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.
Chicago doesnt have any natural beauty what so ever, save the forest preseves that werent paved over. Everything wonderful about the city is man made. Which is an impressive feat. LA has natural beauty and everything man made is somthing less than desired. People just never seem to understand that with this it is basically comparing, apples and oranges.
Location: Los Angeles-213.323.310.818/San Diego-619.858.760
705 posts, read 3,297,408 times
Reputation: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1
The Great Lakes are not the natural beauty?
Yes, but I have NEVER heard anybody say "Im going to Chicago to visit the great lakes!". I have a good friend who lives in Chicago with his wife and kids and they never mention anything about the lakes. I stay in touch with them because they are trying to move back to California. Also, yes I have to agree that Chicago has more political influences, architecture, finance and commerce....but! Los Angeles is not far behind and it wouldnt surprise me if it cought up. I dont think it would surpass it unless Chicago went down the drain but hopefully that doesnt happen. In the end, all that political influence, finance and whatever else isnt helping Chicago be more renowned than Los Angeles throughout the world.
So true. New York and Chicago face gridlock to a lesser extent because they have nowhere near the amount of vehicles, registered or not, that the Los Angeles area has. They don't have the temperature inversions so effective when they trap pollution against the San Gabriel mountain range because,... they don't have mountains! And the people who immigrate to L. A. don't seem to mind the pollution and traffic because they've usually had it much worse where they came from. Making Los Angeles, again, the most diversified world culture.
Obviously, you've never been to New York. We have mountains.
Considering LA has perfect weather, they don't take advantage of it. People aren't out walking around, they aren't out socializing with people, and they drive everywhere!
I'd like to see Chicago's answer to Disney Hall or the Universal Amphitheatre. The largest live performance theatre in the country is The Shrine, not Radio City. What's Chicago's answer to The Greek Theatre? The Hollywood Bowl? Please, not with the live music arguement. What do the people of compact cities breathe when they're walking around the 'streets'? Heavy particulate matter from car and truck and bus exhaust and brake powder. Not to mention the carbon monoxide and diesel fumes. Yeah, you keep on walking. It's not always windy in Chicago. I would rate Chicago and New York as 'indoor' towns. Indoors in the day, indoors at night. L. A. is not so much like that, so that means they're not indoors hiding from the smog.
Chicago and New York are indoor towns? Is that a joke? When you visit Chi or NY, you walk around. That's what these two cities are all about... WALKING!
Chicago doesnt have any natural beauty what so ever, save the forest preseves that werent paved over. Everything wonderful about the city is man made. Which is an impressive feat. LA has natural beauty and everything man made is somthing less than desired. People just never seem to understand that with this it is basically comparing, apples and oranges.
The Great Lakes are natural beauty. But honestly, I don't go to a city to experience nature. When I want to do that, I go to National or State Parks. I go to a city for the culture, the diversity, the food, the people, the skyscrapers, and the walking. That is why I choose Chicago.
Yeah, no sense in arguing anymore. Both cities are unique, I just think Chicago offers alot more, it has an aura about it that Ive never felt anyplace else (besides Santa Fe and NYC).
LA is set in a very beautiful area with access to beaches and skiing. However, if we're comparing the built urban environments of both places, then Chicago wins hands down. If we compare the two in regards to civic pride, then again, Chicago wins hands down.
You know I've said this before it's hard to compare these two because you "feel" very different in each city. Let's just say if you're an urban person, like myself, you would enjoy either city. I believe in giving honest accounts from "my personal perspective" These are BOTH good cities to live in but it depends on what you like and what you seek. California is VERY EXPENSIVE place to live. Why: WEATHER..WEATHER..WEATHER, gorgeous beaches and world class entertainment. In Chicago you can do nearly everything you can in LA, but it's more dense and has more classic neighborhoods to stroll through. Public Transit in Chicago by far esceeds LA's and I personally like Wrigley Field/Sox Park/Cellular Arena more than the Staples Center. Regardless, both cities are big enough for you to get lost in and find yourself.
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.
