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.
^^ Yeah, I would say I'm similar to Tex in that I have zero interest in sports, I'm really big into outdoor activities, etc. And I've found a fairly diverse group of friends here with whom I share many of the same interests. In fact I am meeting with some friends tonight to plan a three day backpacking trip in the Ozarks in October. I'm going on a long hike this weekend with a local outdoors group. And this is in comparatively podunk Kansas City, a literal fraction of the size of Chicago, just as Midwestern and quite a bit more conservative with a huge sports culture. If you can't find similar-minded people in a metro approaching 10 million, chances are the other 9.999 million people aren't the problem.
^^ Yeah, I would say I'm similar to Tex in that I have zero interest in sports, I'm really big into outdoor activities, etc. And I've found a fairly diverse group of friends here with whom I share many of the same interests. In fact I am meeting with some friends tonight to plan a three day backpacking trip in the Ozarks in October. I'm going on a long hike this weekend with a local outdoors group. And this is in comparatively podunk Kansas City, a literal fraction of the size of Chicago, just as Midwestern and quite a bit more conservative with a huge sports culture. If you can't find similar-minded people in a metro approaching 10 million, chances are the other 9.999 million people aren't the problem.
Uhh, I also had met people through outdoor groups that shared me interests through meetup groups, etc. Of course I met some people that shared my interests, but they were largely on average 10-15 years older than me. (I'm 34).
Chicago is a city that attracts people, like the OP, who moves to Chicago for the CITY, and not for the outdoors and day trips. This is going to make it much more challenging to meet people who like the outdoors and day trips.
I don't understand why one would think that sheer population is going to translate to being easier to find people that share your interests. I'm not sure why you present Kansas City as being a place where finding people should be harder because its "smaller, more podunk, more conservative, and also sports obsessed). If anything it might even be a little easier. And any comparative sized city west of the 100th meridian, its going to be MUCH easier, because its more a part of the culture.
If you like real winters with cold and snow and find beaches boring and overrated and connect and relate well to people who also feel the same way and like going up into the mountains for the day just to see snow and to wear winter clothing, then I don't care if there are 20 million people in Southern California. Even if in sheer numbers, there may be people who specifically like this thing may be more than Fargo, ND, its still going to feel impossible to find people who like share your interests.
Uhh, I also had met people through outdoor groups that shared me interests through meetup groups, etc. Of course I met some people that shared my interests, but they were largely on average 10-15 years older than me. (I'm 34).
Chicago is a city that attracts people, like the OP, who moves to Chicago for the CITY, and not for the outdoors and day trips. This is going to make it much more challenging to meet people who like the outdoors and day trips.
I don't understand why one would think that sheer population is going to translate to being easier to find people that share your interests. I'm not sure why you present Kansas City as being a place where finding people should be harder because its "smaller, more podunk, more conservative, and also sports obsessed). If anything it might even be a little easier. And any comparative sized city west of the 100th meridian, its going to be MUCH easier, because its more a part of the culture.
If you like real winters with cold and snow and find beaches boring and overrated and connect and relate well to people who also feel the same way and like going up into the mountains for the day just to see snow and to wear winter clothing, then I don't care if there are 20 million people in Southern California. Even if in sheer numbers, there may be people who specifically like this thing may be more than Fargo, ND, its still going to feel impossible to find people who like share your interests.
Again, though this is off topic.
I understand what you're saying but people normally don't move to a city for JUST one reason. I mean God, I wish I had that luxury. And if I did, I'd be in Kalispell, MT in a heartbeat. Chicago has a big enough market to support 4 REI stores, a Patagonia and a bunch of smaller recreational outdoor/outfitting companies. Sure there may not be the sort of outdoor opportunities in your backyard like you have in LA, but it's not like everyone is all about just the city and nothing else.
That's more or less my point - cities like LA and Chicago are large enough to where there are people of all sorts, which you pointed out already. I brought up KC because I was able to find the sort of people I was looking for here despite my preconceived notions about the city, including it being a much smaller city/metro. We are all lucky to have the internet where information is so readily available. It just takes putting in your due diligence and avoiding extrapolating your impressions about a select person or group of people onto an entire city or metro.
Unless/until you've actually lived in Chicago, I think it can be hard to understand just how difficult it is to access quality outdoor recreational activities; and yes that certainly does affect the culture of the city. If you're in KC, you can get to the Ozarks in a couple hours. You know where you are if you point your car in any direction from Chicago and drive for two hours? In a cornfield. Keep driving for another two hours and chances are you're still in a cornfield. Or maybe if you're lucky, you'll be in a soybean field just for a touch of variety. You can reach the Driftless region in about 3 and a half hours and the Northwoods in about 5; so while occasional weekend getaways are certainly possible, doing it consistently isn't practical.
Chicago is very much an inward-looking city; we rely heavily on the features of the city itself and the amenities provided therein for our entertainment. It's one thing to find a bunch of outdoor enthusiasts; it's another for you and your fellow enthusiasts to strengthen that friendship bond by actually going and doing the stuff that is your common interest.
Again, since the OP seems more interested in a more self-contained urban experience and isn't concerned about the natural environment in and around the city, Chicago seems like the obvious choice.
