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.
No comparison: Downtown Chicago is a lot smaller than Manhattan and not as fun. Downtown Chicago is a regional destination for Midwestern and business travelers alike while Manhattan is a world destination for the rest of the world and U.S..
Lol, when I worked in downtown Chicago, there were a he** of a lot of business people from around the world, there on business. Sometimes, it appears, people make things up just to try to make a city look unimportant. Anyone with a brain, can see through your post.
The best part about living in Chicago was talking to international tourists about the city.
Generally, the conversation started like this: "This is unbelievable.. I can't believe how nice.."
I do think statistics support the idea that Chicago is not a destination internationally like other major cities in North America. But, it's always nice to say 'I told ya so' when they do come.
In many parts of the world, despite easy access to a wealth of information online, people still don't have a very clear mental image of Chicago. They think of a big gritty industrial city, home to Al Capone, Michael Jordan, lotsa crime... and that's about it. They may have never seen a picture of the Chicago skyline (or if they did, didn't recognize it as Chicago). Then they come and find a beautiful, clean city buzzing with world class attractions and chock full of some the most striking architecture they have ever seen, and they feel like they just discovered a secret treasure that nobody had told them about.
No comparison: Downtown Chicago is a lot smaller than Manhattan and not as fun. Downtown Chicago is a regional destination for Midwestern and business travelers alike while Manhattan is a world destination for the rest of the world and U.S..
hey, top, considering the comment comes from you, I'd call it a real compliment to Chicago. Thx.
Lets see a one city has close to 9 million and the other one has 2.7 million. Not a fair fight even thou Manhattan only has 1.6 million because their real estate prices are insanely expensive for anything nice, any condo for any nice high rise complex is 2-5 million. Almost everyone I met on the Upper East Side was a millionaire the wealth in NYC is staggering.
Last edited by Vanderbiltgrad; 05-29-2018 at 05:37 PM..
Lets see a one city has close to 9 million and the other one has 2.7 million. Not a fair fight even thou Manhattan only has 1.6 million because their real estate prices are insanely expensive for anything nice, any condo for any nice high rise complex is 2-5 million. Almost everyone I met on the Upper East Side was a millionaire the wealth in NYC is staggering.
The price of real estate really doesn't indicate which place is nicer looking or cleaner or has better amenities. When real estate gets that expensive, change is slower to come to an area, since even old decrepit buildings are too valuable or established to tear down and replace. Manhattan and San Francisco are two places full of expensive subpar real estate that actually weighs down progress and makes those places age in place with expensive old buildings which in a normal market would be replaced with something nicer. To me both San Francisco and New York have an old, dirty look even though each place is brimming with millionaires.
Chicago is smaller and has fewer millionaires running around (I'm sure) than Manhattan or San Francisco, but is a better looking town architectually none the less. BTW I don't recall the OP going into the demographics of the two cities, but even Chicago condos many times exceed 5 miliion in the newer buildings.
Last edited by Justabystander; 05-29-2018 at 06:00 PM..
Chicago is quite nice and I really like it as a city, but it is not comparable at all to New York City. Sorry. Chicago does get a decently sized international tourist contingent. Comparing particular neighborhoods or areas probably makes more sense. The biggest "problem" that Chicago has (I really don't think it's a problem and I actually like this about Chicago personally) is that it overall is more of a neighborhood city than a Loop based city in my opinion. The Loop has improved a solid bit over the past 10 years though.
I go to NYC a few times a year and have been to Chicago dozens of times.
While NYC is obviously on a different level overall, I actually think they are very comparable cities especially when just comparing central Chicago to Manhattan (even though Manhattan is still much larger).
I don't think Chicago is getting the respect it deserves.
I love both cities. They are quite different, but both are very large and built up mega cities that have a ton to offer. If I had to choose one over the other for a weekend trip, it would come down to which city has the better weather that weekend.
I go to NYC a few times a year and have been to Chicago dozens of times.
While NYC is obviously on a different level overall, I actually think they are very comparable cities especially when just comparing central Chicago to Manhattan (even though Manhattan is still much larger).
I don't think Chicago is getting the respect it deserves.
I love both cities. They are quite different, but both are very large and built up mega cities that have a ton to offer. If I had to choose one over the other for a weekend trip, it would come down to which city has the better weather that weekend.
Every argument that has Manhattan running away with this center on scale. For 99.9% of urbanists, greater downtown Chicago will offer everything they need, and more. NYC simply has MORE. I don''t think Manhattan has anything as beautiful as Lake Shore Drive, and it certainly doesn't have a beach. I'm not arguing that downtown Chicago "wins", but it's silly to say that it's no contest. If we were arguing NYC vs Paris vs Tokyo, Tokyo wouldn't win on scale and density alone. The discussion would be more nuanced, but when discussing NYC vs any other US city, it's SCALE, SCALE, SCALE, DENSITY, DENSITY, DENSITY.
fwiw, I grew up in NYC and lived in Chicago for three years.
Every argument that has Manhattan running away with this center on scale. For 99.9% of urbanists, greater downtown Chicago will offer everything they need, and more. NYC simply has MORE. I don''t think Manhattan has anything as beautiful as Lake Shore Drive, and it certainly doesn't have a beach. I'm not arguing that downtown Chicago "wins", but it's silly to say that it's no contest. If we were arguing NYC vs Paris vs Tokyo, Tokyo wouldn't win on scale and density alone. The discussion would be more nuanced, but when discussing NYC vs any other US city, it's SCALE, SCALE, SCALE, DENSITY, DENSITY, DENSITY.
fwiw, I grew up in NYC and lived in Chicago for three years.
Does FDR drive counts it does have amazing views of Manhattan and bridges
Does FDR drive counts it does have amazing views of Manhattan and bridges
Even the West Side Highway driving north near the GW bridge - with the hills and Palisades and the bridge and water, it is gorgeous. Not as pretty as Lake Shore, but can certainly hold its own.
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.
