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've definitely noticed Chicago coming up a lot, maybe the most. At least top 3 right? The media does always show Chicago as a warzone, and when I tell people in LA I want to live there, immediately after they gripe about the weather, the warzone comments start. Every city/metro has good and bad area. In Chicago, it just happens to be the best and worst parts are in the city. In NYC, The Bronx has its own name. If it didn't, and was just called NYC, NYC would be considered dangerous. Same with Oakland/SF.
The Bronx is a part of NYC, and its crime stats are included in NYC totals. Nothing like the SF/Oakland situation where its 2 separate cities. By the way, even if you just isolate the Bronx from the rest of NYC, the crime rate in the Bronx is lower than Chicago. Yes it is true, the Bronx is considered dangerous, but in the context of NYC as a whole. The borough averages ~100 murders per year with a population of 1.4 million, that would be a relatively "safe" place in cities like Chicago.
The Bronx is a part of NYC, and its crime stats are included in NYC totals. Nothing like the SF/Oakland situation where its 2 separate cities. By the way, even if you just isolate the Bronx from the rest of NYC, the crime rate in the Bronx is lower than Chicago.
I mean though when a crime happens, people will say it happened "in The Bronx" and not "in NYC" but when crime happens in Chicago, since it's not split up like NYC, people will say it happened "in Chicago" giving the entire city a bad reputation.
I mean though when a crime happens, people will say it happened "in The Bronx" and not "in NYC" but when crime happens in Chicago, since it's not split up like NYC, people will say it happened "in Chicago" giving the entire city a bad reputation.
Chicago city is roughly the size of a NYC borough in population, if it actually had a low crime rate it wouldn't be in the news a lot, just like any other NYC borough. How many times have you heard of murders/riots in Queens? They are roughly equivalent population wise (Chicago is only 300k bigger). In absolute numbers, Chicago has the same number of murders as the entire NYC, all 5 boroughs combined. That's high man, no matter what. If Chicago was in NYC, it would be considered the most dangerous part of the city by far and a no-go zone.
I want fall for the bash bait of the most boring. Like other posters have stated you can find things to do in any major city, hell I find things to do in small quaint towns.
Admirable. The internet badge of honor goes to you for sparing all of our feelings from the heartbreak we'd feel had you named the city that entertains you the least. Nothing crushes my spirits more than an anonymous person on the internet saying that my city isn't as fun as theirs (or another city).
But do people really get upset if you list their city as "boring?" My city (Boston) has been mentioned a bit in this thread. I don't care. I love this city and I feel that A) There's plenty here to keep many people entertained and busy and B) Not every city or town is a good fit for everyone. It doesn't bother me that some people find Boston "boring."
To your last point (bolded), I think that's pretty much widely understood in this thread and beyond. We're speaking relatively. "Boring" doesn't mean that there's absolutely nothing to do there. It simply means that in relation to comparably sized cities, there is less that appeals to a certain individual. I listed Dallas and San Jose. I wasn't stuck in my hotel room sighing the whole time I was in either city. It's just that Dallas or San Jose didn't offer all of the types of things that make places like Chicago, San Francisco, New York, etc. so fun to visit. You can at least admit (without naming names) that some cities offer more that suits your ideas of "fun" than others do, right?
Chicago city is roughly the size of a NYC borough in population, if it actually had a low crime rate it wouldn't be in the news a lot, just like any other NYC borough. How many times have you heard of murders/riots in Queens? They are roughly equivalent population wise (Chicago is only 300k bigger). In absolute numbers, Chicago has the same number of murders as the entire NYC, all 5 boroughs combined. That's high man, no matter what. If Chicago was in NYC, it would be considered the most dangerous part of the city by far and a no-go zone.
According to Wiki, Chicago is 227 sq miles of land. NYC is 304 sq miles of land. Queens, the largest, is 109 sq miles of land. I think it's more the land size that matters. Because something happening about in the South Side is very geographically and culturally distant from the extremely nice and safe neighborhoods of the North Side. Something happening in the South Bronx isn't really that far from some really nice parts of Manhattan.
