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.
I realize that this is a very rare and random comparison. However, I am interested and curious about which of these two places most people would prefer to live in and why. Both are very different yet both seem like they would be great places to live in.
Annapolis seems to have the better weather but Chicago would have more to offer because it is much bigger even though bigger does not always mean better.
Normally I would assume that Annapolis has the more friendly people because it is much smaller but Chicago people seem pretty friendly. Midwest people seem more friendly than East Coast people but then again, you will find friendly and unfriendly people anywhere you go.
Annapolis may be a small city but it is not that far from Washington D.C. and Baltimore. So if you needed a big city fix you could just drive into Washington for a day.
It seems like you could live in Chicago without a car but I'm not sure you could get away with that in Annapolis even though it's not that big of a place and even though it seems to be a very walkable town. Anyway, so which of these two places would you rather live in and why?
They are not comparable, Annapolis feels like a govt center (in my opinion) while it does have nice areas, it also is largely suburban. Chicago is..well Chicago, one of the greatest cities on the planet. Annapolis has a better location and better history but that's just about it when compared to Chicago.
A better argument would be Annopolis vs Savannah GA or something along those lines; I haven't seen another city like Annapolis before.
But to answer your question, you cannot live in Annapolis without a Car. I'm not even sure if you could truly make it in Chicago without a car, I know the city has a huge downtown (waterfront for that matter) but it also has a huge suburban area as well so it all depends on where you live.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,388,441 times
Reputation: 3102
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMOREBOY
I'm not even sure if you could truly make it in Chicago without a car, it all depends on where you live.
been living in Chicago since August. No car and don't plan to get one anytime soon. but you are right.. I live near wicker park and am just steps from the blue line. If I lived in Downer's Grove I would certainly need a car.
They are not comparable, Annapolis feels like a govt center (in my opinion) while it does have nice areas, it also is largely suburban. Chicago is..well Chicago, one of the greatest cities on the planet. Annapolis has a better location and better history but that's just about it when compared to Chicago.
A better argument would be Annopolis vs Savannah GA or something along those lines; I haven't seen another city like Annapolis before.
But to answer your question, you cannot live in Annapolis without a Car. I'm not even sure if you could truly make it in Chicago without a car, I know the city has a huge downtown (waterfront for that matter) but it also has a huge suburban area as well so it all depends on where you live.
I make $90K a year and don't bother with a car. A vast majority of my friends are professionals downtown as well and don't have cars. It all depends on where you live and work, but you can EASILY get by in Chicago without a car. If you live on the north side and work downtown, as tens of thousands do, then many times it's much better to just not deal with a car at all.
I think the kind of person who's looking to live in a city like Chicago would probably not be interested in living in Annapolis, and vice versa.
Annapolis is a historic, walkable marine town that is a part of metropolitan Baltimore/D.C. So, to find an appropriate comparison, it's better to use a similar suburban town of Chicago.
We just moved from Germantown to Annapolis and love it. DC is 30 minutes away and Baltimore is 30 minutes away. (I commute to DC and the wife to Baltimore). The town has such a unique and historic and vibrant downtown and waterfront and we love being so close to the bay. The entire area just has a different vibe to it while most of the rest of suburbs around DC and Baltimore could be anywhere USA.
I would probably live in Chicago if I could live in the city and didn’t have kids etc. But I would not like living in the burbs of Chicago.
I really like Annapolis. It’s unique, it’s interesting, it’s sort of European and it’s on the water. It’s smack between DC and Baltimore, Ocean City is very close for us, Philly and Virginia are easy to get to. Location Location Location.
Interesting comparison. Both are good cities in their own way. Big city vs. cutesy quaint small town in a large MSA.
Right now I would definitely pick Chicago, I'm a sucker for the excitement and vibrancy of a big city. If I were older or had kids I could see preferring Annapolis. It is a nice place to spend an afternoon. But, I could see getting bored pretty quickly if I lived there full time at this stage of my life.
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.
