Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which city is more cultural and iconic?
Chicago 113 31.04%
Los Angeles 251 68.96%
Voters: 364. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-04-2013, 08:32 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
2,690 posts, read 3,152,451 times
Reputation: 2748

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiVegas View Post
Summers in LA are much more pleasant than in Chicago. Midwest summers are extremely humid.

And fall is pretty cold in Chicago. Waking up in below freezing temperature isn't most people's image of "fabulously fun", especially in a city where the rail transit is 90% outdoors, and open to the elements.
I wouldn't say Chicago's falls are terribly cold. Cooler than I was used to back in St. Louis, but not bad. The average highs are 63º and 49º for October and November respectively. It might be chilly early in the morning, but who's out doing "fabulously fun" fall things at 7 in the morning anyway?

Riding the L in December though, I'll agree that that's a kick in the teeth. Thank God for the heat lamps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiVegas View Post
I don't see how this is an advantage for Chicago. Obviously there are many more people in LA than in Chicago living near a beach. The beaches are also much better in LA, and can be enjoyed year-round, not 2-3 months. So you have far more people in LA "five minutes to the beach", and the beaches are like 10,000 times better.

The nice Great Lakes beaches are four hours north, around Traverse City, MI. And even those can't remotely compare to ocean beaches.

And the traffic is horrible on Lakeshore Drive on summer weekends. it's the same as the summer traffic problems in LA, along the PCH or 405. That's why people with money generally try and get out of town, and go to Michigan or Wisconsin.
I'd say the Lake is enjoyable for about a solid 4 months of the year (sometimes a bit more depending on how bipolar May is) if your goal is just to layout and jump in when you get too hot. If you actually want to go swimming, then that's another story.

There's also no question that Lake Michigan can't compete with the Pacific overall, but Nafster has a point about how nice it is to just be able to jump on public transit for a short time and be at the beach in no time. That's one of the things I miss about when I lived on up in Rogers Park. Lake Shore Drive doesn't go that far north, and going to beach meant all you had to do was walk right onto it after crossing Sheridan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-04-2013, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Earth
2,549 posts, read 3,956,577 times
Reputation: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafster View Post
There's public transportation in Chicago. People can get to the beach without waiting in traffic easily. If you live in Chicago (unless you live in the far west part of town) you usually do not have to drive to the beach so the traffic on Lake Shore Drive isn't an issue.

We're talking about LA and not the outer ring suburbs? Yes there are more people that live near beaches (including Venice) but in the actual city of LA most people do not live near the beach (WeHo, Santa Monica, etc.) or at least within walking distance.

I agree with you that the beaches are prettier and nicer in the LA area because the scenery is much better. The water is too. I just think the ones in Chicago are extremely unique because they are very accessible to almost everyone in the city without a car and they are in the middle of an extremely urban setting.
I agree good point

Source: I shot these

Folks living in or near Downtown LA can't get this close to their better beaches because you have to get stuck in traffic to get there.
http://i1109.photobucket.com/albums/...ps70b3a642.jpg
No beach here
http://i1109.photobucket.com/albums/...dy500r/l1a.jpg
More urban highrise options near the beach which LA lacks compared to Chicago.
http://i1109.photobucket.com/albums/...r/IMG_4002.jpg

LA lacks this option
http://i1109.photobucket.com/albums/...Untitled-1.jpg

Car culture and more sprawl isn't lacking in LA though. Lake Shore is nothing compared to LA having the largest and most congested network of freeways than any city in the country. LA is literally the king of freeways.

Last edited by CaseyB; 11-05-2013 at 04:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2013, 08:40 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
2,690 posts, read 3,152,451 times
Reputation: 2748
Quote:
Originally Posted by goonsta View Post
Outside the arrogant (delusional) circle-jerk that just happened in the last few pages, I'll do a comparison as unbiased as possible.

