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.
and recall excited children, this thread is about,
" What does Chicago have to offer that New York can't? "
Thanks for participating.
And I still haven't seen a single thing that Chicago can offer while New York can't even though you were able to pollute this thread with irrational claims.
Just remember that New York together with London and Paris is considered one of the top world cities so come up with something significant and original that would effectively top all those three.
Let's hear it from midwest1 everybody LOL
Awesome response.....I've walked every inch between all of these.
Yet, when one is done with such culture in NYC, you are more than re-enveloped by the sheer urbanity of Manhattan. Within less than a minute or so, you are swept back into the mega-intensity of Manhattan.
With Chicago's Lakefront museums (and Art Institute), you really feel you are taking a break from the urban experience. You can literally see a Van Gogh, dinosaur, aquatic exhibit one second and be staring at a freshwater sea horizon the next. With all due respect to Manhattan, no such contrast is available there.
Right, which is what makes Manhattan unique. Certainly other museum districts in the country aren't enveloped by the urbanity of Manhattan along with the contrast of Central Park. I also don't see how this falls in line with your previous arguments--the post I was addressing was a density of cultural institutions within close walking distance specifically. In that respect, NYC is obviously in a very different tier from Chicago. What it seems like you are now asking for is something that is exactly Chicago as possible where it must have a freshwater sea horizon, a Van Gogh, dinosaur, and aquatic exhibit. I think it's possible that another Great Lake city, possibly Toronto, would have that. Now, why does that make particular sense though if it has to be that specific? You can choose myriad arbitrary settings that favor one city or another, but that doesn't make much sense for a comparison. And no, you have not walked every inch of those--that's just a ridiculous statement.
Chicago offers great interplay between its urban environment/downtown and its waterfronts which is even better than Manhattan's in the sense that its much more recreation oriented. A great cost of living for an urban environment is another great advantage. Being able to ride elevated trains through the city is pretty fun, too. Those all seem to be really good arguments, but I seldom see them being articulated that well.
Covering just the MET takes several days even just walking through and not even stopping to look at stuff really.
Other Museums are just as packed. When I was in NYC this summer the line for MoMA was literally 3 city blocks long to get in, halfway down 53rd street, all the way up 6th to 54th, then back down 54th all the way back to 5th ave, it might have been even further, I just left after that point and came back another day. It was kind of annoying, have never seen anything like that in Chicago.
One good thing about Chicago is AI and Field are far less crowded than places in NYC or DC, at all times of the year. That is kind of cool.
I'm not even going to address the whole aquatic exhibit, dinosaur, walk to the beach argument... it's so vague and convoluted to unpack what he is trying to argue.
But if museums where you can walk to the beach are the requirement, let me tell ya boy, Chicago has nothing on the Dali Museum in St. Petersburg Florida... You are steps from some of the nicest beaches in the United States, and the biggest Dali collection outside of Europe! Then walk over to the Museum of Fine Arts there, and dine outside and watch the sunset after a riveting day. Also, why go to an aquarium, you can stroll out in the water and swim with dolphins and manatees! Plus real palm trees instead of the fake ones on Oak Street beach.
Covering just the MET takes several days even just walking through and not even stopping to look at stuff really.
Other Museums are just as big and packed. When I was in NYC this summer the line for MoMA was literally 3 city blocks long to get in. I came back another day. It was kind of annoying, have never seen anything like that in Chicago.
One good thing about Chicago is AI and Field are far less crowded than places in NYC or DC, at all times of the year. That is kind of cool.
Yea, that one's definitely an advantage for Chicago. I thankfully get to miss most of the crowds as I get to make my own work schedule.
Covering just the MET takes several days even just walking through and not even stopping to look at stuff really.
Other Museums are just as big and packed. When I was in NYC this summer the line for MoMA was literally 3 city blocks long to get in, halfway down 53rd street, all the way up 6th to 54th, then back down 54th all the way back to 5th ave, it might have been even further, I just left after that point and came back another day. It was kind of annoying, have never seen anything like that in Chicago.
One good thing about Chicago is AI and Field are far less crowded than places in NYC or DC, at all times of the year. That is kind of cool.
Agreed, it makes the experience more pleasant and peaceful. Thats one of the reasons I dont visit NYC in the summer, way too many tourists and gets annoying fast for landmark and museum visits. Usually I go around this time of the year to NYC.
Agreed, it makes the experience more pleasant and peaceful. Thats one of the reasons I dont visit NYC in the summer, way too many tourists and gets annoying fast for landmark and museum visits. Usually I go around this time of the year to NYC.
If you live in NYC and can make your own schedule, you can get to see the exhibits outside of tourist rush hour. Most importantly however is to note that the reason there is so many people wanting to see art exhibits in New York is because they are such a high-end experience. Try getting into Louvre...
According to your logic, Chicago offers more comfortable art-museum experience because, uh...er..., less people want to see Chicago museums? LOL
Right, which is what makes Manhattan unique. Certainly other museum districts in the country aren't enveloped by the urbanity of Manhattan along with the contrast of Central Park. I also don't see how this falls in line with your previous arguments--the post I was addressing was a density of cultural institutions within close walking distance specifically. In that respect, NYC is obviously in a very different tier from Chicago. What it seems like you are now asking for is something that is exactly Chicago as possible where it must have a freshwater sea horizon, a Van Gogh, dinosaur, and aquatic exhibit. I think it's possible that another Great Lake city, possibly Toronto, would have that. Now, why does that make particular sense though if it has to be that specific? You can choose myriad arbitrary settings that favor one city or another, but that doesn't make much sense for a comparison. And no, you have not walked every inch of those--that's just a ridiculous statement.
Chicago offers great interplay between its urban environment/downtown and its waterfronts which is even better than Manhattan's in the sense that its much more recreation oriented. A great cost of living for an urban environment is another great advantage. Being able to ride elevated trains through the city is pretty fun, too. Those all seem to be really good arguments, but I seldom see them being articulated that well.
The only museum I've left because it was too busy is the Natural History museum in NYC... it was like 100 elementary schools from around the United States converged on that place that day.
Louvre is more annoying, same with Musee d'Orsay ... Swarms of asian tourists carrying flags everywhere.
Musee d'Orsay pic of me waiting in line several years ago in Paris... annoying crowds there. Picture doesn't really show how big the crowd was.
The only museum I've left because it was too busy is the Natural History museum in NYC... it was like 100 elementary schools from around the United States converged on that place that day.
Louvre is more annoying, same with Musee d'Orsay ... Swarms of asian tourists carrying flags everywhere.
Musee d'Orsay pic of me waiting in line several years ago in Paris... annoying crowds there. Picture doesn't really show how big the crowd was.
Yeah, European museums are even worse than NYC's. People from all over the world, including busloads of Americans, everywhere and all the time. Paris in summer is unbearable.
If you live in NYC and can make your own schedule, you can get to see the exhibits outside of tourist rush hour. Most importantly however is to note that the reason there is so many people wanting to see art exhibits in New York is because they are such a high-end experience. Try getting into Louvre...
I don't attribute the crowds to a more high-end experience in terms of the exhibits themselves. I attribute it to Manhattan being a massive tourist magnet and a lot of people who feel compelled to go to the museums even if they have virtually no interest in art or whatever is being exhibited at all, but feel they must go to them as it's famous. If you let me brutally beat and violate every other person like that who went into the museums, then I'm sure things would be just fine.
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.
