlooking bags on sidewalk. But its NYC.... just fa'geta'bout'it.
My problem was I knew CHICAGO FIRST as a Big city before Manhattan. So seeing things that clearly added no class in Manhattan.... did not impress me. I knew enough grand old skyscrapers and new in Chi-town to had my eyes more ON THE DETAILS as I walked Manhattan. But for the key blocks of 5th Ave with its Grand Churches. Far less impressed me as these less then classy aspects took away for me.
I love Chicago adds greens and flowers well. Its neighborhoods requiring green-frontage a CLASSY CHOICE TOO, You want HIGHER-END Skyscraper Living to Lofts. Chicago offers it. But I LOVE THE TREE-LINED NEIGHBORHOODS That only NYC's brownstone areas can even compare. I like CLASSY AS A CORE VALUE.
Chicago's core has every aspect a downtown could have. Any city would do well to model there Core after it. I never downplay NYC's offerings. But the PRESENTATION in Manhattan that should shine. Falls way short for me. No one should visit Chicago thinking it is just a smaller scale Manhattan. BUT WHAT CHICAGO OFFERS TODAY IS STILL A KNOCKOUT. BUT IN A SMALLER, WRAPPED WITH CLASS FULL PACKAGE PRESENTATION AND A DESERVING BOW ON TOP. IT NEED NOT FEEL ANY INFERIORITY IN MY OPINION.
New York to me beats out Chicago in three main areas...
1. Diversity
2. Around the clock entertainment
3. Job opportunities / Salary
NYC has a pulse that no other city can match. Can also feel like your living in hell on earth when your money is tight and you yearn for more privacy and space.
Other than these three things, I can't see why anyone wouldn't choose a city like Chicago to live in. It's a premier city and still probably the best bang for buck as far as urban living is concerned. I am looking forward to the opportunity to get back.
Just want to say, the more I travel to the east coast the more I appreciate living near Chicago. Except for maybe those who can't afford to live in Manhattan, how is Chicago not the best city the US to live in or near?
Manhattan is surrounded by undesirable parts of NYC, the industrial southern end of CT, the trashiest parts of NJ (not only the slums but also the marshy industrial areas).
The Statue of Liberty, Times Square, the Twin Towers Memorial, seeing them once is enough - they're not a quality of life booster.
Chicago has more than enough culture.
Hills are a nuisance. Good ol' flat Chicago is convenient.
I like hills. Akron, Cincinnati, Richmond, DC. Yeah, nothing wrong with hills.
Just want to say, the more I travel to the east coast the more I appreciate living near Chicago. Except for maybe those who can't afford to live in Manhattan, how is Chicago not the best city the US to live in or near?
Manhattan is surrounded by undesirable parts of NYC, the industrial southern end of CT, the trashiest parts of NJ (not only the slums but also the marshy industrial areas).
The Statue of Liberty, Times Square, the Twin Towers Memorial, seeing them once is enough - they're not a quality of life booster.
Chicago has more than enough culture.
Hills are a nuisance. Good ol' flat Chicago is convenient.
I would just like to say, from someone who has visited Chicago frequently because of family and has lived in the New York metropolitan area their entire life, your post sounds flat out ignorant.
First of all, Manhattan isn't surrounded by "undesirable parts of NYC". Yes, the South Bronx isn't necessarily the nicest area. However, their murder rate is currently FAR lower than the south neighborhoods of Chicago. Also, Astoria (Queens) and Park Slope/Brooklyn Heights (Brooklyn) are far from undesirable, in fact they are probably some of the most sought after neighborhoods in the whole city.
Also, yes, Elizabeth and Newark aren't necessarily nice either, however, Alpine, Englewood Cliffs, 95% of Bergen/Passaic counties, Hoboken, and parts of Jersey city with up and coming luxury high rises/downtowns are far from trashy too.
Also, your comment about the tourist traps make no sense. Who would move to New York just for the tourist traps? That would make you an idiot anyway. Thats like saying someone is going to move to Chicago for Millennium Park in hopes that it will boost their quality of life.
Chicago is a fine city, but know that your post sounds extremely ignorant and not everyone has the same view as you.
Why would anyone want to be like the places you mention? If Chicago ever became like New York I would be gone real fast! Who the hell wants that filth or the rudeness or the insane crowd? That is not living. that is hell on earth
I thought that's what people like about living in the city. The huge crowds. The traffic.
It's rail infrastructure is far more akin to Chicago than to New York. I would not say it's measurably better than Chicago in that regard. They have less than half as many grade separated rail stations as Chicago does. They used tokens for their rail system for longer than Chicago or New York did. I think the idea that Toronto is more like New York than Chicago is laughable.
Plus, Toronto doesn't even run their subways overnight - only New York and Chicago do.
And then you claim Chicago doesn't have *enough* internationally significant museums and yet what internationally significant museums does Toronto have? None. None of Toronto museums are significant outside of Canada. Chicago's three biggest museums have all made significant contributions in their fields on the international stage. And the Art Institute is probably second only to the Met in significance in the art world for American museums.
Yeah, I've been to Toronto. The rail in Toronto is quite extensive, if you add their street car system into the mix, which also goes underground in certain parts. Subway + Street cars, makes Toronto a huge transportation complex. Toronto is very well-connected. You don't need a car.