Read an article recently that was about like a "Tale of Two Cities" situation in Chicago. The North Side is one of the safest urban areas in the country, while the south side is one of the most dangerous. If they were divided into separate cities, both would be large in terms of population and size, but people would understand that the north side is perfectly fine to live in. If there wasn't a divide between Manhattan and the Bronx (culturally and geographically) and they were one city together, NYC would sound scarier too. Grouping the north side with the south side is like saying "oh NYC is so dangerous because lots of crime happens in the Bronx. Therefore, I don't even want to visit Midtown and the village and other safe parts of Manhattan."
And while yes, there is A LOT of crime in the south side, it generally stays in specific areas where gangs are. There are plenty of nice parts of the south side, just like there are nice parts of the Bronx (Pelham, Riverdale, etc.). It's like saying South Bronx is so dangerous and ghetto, therefore Pelham Bay and Riverdale must be dangerous also since they're part of the same borough. I can't remember the names of some Queens neighborhoods right now, but say those ghetto areas scared people from moving to Forest Hills or Astoria. East New York and Flatbush and Bed Stuy (are these still bad areas? NYC gentrifies too fast for me to keep up) scare people from moving to Manhattan Beach, Brooklyn Heights, and Park Slope
Last edited by jessemh431; 06-11-2015 at 11:34 AM..
According to Wiki, Chicago is 227 sq miles of land. NYC is 304 sq miles of land. Queens, the largest, is 109 sq miles of land. I think it's more the land size that matters. Because something happening about in the South Side is very geographically and culturally distant from the extremely nice and safe neighborhoods of the North Side. Something happening in the South Bronx isn't really that far from some really nice parts of Manhattan.
Read an article recently that was about like a "Tale of Two Cities" situation in Chicago. The North Side is one of the safest urban areas in the country, while the south side is one of the most dangerous. If they were divided into separate cities, both would be large in terms of population and size, but people would understand that the north side is perfectly fine to live in. If there wasn't a divide between Manhattan and the Bronx (culturally and geographically) and they were one city together, NYC would sound scarier too. Grouping the north side with the south side is like saying "oh NYC is so dangerous because lots of crime happens in the Bronx. Therefore, I don't even want to visit Midtown and the village and other safe parts of Manhattan."
Again, this is not true. The crime stats for NYC are already grouped together, and even with that NYC is vastly safer. You can also cherry pick NYC neighborhoods with low crime rate, and they would look like Switzerland. The "tale of two cities" happens in most any other city in America. All cities have the safe neighborhoods and crime ridden neighborhoods. Guess what? If you get rid of crime ridden neighborhoods in Newark, it would be one of the safest cities in the country as well. Same thing with Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, you name it. The point being, the average murder rate in Chicago makes the Bronx look like Chicago's north side in comparison. The average murder rate of NYC, including ALL the ghetto areas and high crime areas, is on par with the safest clusters of neighborhoods in Chicago. The north side of Chicago is considered "safe", while in NYC it would be "average". The west side of Chicago would be considered crime ridden, on par with the worst neighborhoods in the city. The south side of Chicago would be considered a no-go warzone 1990s New York.
Admirable. The internet badge of honor goes to you for sparing all of our feelings from the heartbreak we'd feel had you named the city that entertains you the least. Nothing crushes my spirits more than an anonymous person on the internet saying that my city isn't as fun as theirs (or another city).
But do people really get upset if you list their city as "boring?" My city (Boston) has been mentioned a bit in this thread. I don't care. I love this city and I feel that A) There's plenty here to keep many people entertained and busy and B) Not every city or town is a good fit for everyone. It doesn't bother me that some people find Boston "boring."