Iconic Status: LA (Chicago isn't a slouch, but LA passed Chicago somewhere around the 90s)
Diversity: LA (Chicago is more diverse than people like to credit it, but LA pushes its weight above it)
Weather: LA (besides the few people who claim they enjoy Chicago's brutal winters)
Public Spaces and interaction: Chicago (LA really has work to do in this department, I remember seeing giant inflatable Santa displays from Costco in Pershing Square for its Christmas decoration. Also, a lot of areas with foot traffic in LA don't really promote it for more than a few blocks)
Local Culture: Tie (They both have strong "Only in LA", "Only in Chicago" culture)
Nature/Scenery: LA (The only thing Chicago has over LA is 4 seasons and a lot more deciduous trees in its city, Chicago's Lakefront is underrated too)
Employment/Education: Tie (Both are really diverse, and major Industrial centers, Chicago has strength in Business/Finance, LA has strength in Entertainment obviously)
Urban Infrastructure: Chicago (LA still uses gutters to collect rainwater for Pete sake, and Chicago's inner-city park system is more extensive)
Music: Tie (Both are really top tier in the US, what Chicago lacks in Record Industry connects, it makes up for and more in sheer talent, festivals and venues i.e. LollaPolooza, Pitchfork)
Recreational opportunities: LA
Cleanliness: Chicago (LA can get absolutely grimy, the middle of the ghetto in Chicago isn't even as dirty as Skid Row)
Safety: LA (Chicago is pretty rough right now, but this can change easily, it would of been the inverse answer in the 90's)
Nightlife: Tie (LA gets points for having numerous places across the Metro, Chicago gets points for having easy accessibility, bar-hopping culture, and a later last call)
Transit: Chicago (I think this one is undeniable, even LA's transit plans are as a whole insufficient for its size)
Architecture: Tie (I think Chicago is more important to architecture as a whole, but I actually like LA's ecletic architecture)
A very valid analysis.

As for the original premise of the thread, I'd say that LA is more iconic. The iconic status that Hollywood alone brings to LA can probably only be trumped by the iconic status of New York.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2013, 08:50 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,861 posts, read 15,173,601 times
Reputation: 6757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafster View Post
There's public transportation in Chicago. People can get to the beach without waiting in traffic easily. If you live in Chicago (unless you live in the far west part of town) you usually do not have to drive to the beach so the traffic on Lake Shore Drive isn't an issue.

We're talking about LA and not the outer ring suburbs? Yes there are more people that live near beaches (including Venice) but in the actual city of LA most people do not live near the beach (WeHo, Santa Monica, etc.) or at least within walking distance.

I agree with you that the beaches are prettier and nicer in the LA area because the scenery is much better. The water is too. I just think the ones in Chicago are extremely unique because they are very accessible to almost everyone in the city without a car and they are in the middle of an extremely urban setting.
But when I was in Chicago not everybody road public transportation to the beach, especially on a hot and humid summer weekend. I remember that hot July couple of days we were there. Come on now, lets be realistic. There is definately heavy traffic to the beaches in LA on the 10 and PCH but many people do walk to the beach, and believe it or not many catch public transportation too. I've done it many times along with thousand of others. I drive here in LA but I also catch public transit quite often.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2013, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Earth
2,549 posts, read 3,956,577 times
Reputation: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerseusVeil View Post
A very valid analysis.

As for the original premise of the thread, I'd say that LA is more iconic. The iconic status that Hollywood alone brings to LA can probably only be trumped by the iconic status of New York.
When it comes to media and entertainment Hollywood makes LA more iconic in that sense because of the big screen movies it pumps out around the word but as for architecture LA simply lacks the vast amount of urban 19th century buildings in it's core compared to Chicago. Of course, Chicago has had a head start since the skyscraper amd Prarie style movement began. LA lacks an historic urban Wrigelyville neighborhood that you won't find around Dodger Stadium. LA lacks a centralized urban core to Chicago. I could go on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2013, 08:57 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,861 posts, read 15,173,601 times
Reputation: 6757
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanologist View Post
I agree good point

Source: I shot these

Folks living in or near Downtown LA can't get this close to their better beaches because you have to get stuck in traffic to get there.

