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.
If we're talking pure beauty, Chicago's downtown looks nicer than LA's (and doesn't smell like urine) or any American city that I've seen, really, but is actually boring as hell and nothing happens there after 6 PM or on weekends.
Overall, the city of Chicago is surprisingly clean and green. Growing up in LA, and having visited New York, I assumed all big cities were grimey, concrete jungles. Overall, LA (yes, even city proper) has a more diverse looking landscape, and I think takes the very slight edge over Chicago as a city a whole. My metric is really "What city would make for a more interesting photography book?" Once you leave downtown, Chicago gets boring and looks more or less the same. A friend was visiting me for the second time, I took him out, and he asked if we'd in those parts on our last trip. We had not, but he was sure he had because everything looked so familiar! All of Chicago looks like that.
The Loop itself has added a lot of residents in the last decade, much as downtown LA has, so there's actually people and open restaurants and bars downtown after 6 pm these days. That being said, the downtown area defined as the Loop is pretty small compared to what LA defines as it's downtown (something like 1.5 square miles to 5 square miles), and the general downtown area of Chicago actually reaches north, west, and south of the Loop these days and it's in those parts, especially to the west and north, where you'll see a lot more nightlife among other things.
Chicago has a lot of different looking neighborhoods outside of downtown though. It makes sense since different parts of it were built at different times and for different communities. There are going to be parts that look similar to each other, but there are a lot of different archetypes within the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigLake
Right, and downtown LA is a hotbed of activity on nights and weekends.
While it is getting better, downtown LA is one of the least impressive, underperforming and sterile downtowns of any large city I have ever been to; and that's a lot of downtowns.
LA's downtown is unimpressive for a city of its size, but LA is massive so it's downtown is overall still pretty good for a US city. It's also been radically changed over the last two decades at a fast clip, so if you haven't been in a while, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
jess - Your hate boner for LA is pretty funny. Get a grip.
And no matter how you position it, once you leave downtown Chicago, the entire city looks like you hit ctrl+c then ctrl+v over and over.
DavePa - Thanks for the map. I'd say that's about a fair idea of what I have in mind when I think of downtown Chicago. But when people get creative and start claiming everything south of the Diversey Brown Line stop, I gotta start calling shenanigans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
The Loop itself has added a lot of residents in the last decade, much as downtown LA has, so there's actually people and open restaurants and bars downtown after 6 pm these days.
Yeah, I just moved out of Chicago in May, so my memories of it are pretty recent. When I first moved, though, downtown was gaining residents rapidly, and according to friends, is a much different place than it was just a short few years before I'd moved in.
Quote:
LA's downtown is unimpressive for a city of its size, but LA is massive so it's downtown is overall still pretty good for a US city. It's also been radically changed over the last two decades at a fast clip, so if you haven't been in a while, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
DTLA is changing at a pace faster than I'm comfortable with, actually! I want it to stop right.... now. It's right at the spot where there's enough going on while retaining its grit. Others want more, but once it gets too clean, it'll turn into the west side with tall buildings.
I was giving DTLA the benefit of the doubt in including nearby neighborhoods as an urban core. They're desner, older, and better connected to public transit than most other parts of LA. So I gave LA the benefit of the doubt. It's just really laughable to compare what's defined as "DTLA" to just simply "The Loop."
If you think Chicago looks like "ctrl+c then ctrl+v over and over," then I really don't think you know Chicago at all and have probably never been there.
Chicago's housing stock is widely appreciated among architectural enthusiast. Garden apartments, ornate walk-ups, Victorians, etc.
I agree. It's immature and really being unfamiliar with the city to say otherwise.
This thread is getting a bit grade school too. I'm on my phone so I can't access Streetview's that work. But Chicago spans late 1800's neighborhoods with Victorian styles and the Chicago Greystones. Then you have the Cottage Workers styles 1900 other timeframe types but still primarily brick. The Bungalow Belt began in 1910 to 1940. Its varieties vary in different blocks mixed with 2-3 flat home varieties. Apartment buildings also add density many on main streets or whole blocks. The Chicago Courtyard Apartment variety beats a Tenement variety of Manhattan. Row homes have some Victorian varieties in Chicago. But not whole blocks and few after 1900. Into the 40s 50s brought the Mid-century varieties. Basically by the early 60s to mid 60s. The city limits was built out to its suburbs.
Infill in Chicago has some of the best I've seen in cities. Well built too. It's NIEVE again, to claim any city is all the same varieties if it spans numerous decades.
PLEASE keep post respectful to both cities. Neither deserves terms as boring and acting as one knows one or both cities to call either negatively.
I do believe Chicago had to overcome a hell of a lot more then LA. I won't address it all. But I do think Chicago is restoring nicely and has a housing stock that held up darn well. Homes lost in those areas of radical racial strife of the 60s 70s and neglect. Basically had the city remove the worst. and demolish all its nortorious once housing high-rise projects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorielicious
And no matter how you position it, once you leave downtown Chicago, the entire city looks like you hit ctrl+c then ctrl+v over and over.
DavePa - Thanks for the map. I'd say that's about a fair idea of what I have in mind when I think of downtown Chicago. But when people get creative and start claiming everything south of the Diversey Brown Line stop, I gotta start calling shenanigans.
