What other cities you Chicagoan have lived at and how did it compare? (Washington: hotel, house)

[noid_1985]

the only other city I lived in was Charlotte, NC back in the late 90s..

Charlotte is a very beautiful and clean city, however it lacks character. There aren't too many ethnic neighborhoods it's just simply black /white and just recently hispanic.

[yoyobubba]

Originally Posted by Jesse69

I've mostly lived in Chicago, but I took temp jobs in Bowling Green KY and Houston Texas. It was very fun and adventuresome living at these 2 places!

How these cities compare to Chicago:

Bowling Green - small town very little traffic but good selection of fast food, at least it has a Sonic and Waffle House. Best dentist I have ever had was here. Inexpensive living, but for big city fun drive S to Nashville.

Houston - I love this city BETTER than Chicago! Better fast food, shopping, groceries, less traffic, NO WINTER SNOW, more shopping malls. But doesn't have a park that can compare to Chicago's LSD. Hurricane Season and expensive electricity and high insurance rates hurts though. Chicago has better hangouts to meet people, and is a better "biking" city. Houston has way cheaper rents and Housing. I almost bought a Medical Center Condo for $38,000!

Who knows what city will be next? I'm starting to go on a Nationwide jobhunt soon after my Sept 26th vacation to France!

Very strange reasons for liking/not liking a place. Fast Food? Dentists? LOL sorry but I had to laugh a little bit.

[Snowden Is Cold]

I lived in London for a few months and loved it! It's one of the few truly global cities, serving as a center of practically everything. The history of London dwarfs any city in the US. For an American like myself, it's quite mesmerizing to walk among buildings that are hundreds of years old that serve as constant reminders of how people lived ages before us. While I admire the diversity of the architecture in Chicago, I think I prefer the more consistent styles of London, which give each section of the city a more defined character and make you feel like you've been transported to another world.

The layout of the city is like a work of art itself. Though the winding streets make it much easier to get lost, they are less boring than a grid system. The transportation system is great. The Tube goes practically everywhere and has aesthetically pleasing stations with licensed musicians playing in some of them. London is a very green city with lots of squares and parks. There is so much to do and see there in terms of night life, museums, sports, concerts, you name it. I still keep coming across things that I wish I would have done when I was in London. Plus from there you can fly to most of the other major European cities for like $20.

[TabulaRasa]

The only other city I've lived in besides Chicago is Kansas City. All other places I've lived have been small towns in predominantly rural areas.

In comparing the two, there's the obvious factor that KC is so much smaller. The entire KC metro, all suburbs in both Kansas and Missouri included, has a population of just over two million , whereas the population of Chicago proper is encroaching upon three million, not including suburbs. However, KC does a good job of maintaining urban cultural amenities, and I've always felt like I sacrificed little that that I had in Chicago, and gained quite a bit due to much-increased affordability in KC. KC has wonderful parks, boulevards, and fountains, including one of the largest city parks in the nation, Swope Park, which is more than two times the size of NYC's Central Park. Another pro for KC, to me, is the weather. No more brutal winters, like Chicago. A bit of snow, occasional ice storm, but mostly, it's mild. As a small-town and rural person by birth and background, I also appreciate that one can drive out of KC and be in the country in no time...the bucking traffic through miles of crowded expressways and rings and rings of suburbs, like I always had to do in Chicago to get to my parents' farm in north central Illinois, is a nonissue. KC is very definitely a city, but the countryside's not far away and is totally accessible. Both cities do a great job preserving and honoring their heritage. Both cities struggle terribly with maintaining quality public education options, which is not a feather in either's cap.

KC lacks a lakefront, which is a major point in Chicago's favor. And KC is, in my opinion, less diverse and more dramatically segregated than Chicago, and that sucks. Chicago can support excellent public transportation options, Kansas City cannot and does not, so you really almost HAVE to own a car, which also sucks, by comparison. But in most ways, KC compares favorably to Chicago, to me, and in some ways (mostly those that are affordability-related), surpasses it.

[andrew61]

I was born and raised in Cleveland and lived there the first 34 years of my life before moving to Chicago. Cleveland has been sometimes characterized as "a little Chicago" and in some aspects, it's true.

As for cultural, recreational, and entertainment amenities, Cleveland has pretty much everything Chicago has. Both cities, for example, have orchestras rated among the top in the world, as well as first-rate art museums. Both have excellent theater districts -- Cleveland's Playhouse Square is the largest such district outside of NYC -- although I think Chicago has many more smaller theater venues.

