Where would you rather live: Chicago or Seattle? Why? (best, state, better)

[SMFGRN]

....

[munchitup]

Probably Seattle, for the weather. Chicago is probably a slightly better fit for me as more areas are transit oriented but there are plenty in Seattle and it is closer to me family in CA.

Love Chicago though. Never been to Seattle. I have some close friends from Boston up in the Pacific Northwest, and they absolutely love it.

[Trafalgar Law]

Definitely Chicago, not even close for me. Not even.

Chicago is no New York but I have a New York-Tokyo-London-Hong Kong-Seoul-Singapore-Berlin-Taipei-Barcelona-Paris-Osaka-Toronto-Miami-Washington DC-Melbourne fascination / mindset / interest and Chicago is F-A-R closer to that than Seattle. In terms of amenities I could want in my 20's and 30's and global connectivity (among other things), Chicago by far and away. Chicago, going from Miami and Washington DC is an upgrade in the culinary offerings, nightlife offerings (compared to Washington DC), big city amenities, and well, just about everything else city related. Point is to upgrade or stay the course (lateral move), not downgrade your living experience.

I could see myself in Seattle though much later down the line (after I retire or so) to enjoy the mild climate and it's a beautiful city with a good amount going for it. I'm just a big city person though. I am also not married (don't ever plan on being either) and don't have kids (again, this wont ever be happening) and mostly all about career and exploring hobbies with close friends. All of this is better for me in Chicago. It has a legit amount of big city living, which is all I want to do throughout my 20's and 30's and 40's.

Oh and it's a relatively quick flight to New York or Miami too, and much closer to New York or Miami by driving distance. Seattle is a quick and easy drive to Vancouver and Portland and a very comfortable ferry ride away from Victoria. So there's definitely enough to see in the Pacific Northwest region as a whole but I prefer Chicago which is closer to practically everywhere in the United States, as compared to Seattle (except California).

So yeah, as it stands now, Chicago ten out of ten times over Seattle present day. In 40 years, then most probably Seattle six out of ten times over Chicago for old age and twilight years of life.

[goofy328]

I could do Seattle. It doesn't have the density of Chicago, but it could in the future. Plus Seattle is far denser than where I'm living now. I never been there so I would be interested to see what its like.

[18Montclair]

Seattle is too similar to the Bay Area, which is awesome, but I think Id prefer Chicago for the greater change of scenery.

I have always been in love(absolute heat-lol) with Chicago's brownstone townhouses.

[Champ le monstre du lac]

Seattle. As much as I love big cities and especially love visiting Chicago (one of my favorites), I need space, recreation, and good natural surroundings paired up with a city to spend time in. Seattle's outskirts and hinterlands are far more attractive and beautiful than Chicago's.

[mjtinmemphis]

I would do Seattle. I've lived in Chicago.

[Irene-cd]

chicago

[Trafalgar Law]

Yeah Seattle is one of those places where I cant imagine anyone not liking it if they go there with an open mind. It has a nice urban and natural balance. Even though it's isolated from the rest of the country, distance wise, time wise, there are three very cool cities WITHIN 190 miles of Seattle or less (that translates to about three hours or less if you're going speed limit), it's central location among the popular Northwestern cities gives Seattle the best location of the bunch, since it's right in-between the head (Vancouver) and the tail (Portland) of the corridor. Vancouver, Portland, and probably the prettiest of them all, Victoria (which is also the closest of the three).

Low crime. Great schools. Amazing infrastructure (love the roads in Seattle; although they are too small for Greater Seattle now). Lots of amazing festivals and events to go to, and I'm Southeast Asian first and foremost, Seattle is a spectacular foodie town for me.

It's just that, I'm way more Chicago. I love beautiful scenery as much as the next person (okay, probably less than an enthusiast but more than an average person) and to me for a hike, the Driftless Area 120 - 140 miles Northwest of Downtown Chicago is more than serviceable. I usually try to go hiking and camping once every two-to-three months and have been consistent with that timeline for about a year now, so like I said, more than serviceable. To me, Madison (120 miles Northwest of Chicago) is one of the coolest smaller-to-entry level medium sized cities in the country you could visit (and one of the fewer places in the Midwest that legitimately has that "booming optimistic vibe"). Milwaukee itself is cool too and within four-to-five hours there are the big Michigan cities and the Upper Great Lakes region.

When it comes to scenery, I like prefer it to be green and lush (and it's even better when there's water involved) or tan cacti filled deserts and rarely anything in between (with the two notable exceptions of Denver and San Diego; semi-arid / brown). Goes without saying, the Cascadia region / Pacific Northwest (both United States' side and Canadian side) is spectacularly beautiful to me. Love the mountain ranges formed around the volcanoes, the Ring of Fire region which unites the Pacific Rim of Asia and Oceania with North and South America is a special zone on the world map. Probably as beautiful of an area as they come.

[Tall Traveler]

Seattle for no state income tax, milder climate, mountains & beaches nearby, much cleaner and safer city. There are areas in Chicago that are very nice but also real dumpy areas which Seattle doesn't have.