Yeah, I just moved out of Chicago in May, so my memories of it are pretty recent. When I first moved, though, downtown was gaining residents rapidly, and according to friends, is a much different place than it was just a short few years before I'd moved in.
DTLA is changing at a pace faster than I'm comfortable with, actually! I want it to stop right.... now. It's right at the spot where there's enough going on while retaining its grit. Others want more, but once it gets too clean, it'll turn into the west side with tall buildings.
Your disrespect to Jess is left out. Same could be said of things you say negatively on Chi-Town. Since you say you lived in Chicago in the recent past. What was your beef really? You show total disrespect to any positives on Chicago. No one is saying downtown is more then it is. Chicago's downtown is over 200,000 today. From a fraction 50 years ago. River North of course was not part of downtown then. But it was already or soon to be mostly abandoned warehouses. Till recent decades, it became prime investment to Loft living Chicago excels in. Now the West side former warehousing buildings are the up and coming Loft living area.
If you read my original post to this thread, I don't think I was being unfair to Chicago at all. Whatshisname was just being snide, so I was snide in return.
But if you'd like me to reiterate my original point, I do think Chicago's downtown (Loop and adjacent, specifically) is the most aesthetically pleasing of any American city I've visited. This includes LA, SF, NY, Seattle, Philly, and other cities I've grown too lazy to name. Also, I was surprised by how green and clean it was. I'm glad the city set aside land for parks and won't destroy its lakefront. But again, I think when you take the cities proper overall, LA's landscape and architecture is more diverse and would win a city picture book contest over Chicago. I grew up in South Central, live in K-Town, work in Playa Vista, and the three look entirely different in a way neighborhoods in Chicago do not. I'm not kidding when I say visitors think they've been some place they have not because it all looks awfully familiar.
I'm sure a lot of that is because LA is a newer city (if you're not including when it was part of Mexico), so you've got the old architecture of Historic South Central and Downtown juxtaposed with a lot of the mid-century look of the K-Town/Mid-Wilshire area, juxtaposed some with the west side, a lot of which was just built up overnight. Then for bonus material, throw in Spanish architecture everywhere. Aside from just the architecture, you've got flat lands, some occasional hills with killer views of the skyline, palm trees for some reason. There's definitely a unique topography here.
I'd say Chicago has a higher median "pretty" score than LA (LA has more ugly areas and this city for sure needs to learn how to clean the *bleep* up), but Chicago just doesn't give you as much to look at.
If you read my original post to this thread, I don't think I was being unfair to Chicago at all. Whatshisname was just being snide, so I was snide in return.
But if you'd like me to reiterate my original point, I do think Chicago's downtown (Loop and adjacent, specifically) is the most aesthetically pleasing of any American city I've visited. This includes LA, SF, NY, Seattle, Philly, and other cities I've grown too lazy to name. Also, I was surprised by how green and clean it was. I'm glad the city set aside land for parks and won't destroy its lakefront. But again, I think when you take the cities proper overall, LA's landscape and architecture is more diverse and would win a city picture book contest over Chicago. I grew up in South Central, live in K-Town, work in Playa Vista, and the three look entirely different in a way neighborhoods in Chicago do not. I'm not kidding when I say visitors think they've been some place they have not because it all looks awfully familiar.
I'm sure a lot of that is because LA is a newer city (if you're not including when it was part of Mexico), so you've got the old architecture of Historic South Central and Downtown juxtaposed with a lot of the mid-century look of the K-Town/Mid-Wilshire area, juxtaposed some with the west side, a lot of which was just built up overnight. Then for bonus material, throw in Spanish architecture everywhere. Aside from just the architecture, you've got flat lands, some occasional hills with killer views of the skyline, palm trees for some reason. There's definitely a unique topography here.
I'd say Chicago has a higher median "pretty" score than LA (LA has more ugly areas and this city for sure needs to learn how to clean the *bleep* up), but Chicago just doesn't give you as much to look at.
Those are my two Abraham Lincolns.
I agree with a lot of this--outside of downtowns, LA has a greater diversity of looks in its neighborhoods than Chicago does. I think what I don't agree with is that all Chicago neighborhoods look the same. It's not as wide ranging in variety, and part of that is dealing with the contours of topography, but it also doesn't look all the same to me. Also, to me, like you, LA does have more ugly neighborhoods than Chicago does and that's with both the fact that LA is much larger and has more ugly neighborhoods and in a proportional sense.
I think it's the Chicago people that have major resentment to not only Los Angeles, but to HOUSTON because they know it's going to overtake the metro area in terms of population in the next 20 or so years.
You will always have your hardcore Chicago people but let's face it: Crime is way up, taxes are off the freaking wall, rent is up, and the city in terms of corruption is on the same level as NYC - it's crooked as hell.
As a bi-coastal person, I don't think you pay me to move there.
Yep, the Midwest is a void. Hancock tower can't change that
Right, and downtown LA is a hotbed of activity on nights and weekends.
While it is getting better, downtown LA is one of the least impressive, underperforming and sterile downtowns of any large city I have ever been to; and that's a lot of downtowns.
DTLA has a ton going on. Not sure I have ever heard sterile and Downtown LA in the same sentence. It's very gritty. You have obviously never been there and have only seen it on TV.
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.