Although both cities are on lakes, Chicago's lakefront park system far outranks Cleveland's. Although Cleveland has lakefront parks, they are small and isolated from each other, separated by a lot of industrial junk.

On the other hand, Cleveland has an "Emerald Necklace" of parkland that rings around the entire city almost uninterrupted (although most of it is actually in the suburbs). This is where your bike trails and such are, whereas in Chicago they're on the lakefront. Chicago's disjointed and isolated "Forest Preserve" areas pale in comparison.

Chicago has much better shopping downtown. Cleveland's downtown mostly lacks retail these days... there were plenty of department stores downtown once upon a time, but they're all long gone. Cleveland has two major shopping malls downtown -- Tower City Center and the Galleria -- but both are struggling. In Cleveland, you have to travel to the suburbs for most shopping, even to go to a Borders. Same with movies... there are almost no first-run movie theaters left inside the city limits (except for Tower City Center), you have to go to the suburbs for that.

Same with ethnic restaurants, etc. You have plenty of that stuff in Cleveland, with nearly as much variety as in Chicago, but it's scattered all over the place, including the suburbs. You have to travel vast distances to take advantage of everything the city has to offer. It's probably because Cleveland doesn't have the kind of urban population density Chicago has. For this reason, although you could get by in Cleveland without a car depending on where you live, it's a lot tougher to have a really full life without one. Cleveland has very decent public transit for a city its size, but trains and buses don't run so often outside of weekday rush hours. It's usually easy to use public transportation to commute to and from a 9-to-5 job downtown, less easy to use it for other things... especially on Sundays when many buses only run once an hour and others don't run at all.

The upside is that if you do drive a car in Cleveland, there is far less traffic to contend with than in Chicago. In fact, driving is extremely easy there, and you can get from any part of the metro area to virtually any other part in 45 minutes tops (except when there's a snowstorm). And in most parts of town, parking is easy and not a problem.

Cleveland's downtown can often seem pretty dead, even at rush hour. The bustle, energy, and vitality found as a matter of course in Chicago is usually lacking, except during special events. On the other hand, Cleveland has a slower, less frenetic pace which I find less stressful.

Chicago's neighborhoods, on average, are in much healthier condition than Cleveland's. There's a lot more gentrification and affluence here. Cleveland is more of a down-on-the-heels blue-collar town that has seen better days. It has yet to shed its "Rust Belt" image and reinvent itself.

Although there is some gentrification and rejuvenation of old neighborhoods in Cleveland close to downtown, I'd say about 80 percent of the city is "ghetto", with most of the other 20 percent barely hanging on. Even in the gentrified areas, crime can be a problem. Many yuppies and white-collar types choose to live in a few of the more urban inner-ring suburbs (Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights).

Chicago has a much better "singles scene" and more nightlife overall. In particular, the gay district on Halsted, where you can walk to a dozen or more bars in a one-mile stretch, really has no counterpart in Cleveland. Cleveland's gay bars are more spread out and require driving to them (which sucks), and many are located in neighborhoods you'd be afraid to walk through.

I like the Cleveland Public Library better than Chicago's... I can find things there that I can't find here. Also better in Cleveland is its "Little Italy" area, one of the top such areas in the country and far superior to Chicago's version on Taylor Street. Also unique to Cleveland is its West Side Market, a food market with many different vendors/stands which is very old-world European in nature... Chicago seems to have no counterpart (and neither does any other American city I've ever visited, as far as I can tell).

Both cities are cosmopolitan and ethnically diverse, although Hispanics and Asians are by far better represented in Chicago, much more numerous.

Weather: Pretty similar, although Cleveland's summer and winter temperature extremes are slightly more moderate. However, Cleveland has more overcast days year-round and quite a bit more snow in winter, especially in the "snowbelt" area east of the city which gets a lot of lake-effect snow.

Cost of living: Cleveland is by far more affordable, especially housing. I'd say rents are about half what they are in Chicago for comparable spaces/areas, and buying a house or condo costs much less than half. On the other hand, Cleveland has very high state and local income taxes, in addition to a fairly high sales tax (not as high as Chicago's 10.25 percent, though).

Although Cleveland is Midwestern, it's just barely so, and there's a noticeable New England/East Coast influence. The city was founded by people from Connecticut at a time when Ohio hadn't yet gotten statehood. In fact, the entire Northeast Ohio area once belonged to Connecticut and was known as the "Western Reserve". You could say that Cleveland is where the East meets the Midwest.