To your last point (bolded), I think that's pretty much widely understood in this thread and beyond. We're speaking relatively. "Boring" doesn't mean that there's absolutely nothing to do there. It simply means that in relation to comparably sized cities, there is less that appeals to a certain individual. I listed Dallas and San Jose. I wasn't stuck in my hotel room sighing the whole time I was in either city. It's just that Dallas or San Jose didn't offer all of the types of things that make places like Chicago, San Francisco, New York, etc. so fun to visit. You can at least admit (without naming names) that some cities offer more that suits your ideas of "fun" than others do, right?
People get way too defensive over this sh*t, so I agree. Plus everyone needs to realize that you as a resident always has the better insight on what to do in the place you live. Also the reason people choose to live in a city is for many reasons, not all of them fun related.
I can easily say that I like living in Boston and find it a cool city to both work and play in, but is it the most exciting place I've lived? Hell no. Its not the worst thing on earth to admit that.
Most fun US cities:
1a. NYC - It has everything. (but expensive and accessibility is a problem).
1b. Chicago -- unbelievable amount of interest things to do in a relatively compact space. Both quantity and quality at a relatively low price point.
Portland -- funky and fun
Philadelphia-- fun town.
Most boring:
Los Angeles -- by a landslide; for a city of its size and girth, it's very meh. I'm talking about the "city" here, not surrounding region.
Dallas -- I was there last week. I think.
Again, this is not true. The crime stats for NYC are already grouped together, and even with that NYC is vastly safer. You can also cherry pick NYC neighborhoods with low crime rate, and they would look like Switzerland. The "tale of two cities" happens in most any other city in America. All cities have the safe neighborhoods and crime ridden neighborhoods. Guess what? If you get rid of crime ridden neighborhoods in Newark, it would be one of the safest cities in the country as well. Same thing with Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, you name it. The point being, the average murder rate in Chicago makes the Bronx look like Chicago's north side in comparison. The average murder rate of NYC, including ALL the ghetto areas and high crime areas, is on par with the safest clusters of neighborhoods in Chicago. The north side of Chicago is considered "safe", while in NYC it would be "average".
Sorry. I'm not really sure how to explain it clearly. It's that NYC has boroughs. Yes, crime stats are combined across the city. But neighborhoods in NYC are just as dangerous as neighborhoods in Chicago. If Chicago had boroughs, the crime would be reported as the borough it was in. So if a horrible crime happens in the Bronx, people won't want to go. Stuff like that doesn't happen much in Manhattan. But it's different since the news will show the crime as the Bronx. For Chicago, the news reports the crimes as Chicago because there aren't the well known boroughs and neighborhoods there.
And yeah, I totally understand that the south side is extremely dangerous, but it's a shame that the entire city gets the bad reputation of the south side. It's obvious by this thread that people love visiting Chicago. The North Side is perfectly safe and shouldn't deter people from visiting.
"[A]lmost all of the North Side and much of the Northwest Side now have murder rates of 3.3 per 100,000 people — on par with Toronto, and better than New York, where rates have plummeted. But not in Austin and much of the South Side, where annual murder rates of 40 per 100,000 are not uncommon... By the late 2000s, the most dangerous part of the city had nearly 15 times more homicides, 39 per 100,000 compared with 2.7." http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...-is-two-cities
Obviously every city has its good and bad parts, and that's exactly what I'm saying. Chicago shouldn't be a no-go zone just because of the south side bringing the crime rate up.
Most fun US cities:
1a. NYC - It has everything. (but expensive and accessibility is a problem).
1b. Chicago -- unbelievable amount of interest things to do in a relatively compact space. Both quantity and quality at a relatively low price point.
Portland -- funky and fun
Philadelphia-- fun town.
Most boring:
Los Angeles -- by a landslide; for a city of its size and girth, it's very meh. I'm talking about the "city" here, not surrounding region.
Dallas -- I was there last week. I think.
Can I ask what you did in LA? Even in the city of LA, there is downtown, Hollywood, Fairfax, Venice, and other places. It's really difficult to discuss LA and not include the smaller cities that are basically entirely integrated into LA's existence.
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.