Unless/until you've actually lived in Chicago, I think it can be hard to understand just how difficult it is to access quality outdoor recreational activities; and yes that certainly does affect the culture of the city. If you're in KC, you can get to the Ozarks in a couple hours. You know where you are if you point your car in any direction from Chicago and drive for two hours? In a cornfield. Keep driving for another two hours and chances are you're still in a cornfield. Or maybe if you're lucky, you'll be in a soybean field just for a touch of variety. You can reach the Driftless region in about 3 and a half hours and the Northwoods in about 5; so while occasional weekend getaways are certainly possible, doing it consistently isn't practical.
Chicago is very much an inward-looking city; we rely heavily on the features of the city itself and the amenities provided therein for our entertainment. It's one thing to find a bunch of outdoor enthusiasts; it's another for you and your fellow enthusiasts to strengthen that friendship bond by actually going and doing the stuff that is your common interest.
Again, since the OP seems more interested in a more self-contained urban experience and isn't concerned about the natural environment in and around the city, Chicago seems like the obvious choice.
Thank you!! I'm glad we can count on you Drover to set things straight.
If you guys had to be objective, which would you say is the better food city? I'm talking diversity AND quality of options.
Also, I'm a single guy ... which would you say is better for a single guy? A single guy not exactly in a rush to domesticate himself.
You won't be able to eat your way through any more than a small fraction of your options at all ends of the price/quality scale in either city in your lifetime.
Unless/until you've actually lived in Chicago, I think it can be hard to understand just how difficult it is to access quality outdoor recreational activities; and yes that certainly does affect the culture of the city. If you're in KC, you can get to the Ozarks in a couple hours. You know where you are if you point your car in any direction from Chicago and drive for two hours? In a cornfield. Keep driving for another two hours and chances are you're still in a cornfield. Or maybe if you're lucky, you'll be in a soybean field just for a touch of variety. You can reach the Driftless region in about 3 and a half hours and the Northwoods in about 5; so while occasional weekend getaways are certainly possible, doing it consistently isn't practical.
Chicago is very much an inward-looking city; we rely heavily on the features of the city itself and the amenities provided therein for our entertainment. It's one thing to find a bunch of outdoor enthusiasts; it's another for you and your fellow enthusiasts to strengthen that friendship bond by actually going and doing the stuff that is your common interest.
Again, since the OP seems more interested in a more self-contained urban experience and isn't concerned about the natural environment in and around the city, Chicago seems like the obvious choice.
I don't disagree with much of what you wrote, but I'm not of the position that Chicago has an "outdoor" culture. And FWIW, I spent nearly 23 years of my life in Northwest Indiana before spending nearly 5 years in Southern California so I'm well aware of the dearth of outdoor opportunities in Chicagoland compared to other parts of the country. What I do take issue with is the general characterization of the people as not interested in that sort of stuff by virtue of them being residents of X city. And who says you have to be physically close to outdoor opportunities to do them/be interested in it? We are driving nearly 7 hours into southern Arkansas for our Ozarks trip. We were going to do Colorado which is about 9 hrs but the weather is too volatile that time of year for where we were wanting to go. Anyway I have veered way off topic so I'm just going to leave it at that.
If you guys had to be objective, which would you say is the better food city? I'm talking diversity AND quality of options.
Also, I'm a single guy ... which would you say is better for a single guy? A single guy not exactly in a rush to domesticate himself.
Both cities are very diverse with their food options where you could find restaurants/eateries serving up pretty much almost any world cuisine (not all but tons of different ones). Chicago I'd say is a better fine dining city but LA is no slouch either. Both are great food cities, though Chicago internationally may get more recognized for it due to some of the more fine dining or "molecular gastrononmy" oriented restaurants and the fact that it has a Michelin guide for dining.
As far as dating goes - same thing, though I find the average female in Chicago to be a little more down to earth/less shallow than in LA, BUT there's loads of them that are anything but down to earth too. In both cities there's both sides of the spectrum and it really depends.
Basically if you like food and you put yourself out there too, you shouldn't have a problem in either city with food or dating. Chicago does oddly enough have a lower percentage of married people than LA though (i.e. more single people) but it's not by a ton. Both have a ton of single people and more than enough bars, clubs, lounges, restaurants, events, concerts, etc etc.
Yes Detroit and Madison. Anyone who is interested in automotive culture and history either has been to Detroit or needs to go some day. And Madison punches well above its weight, which you might know if you'd ever been there. And the fact that many Sun Belt cities are going through the growth spurt that legacy cities got out of their system a century ago doesn't make them objectively better or more interesting.
Considering the OP's qualifications that things like climate and beaches are not even considerations much less deciding factors, Chicago seems like a slam-dunk to me.
Yes, of course, but learning about history isn't something I'd necessarily say is "entertaining" or "something to do", at least on a scale of continuously doing it. Everywhere on earth, there is history and hey, I love studying historic places and legacies of cities, but Madison and Detroit are not exactly tourist hotspots.
Cities such as Denver and LA and Seattle are growing, but that doesn't mean all MW and NE cities aren't. Like I said, some were able to rebound, IE Chicago, St Louis, Milwaukee, New York, Philly, etc. but many failed. I think the midwest cities are growing back, but at a much slower rate than those out west.
And I entirely agreed with that in my other comments. Of course Chicago is the best for this person. No arguing if they don't care about the weather.
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.