I was talking more about how the city is organized, though. Toronto just has a good balance of big city living, with big suburb living (Toronto also has the widest expressway lanes) and at the same time a good transportation system. It's just a well-designed city. It even has its own "Times Square" and giant urban malls and a great park system.
I will say, Chicago does have a few really good museums, but that's a technicality. Those museums could be anywhere. They just happen to be in Chicago.
It's not Chicago isn't significant. I just feel like as a city, the Downtown area is a facade. It looks like a big city, but then it's really just a few blocks of skyscrapers, and then it's the expressway and then it's just houses and then lots of suburbs. Would you really recommend people visit Chicago? How many days can you spend there? I know compared to most cities, Chicago is better and nicer. Maybe I'll just say that. It's better than most American cities. But, I just feel like it's not like New York City and it's not like the other cities around the world. And as others have stated, maybe Chicagoans don't want their city to be a big urban metropolis anyway. That's okay too. I was just answering the original OP's comments about how Chicago compares to New York. I think Chicago has lots of cool amenities compared to most American cities.
Yea, I don't see how Toronto currently does better with cultural institutions or mass transit. Toronto does seem to have a much clearer plan in how it wants to improve mass transit and also is currently moving towards make mass transit among places outside of getting to and from downtown better. Overall, Chicago seems to offer far more than Toronto though also suffers from greater social ills. Toronto's main positive in comparison to Chicago seems to be that people are generally more upbeat about itself and its population continues to grow at a pretty good clip.
What about the Toronto Streetcars? They're pretty cool and very much extend the mass transit rail map and they go underground in parts of it too.
I'll take a different perspective. I think that Chicago not being an ocean port will work to its advantage. As the 21st century progresses, Chicago will have a definitive advantage over New York, Boston, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle. Why? All these port cities are on either the Atlantic and Pacific and with rising sea waters and the intensity of ocean storms, these cities may well face a far more bleak future than Chicago does. Scientists are predicting that our vast coastal populations are being threatened and that areas along our coast will need to be abandoned. Our coastal areas are extremely threatened.
Actually, I was talking about why in the 1800's Chicago didn't grow as much as it could, until the railway came. Meaning most cities were ports in the 1800's and 1900's. That being said, that is interesting assessment that you've made, which is that perhaps in the future being it might not matter that much. That being ports still play a big role in economies. We still trade via boats, and that's what makes cities like New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Tokyo, Hong Kong, as big as they are.
Correct me if I'm wrong but is the nearest beach attraction to Manhattan the one in Ocean City MD which is 5 hours away? Chicago has its beaches within the city and less than an hour away at Indiana Dunes Beach.
I got linked here from another thread, so I wasn't going to say anything but I saw this and am just Stunned by how wrong this is! You do realize NY is a coastal state + city right? And 4/5 boroughs are on islands.
I know that the beaches inside NYC city limits are not very well-known outside NY (except for Coney Island), but have you really never heard of Long Island? Or the Jersey Shore?
Chicago's core has every aspect a downtown could have. Any city would do well to model there Core after it. I never downplay NYC's offerings. But the PRESENTATION in Manhattan that should shine. Falls way short for me. No one should visit Chicago thinking it is just a smaller scale Manhattan. BUT WHAT CHICAGO OFFERS TODAY IS STILL A KNOCKOUT. BUT IN A SMALLER, WRAPPED WITH CLASS FULL PACKAGE PRESENTATION AND A DESERVING BOW ON TOP. IT NEED NOT FEEL ANY INFERIORITY IN MY OPINION.
I wasn't trying to downplay Chicago, since I assumed I didn't need to explain Chicago to a Chicagoan. When the original poster (OP) said New York City was "trashy" I thought he meant the way the factories and smokestacks looked, so I just said that Chicago had the same thing. As does Toronto. But, anyway, the point is I just feel like New York City and Tokyo are a different kind of city than Chicago. Chicago is kind of in the middle of an urban city and a suburban. It is unique city in the US. I'm not really trying to criticize it, since it is what it is. There's no sense in wanting to make a city be something it's not.
What I do like about Chicago's is that as you've they've definitely been working on making the Chicago Downtown and the North Shore very nice for condos to be built and for city life. I also think that they keep building new modern buildings with unique architecture, so Chicago will continue to grow as a center for art. Perhaps maybe that's why Chicago seems a little classier. Just because it's very easy for people who live in the suburb to get in on the action of being in a big city. Maybe that's why it's a little cleaner.
Whereas, New York City just has a lot more people crammed into all 5 boroughs (8 million in a tight urban place), so that it's completely different experience and feels different. I agree, that New York City doesn't feel like it belongs in United States. It does feel like a foreign country in many parts, just because of the crowds and dirtiness of it all.
I'm not even from Toronto, I just have been there and remember it having a nice blend between city (it's kind of like New York) but then also has the suburb lifestyle too. I guess Chicago and Toronto are similar in more ways than not. I feel like Toronto embraces the city life a little more with every part of Toronto being included into the city planning. Maybe that's the difference. New York City and Toronto both have huge governments that control a large portion of the land. Whereas, Chicago is smaller, but has huge suburbs. Maybe, that has something to do with it.
Either way, Chicago still is a pretty city as you said, and the lakefront is beautiful, the museums are nice, and the Downtown area becomes a playground for the rich, instead of this place where the whole city comes to work. Like most people visiting Downtown are from somewhere else, instead of people actually living in Downtown, the way it would be in other major cities.
It's still good to hear your insights, though.
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.