No beach here

More urban highrise options near the beach which LA lacks compared to Chicago.


LA lacks this option


Car culture and more sprawl isn't lacking in LA though. Lake Shore is nothing compared to LA having the largest and most congested network of freeways than any city in the country. LA is literally the king of freeways.
Downtown Chicago is nice sitting right there on Lake Michigan but all of those people living near a little patch of sand that you call a beach is nice I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2013, 08:57 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
2,690 posts, read 3,152,451 times
Reputation: 2748
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanologist View Post
When it comes to media and entertainment Hollywood makes LA more iconic in that sense because of the big screen movies it pumps out around the word but as for architecture LA simply lacks the vast amount of urban 19th century buildings in it's core compared to Chicago. Of course, Chicago has had a head start since the skyscraper amd Prarie style movement began. LA lacks an historic urban Wrigelyville neighborhood that you won't find around Dodger Stadium. LA lacks a centralized urban core to Chicago. I could go on.
I agree, which is why I liked goonsta's breakdown so much. I definitely feel like Chicago and LA could compete with one another, but when dealing with the general "iconic" question which the OP posed I'm going to have to go with LA.

As you pointed out, people all around the world know Hollywood and its stars. A thread where everyone was asked to answer based on basic points like the ones goonsta used would be fair more interesting, IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2013, 09:00 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
2,690 posts, read 3,152,451 times
Reputation: 2748
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1 View Post
Downtown Chicago is nice sitting right there on Lake Michigan but all of those people living near a little patch of sand that you call a beach is nice I guess.
It's not like that's the only beach the city has. The massive Lincoln Park is, after all, just like a mile or so north from where that picture was taken.

For example, here's the view from the Hancock building (the black skyscraper in urbanologist's pic) looking north towards Lincoln Park:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...kTowerView.jpg

Last edited by PerseusVeil; 11-04-2013 at 09:10 PM.. Reason: Added the photo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2013, 09:07 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,385 posts, read 28,372,317 times
Reputation: 5877
His point is the beaches aren't that great. I'm sure that will be argued ad nauseum though as people get butt hurt. I view it more as a recreational area and find it somewhat silly when people say "going to the beach" I just call it "the lake" and especially when they say stuff like, why would I want to go to Florida or California, I've got a beach right here! As somebody who has lived in both the latter, I find these comments irksome as if these people have never seen a decent beach. I had somebody recently say they went to Cocoa in Florida, really enjoyed it, etc etc, and I was like well...Cocoa kind of sucks (for Florida beaches) I personally wouldn't even bother going there, I would have gone X, X and X, now see why I don't think beaches here are that great? The ability to critique cities by many Chicagoans seems to not work well when judging the quality of beach/ and 4 month "beach scene"...it's boosted well beyond how it actually is compared to other areas of the U.S. . Sorry Chicago, you kill most cities but, your beaches are pretty "meh" even if they are close to downtown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2013, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Earth
2,549 posts, read 3,956,577 times
Reputation: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
His point is the beaches aren't that great. I'm sure that will be argued ad nauseum though as people get butt hurt. I view it more as a recreational area and find it somewhat silly when people say "going to the beach" I just call it "the lake" and especially when they say stuff like, why would I want to go to Florida or California, I've got a beach right here! As somebody who has lived in both the latter, I find these comments irksome as if these people have never seen a decent beach. I had somebody recently say they went to Cocoa in Florida, really enjoyed it, etc etc, and I was like well...Cocoa kind of sucks (for Florida beaches) I personally wouldn't even bother going there, I would have gone X, X and X, now see why I don't think beaches here are that great? The ability to critique cities by many Chicagoans seems to not work well when judging the quality of beach/ and 4 month "beach scene"...it's boosted well beyond how it actually is compared to other areas of the U.S. . Sorry Chicago, you kill most cities but, your beaches are pretty "meh" even if they are close to downtown.
Why? because Manhattan doesn't have any. (j/k)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top