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 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.
LA, dawg. Both in terms of sheer variety of different kinds of ethnic cuisine, as well as cutting edge cuisine that no one else is doing. LA is on fire right now. Check out the foodie blogs...they will all tell you that LA is a rapidly ascendent food city. Or just check out Eater LA to gauge the pulse of the kind of restaurants that are opening right now.
Compared to San Diego, Vegas, SF, Phoenix, those cities just don't compare I'm sorry. Most midwest cities unfortunately are losing their pop and those west coast cities are growing continuously. Some midwest and NE cities were about to rebound from the fall of factory jobs and hard labor, but many (Detroit, Gary, Cleveland, etc.) represent the unfortunate truth that those cities are becoming in some cases ghost towns. And I can see STL and perhaps Milwaukee and Indy being good places, but Detroit and Madison?
I would much rather visit St. Louis than I would Vegas. I would also much rather visit Milwaukee than I would Phoenix.
Thank you!! I'm glad we can count on you Drover to set things straight.
Actually, I think he misinterpreted part of what Bluefox said. How I interpreted it - Bluefox was not talking about Kansas City and nature exclusively - he was talking about finding people with similar interests in KC and that if he can find people with the same more liberal interests in a much smaller, more conservative city, then there shouldn't be a problem finding it in a more liberal, larger city at all.
Actually, I think he misinterpreted part of what Bluefox said. How I interpreted it - Bluefox was not talking about Kansas City and nature exclusively - he was talking about finding people with similar interests in KC and that if he can find people with the same more liberal interests in a much smaller, more conservative city, then there shouldn't be a problem finding it in a more liberal, larger city at all.
I give up with you Marothisu. I feel I can't say anything around you. Being bigger and overall more liberal does not always translate I don't how many times I have to explain it.
First off, interest in outdoor pursuits hardly correspond to social or political outllook. Just as many conservatives like hiking, camping, and other outdoor pursuits as liberals. So, I see in no way, why a more "liberal" city should have more people who are into these things than conservative ones. Conservative areas that I spent time in,
You do realize I lived in small, podunk towns in conservative parts of the country. But because they were universities, amongst faculty and students I actually found it easy to be surrounded by liberal attitudes than many big cities, because well, they're universities. The theater department at Iowa state is going to be come across as more liberal than Norridge in Chicago. Yes, this is cherry picking but you get the idea.
Yes, with several million people, you can form a community of friends based around your interests. But it may be that you actually have to look. I know Chicago has every type of person.
Can we please just agree to disagree, that size and overall liberalness does not correlate with a guarantee that every single person is going to have an easier time, finding their niche? I mean I'm telling possible newcomers to Chicago, straight up, that they will love it in Chicago, and then just adding "but it wasn't quite for me". Can we please just let it go? I don't say anything negative anymore in a way that trash talks Chicago. I'm enthusiasitically proclaiming to a newcomer that they will love it that they should move to Chicago, but adding that it wasn't for me. There are better places for some people than Chicago, even places that may be smaller. And for other reasons than just weather.
I give up with you Marothisu. I feel I can't say anything around you. Being bigger and overall more liberal does not always translate I don't how many times I have to explain it.
First off, interest in outdoor pursuits hardly correspond to social or political outllook. Just as many conservatives like hiking, camping, and other outdoor pursuits as liberals. So, I see in no way, why a more "liberal" city should have more people who are into these things than conservative ones. Conservative areas that I spent time in,
You do realize I lived in small, podunk towns in conservative parts of the country. But because they were universities, amongst faculty and students I actually found it easy to be surrounded by liberal attitudes than many big cities, because well, they're universities. The theater department at Iowa state is going to be come across as more liberal than Norridge in Chicago. Yes, this is cherry picking but you get the idea.
Yes, with several million people, you can form a community of friends based around your interests. But it may be that you actually have to look. I know Chicago has every type of person.
Can we please just agree to disagree, that size and overall liberalness does not correlate with a guarantee that every single person is going to have an easier time, finding their niche? I mean I'm telling possible newcomers to Chicago, straight up, that they will love it in Chicago, and then just adding "but it wasn't quite for me". Can we please just let it go? I don't say anything negative anymore in a way that trash talks Chicago. I'm enthusiasitically proclaiming to a newcomer that they will love it that they should move to Chicago, but adding that it wasn't for me. There are better places for some people than Chicago, even places that may be smaller. And for other reasons than just weather.
