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.
Wow, Chicago seems to be a very dirty, industrial trashy, the wealthy must shun it and Chicago really lacks beauty.
I was curious if a New Yorker? But your profile is not open to check. Few threads I've seen pitting Chicago vs NYC? But with NYC needing no need to fight for a win? It amazes me the LENGTH someone might take to what really GAVE CHICAGO ABSOLUTLY NO ENDEARING QUALITIES. NO GRANDEUR, UNLESS YOU LIKE SMOKESTACKS.....
Maybe Chicago is a place lacking in museums and finer amenities that a city that's all class as NYC has clearly over Chicago. Chicago sounds so dreary it may as well be Newark level in quantities and level. Sounds like I have a very low judge of Classiest, Grandeur and Beauty too have Chicago satisfy me....
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.
Last edited by clearlevel; 05-06-2017 at 11:40 PM..
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 a 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, whereas in Chicago, it's still very much 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, 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 bigger take on what a city can be. Maybe at one time most Americans cities were more 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.
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 criss-crossed 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, but Chicago is missing something that keeps it from being in the patheon 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 connected in an urban way that it is not. In New York City (London/Paris, etc.) You can get to any part on a 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, and then switched to become Los Angeles-like with sprawl.
I feel like the only other cities that kind of replicate 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, but they're not. I really do think it comes down to politics and how suburbs chose to become independent from the cities and take all the money away, and people want to not be a part of the Downtown and not be connected to it. All of Canada's are better in that regard. They all are much more walkable and urban and better transportation systems, even the littler ones. 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 group of people, choosing to not associate with another 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.
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 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
....
Have you been to Toronto?
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.
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.
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.
Sad thing I like Toronto better than any US CITY we have it is like NYC and Chicago but with less social problems
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.
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.
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.
That possibility exists, but perhaps not within our lifetimes..
I do see the chance that Chicago will grow based upon housing costs on both costs, although those same housing expenses decrease dramatically once you get an hour or so away from water. Worcester, MA is much cheaper than Boston, as are places like Springfield, MA, and Albany, NY.
I should also mention that everyone I've met who's visited Chicago has enjoyed it immensely...
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.