One thing I preferred about Cleveland was that if you wanted to get away from the city for just an afternoon, it was pretty easy to do. You could take a drive and be out in the countryside in no time at all, and there was plenty to do within an hour's drive of Cleveland -- Cedar Point, Amish Country, etc.

[5Lakes]

Cleveland: Pretty much agree with andrew61's comments above. Cleveland is not as bad as people make it out to be and actually has a lot to offer in terms of culture, bars, restaurants, and recreation. It could use a serious shot of gentrification in the inner city though. Many of trendier neighborhoods are still rough around the edges and have not yet turned the corner. The downtown has lots of bars and restaurants, but it could use more residents to sustain a more consistent vibrancy. These aspects are improving, but not as fast as I would like to see. Some of the inner ring burbs are like extensions of the city and are good places for going to bars and restaurants without the gritty feel found closer to downtown. Cleveland has a good bar scene but does not really have areas that are ground zero for singles like Lakeview or Wicker Park. The people in Cleveland are more blue collar and generally more "real" than in Chicago, although negative attitudes from many of the locals can really get to me. I'm originally from northeast Ohio and would consider moving back under the right circumstances.

San Diego: Great for outdoor activities, but is not really an urban type city. Downtown San Diego is good though, and is one of the best for a city its size. It was great having nearby access to the ocean, mountains, and desert for outdoor recreation - San Diego's strengths are Chicago's weaknesses. San Diego is much nicer along the coastal communities than inland, where you will find a lot a shabby looking suburban areas that lack greenery. The cost of living is much higher in San Diego if you are looking to buy, but not that much more if you are renting. Of course you can't really get away with not having a car there. The people are generally easy going in San Diego, but can be a bit flaky. Many people out there are transplants and it seems like a very transient type city in that regard. The transplants in San Diego are more diverse than Chicago's and come from a wider range of places and backgrounds. Like Chicago there are a lot of singles who are drawn the area and there are neighborhoods that cater to them. The people in Chicago feel more "vanilla" than in San Diego. Also, I really miss the Mexican food you can get in San Diego.

Akron: Pretty much a generic smallish American city. Nothing really that bad about the place, but nothing that good either. I suppose it has some interesting old-money neighborhoods and parts of the city are hilly and forested which is nice. The city is mostly void of pedestrian friendly areas, which really sucks. It is really cheap to live there, which worked out well for me while living there because I was in college and poor at the time. The people are generally cool, although you will come across a good amount who are provincial or redneckish. Nobody lives downtown, but it is adjacent to a large university and has some bars that are busy on weekends. Probably a pretty good place to raise a family, but not a place to be if you are single and over 25. Although my favorite bar ever happens to be in Akron, and I have been to a lot of different bars in a lot of different cities.

Other than those the places I have lived in are small town or rural.

[kek1993]

I have lived way too many places. Chicago was always my home, and I hope to go back there some day. Loved those snow days, when it snows in Chicago, it can really snow. Same with rain, when it rains there, it can pour. Who remembers those 17 year (?) cicadas? Gross. Nothing beats Chicago pizza.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by kek1993

I have lived way too many places. Chicago was always my home, and I hope to go back there some day. Loved those snow days, when it snows in Chicago, it can really snow. Same with rain, when it rains there, it can pour. Who remembers those 17 year (?) cicadas? Gross. Nothing beats Chicago pizza.

I ate them.

[colinhayes]

Most of my life has been spent in Louisville, KY, and I've only lived here for a little over a month.

grocery stores: not as good here, they feel dirtier and have a smaller selection of quality foods
roads: wow.
public transit: surprisingly usable system here. Luckily most places I go are near an L stop, because taking a bus takes FOREVER. If I need to take a bus to get somewhere, I just bike or drive instead at this point.
microbreweries: Chicago has maybe 1 worth a damn. what the hell? louisville had like 4 or 5 and they all rocked.
coffee: chicago sure is obsessed with dunkin donuts swill. Louisville had of have had somewhere around 10 roasteries
stores: it's hard to find a store where it really feels like the employees know much about what they do. I'm still having trouble finding a good liquor store.
bars: so many expensive bars! hard liquor is way too overpriced in most places, but the beer selection is pretty awesome almost everywhere.
people: friendlier than I expected here

Chicago has a different feel than Louisville, but not to much different. I really love Louisville, and I'm liking Chicago a lot too, I just wish that the city was cheaper and quicker to get around in. Also, fix your damn roads.

[Chicago60614]

^ sounds like you just need more time to explore and find places.