Just a quick question because I'm curious, and I don't want to derail the thread. Tex?Il? If Chicago was not for you then why do you want to return there? I've read in other posts that you say you will probably return to Chicago.
LA, dawg. Both in terms of sheer variety of different kinds of ethnic cuisine, as well as cutting edge cuisine that no one else is doing. LA is on fire right now. Check out the foodie blogs...they will all tell you that LA is a rapidly ascendent food city. Or just check out Eater LA to gauge the pulse of the kind of restaurants that are opening right now.
LA is making a lot of moves in the right direction, but it still has some work to do to catch up to Chicago as a food city.
Just a quick question because I'm curious, and I don't want to derail the thread. Tex?Il? If Chicago was not for you then why do you want to return there? I've read in other posts that you say you will probably return to Chicago.
I don't think I ever said that. I go back 2-3 times a year to visit family, and I wouldn't be opposed to returning at some point in the distant future if I was already married and didnt' have to carve out a social life or if I have family that needs me, but other than no.
But yes, it is derailed. Marothisu keeps on insisting that if one doesn't find their niche in Chicago, then they didn't look hard enough. I simply inserted a one sentence statement about how I PERSONALLY didn't find my niche there, amongst three sentences encouraging the OP to check out Chicago because I think he/she would be a great fit.
I don't think it's possible to be indifferent about the weather in either of those cities, because the weather in both is so much a part of their culture and plays an important role in everyday life.
I don't think I ever said that. I go back 2-3 times a year to visit family, and I wouldn't be opposed to returning at some point in the distant future if I was already married and didnt' have to carve out a social life or if I have family that needs me, but other than no.
But yes, it is derailed. Marothisu keeps on insisting that if one doesn't find their niche in Chicago, then they didn't look hard enough. I simply inserted a one sentence statement about how I PERSONALLY didn't find my niche there, amongst three sentences encouraging the OP to check out Chicago because I think he/she would be a great fit.
Well, I didn't just make it up:
"Look, Radiojunkie, I don't mean to sound intrusive here. But looking at your other posts, I see that when you lived in Chicago you live in Edison Park/Norwood Park.
I'm sorry, I just don't understand it. And its not just, it is the one thing, I will never, ever, ever, ever, understand about Chicago. I almost literally go insane trying to understand how someone in a middle to outer neighborhood of Chicago that is mostly one race, mostly single family homes, claim Chicagos fast pace and cosmopolitan image. Its fine, I just don't get it.
Which is kind of why I left to experience a different city. I'll probably move back to Chicago suburbs, but I might as well experience life in a major city, that I am blown away by. I live by Culver City where I am fairly centrally located to a lot of what LA has to offer.
How in the world, people who spent most of their life in a mostly white, tight night, semi-suburban neighborhood can claim what makes Chicago distinct. Its neighborhoods like Edison Park/Norwood Park IS why I make the comparisons to Cleveland.
I don't know, to me it just seems clear as day.
Its fine if you and everyone else does it, I just don't understand it."
"Look, Radiojunkie, I don't mean to sound intrusive here. But looking at your other posts, I see that when you lived in Chicago you live in Edison Park/Norwood Park.
I'm sorry, I just don't understand it. And its not just, it is the one thing, I will never, ever, ever, ever, understand about Chicago. I almost literally go insane trying to understand how someone in a middle to outer neighborhood of Chicago that is mostly one race, mostly single family homes, claim Chicagos fast pace and cosmopolitan image. Its fine, I just don't get it.
Which is kind of why I left to experience a different city. I'll probably move back to Chicago suburbs, but I might as well experience life in a major city, that I am blown away by. I live by Culver City where I am fairly centrally located to a lot of what LA has to offer.
How in the world, people who spent most of their life in a mostly white, tight night, semi-suburban neighborhood can claim what makes Chicago distinct. Its neighborhoods like Edison Park/Norwood Park IS why I make the comparisons to Cleveland.
I don't know, to me it just seems clear as day.
Its fine if you and everyone else does it, I just don't understand it."
This post is from 1/12/2012. This is 2 1/2 years ago, literally just days after I moved to California. People change within two years.
In any case, occasionally I feel a just a touch selfish, that I'm not around helping family (my Dad is 75). However, I have struck a balance between life in California, and visiting 2-3 times a year, and talking to family on most weekends over phone, emailing, facebook posts.
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.
I don't think I ever said that. I go back 2-3 times a year to visit family, and I wouldn't be opposed to returning at some point in the distant future if I was already married and didnt' have to carve out a social life or if I have family that needs me, but other than no. 
