Pittsburgh vs Chicago (For Quality of Life Factors) (living, best, cost)
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.
First off here are some metrics I'd like to see compared -
Nightlife
People
Music Scene
Downtowns
Hiking & Recreation
Petty Crime in Neighborhoods
Food (Especially desserts and pastries and pizza)
Walkability
Public Transit
Ammenities
Neighborhoods & Suburbs
Economy/Job Market
Currently live in Chicago. Have lived here for about 3 years and I'm toying with the idea of buying a modest condo in the next few years in one of the outer northshore areas.
I've lived in Cape Town, Johannesburg, San Francisco, Oakland, and Sacramento, so weather wise and nature wise Chicago's definitely the outlier.
On the positives, I love the El as a metro train. I feel Chicago has one of the best downtowns in the US, one that could compete with many world cities. I feel the urban planning and the lack of too many highways cutting through the core is great. The easy access to beaches during the Summer is amazing, especially where I am. And the food is AMAZING. (that's my favorite aspect)
It's also not too expensive compared to a coastal city, has a great airport, is quite diverse, has great architecture and a fairly robust job market.
Now what I don't like about Chicago. Flat as hell. I like to have steep hills to go running up. I enjoy that a lot more than running on a treadmill.
Chicago also has much less bang for your buck for purchasing a property and HOA fees are really high compared to Pittsburgh it seems.
Property taxes appear to be fairly similar in the city. Weather seems similar with Chicago slightly colder, but Pittsburgh seems decently cloudier.
Pittsburgh appears to have much better nature options nearby and the city itself offers a lot. Multiple mountains are within a couple hour drive, while I'll be driving up over 7 hours from Chicago this Spring to reach Pictured Rocks in Michigan for a proper nature get away.
I'm not overly keen on Chicago's culture either. To me it feels like a sort of Frankenstein combination of the BS of a big major city (expensive clothes, keeping up with the Jones attitude, fakeness and social climbing) combined with the courtesy of Midwest, although midwest nice in Chicago can be hit or miss. This contradiction can be pretty jarring sometimes.
I've found places like Milwaukee, St Louis, and Cleveland more legit nice and I prefer NYC & the West Coast's more openly brash attitudes to Chicago's sort of hybrid vibe. I'm kind of hoping Pittsburgh can be sort of in the middle between East Coast and Midwest in that respect.
Chicago is a sports town also (but ofc Pittsburgh is too with the Steelers) and a drinking town, which I'm not too keen on, and while there is a very large art scene and I enjoy the arts, I feel the mainstream American art lacks substance these days. I tend to enjoy the art-vibes in smaller metros more. It feels like there's more individualistic and less hive-mind.
Overall, the things I'd miss most would be being on a huge lakefront (although lake eerie isn't too far from Pittsburgh and you can reach the actual ocean with a couple more hours). I'd miss some of the diversity, the amazing downtown, the El, and , most of all, I'd miss a lot of the amazing food. I'm a very solid cook though so I wager I can immitate a lot of things with proper practice, Chicago's Mexican food being particularly outstanding and something I'd hate to have gone.
I just dearly miss being in a city that provides a better active environment for fitness and nature and I don't need to be eating so much of certain things anyway!
For some reason, I also feel its harder to stand out in the dating world in Chicago than anywhere else I've lived. It's strange, but something just doesn't quite click. I've moved away from Chicago before and seen my luck immediately improve, moved back feeling confident things would be better...and no dice.....
Do you guys think Pittsburgh might be a better alternative for me? Looking for somewhere chill where I can put down roots and have my recreational needs met.
I'm also considering St Louis somewhat, which I've spent considerable time in. I've considered Milwaukee in the past, but it's a little too cold up there and still kind of lacking on topography and to some degree nature. Milwaukee also feels a little lacking on the neighborhood front next to St Louis, which I feel does a good job of capturing Chicago's neighborhood vibe on a smaller scale.
The walkability of Milwaukee's East Side is very cool though.
Last edited by MidwestCoast714; 01-19-2023 at 04:44 PM..
I like both cities a lot. Pittsburgh is a much smaller city and metropolitan area. Pittsburgh is far less diverse in terms of the sheer numbers game of how large of a community of different groups there are, so it doesn't have enough mass to import, grow, or support businesses like restaurants and groceries specializing in very specific things. This isn't just a Pittsburgh thing, but rather a smaller city thing as Chicago is quite diverse *and* quite large.
Here's a bit of an oddity, but have you considered Philadelphia? Sort of in the middle of size between the two and has hills and even closer proximity to the ocean. It's about even to Chicago in prices I think.
Maybe live close to Mt. Trashmore in Evanston or Palmisano Park in Bridgeport?
Milwaukee has good parks, and you'd keep the Lake Michigan waterfront. It's easy to head back down to Chicago for a weekend. Wisconsin's got some decent hills outside of Milwaukee. You'd have the same drinking culture.
Milwaukee has good parks, and you'd keep the Lake Michigan waterfront. It's easy to head back down to Chicago for a weekend. Wisconsin's got some decent hills outside of Milwaukee. You'd have the same drinking culture.
I like Milwaukee's parks my problem with Milwaukee is......
A: It's almost too close to Chicago. So much like its cousin Sacramento, you keep sorta wishing you were there instead.
B: Milwaukee is more expensive than the other more isolated (from a big city) rust metros due to Chicago proximity and it tends to have fairly high taxes (although Pennsylvania isn't immune from this, but Burg property values are definitely appreciating slower.
Milwaukee, imo, is lacking a bit on the neighborhood front compared to say Saint Louis.
The East Side maintains decent urbanity for a large stretch, but only the Third Ward and Downtown feel that distinctive and perhaps parts of Walkers Point. The Lake Front is certainly a plus though.
There are some decent hills in the city, particularly around the lake front, but they're not all that steep for the most part and are overly concentrated by the lake mostly (city wise), barring some weird cases like the park sorta adjacent to River West
I like both cities a lot. Pittsburgh is a much smaller city and metropolitan area. Pittsburgh is far less diverse in terms of the sheer numbers game of how large of a community of different groups there are, so it doesn't have enough mass to import, grow, or support businesses like restaurants and groceries specializing in very specific things. This isn't just a Pittsburgh thing, but rather a smaller city thing as Chicago is quite diverse *and* quite large.
Here's a bit of an oddity, but have you considered Philadelphia? Sort of in the middle of size between the two and has hills and even closer proximity to the ocean. It's about even to Chicago in prices I think.
Maybe live close to Mt. Trashmore in Evanston or Palmisano Park in Bridgeport?
I like that park in bridgeport! I've actually never been to Mt Trashmore in Evanston. Will have to check it out. I don't care for the CTA situation in Evanston though! Stopping at Howard is a pain.
Not crazy about the Bridgeport transit situation either - Don't recall being too keen on the bridgeport waterfront either.
I have considered Philly. I've never been though. What are the hilliest areas of philly?
Philly has a great food scene as well. I suppose I'm somewhat afraid of Philly super blowing up, being next to NYC, but it could be worth a go!
I will say the low HOA fees in Pittsburgh are a major plus. Like the idea of being able to travel in Africa or South America for months without feeling like I'm paying tons of rent (once mortgage is essentially paid off, or with remote work) But, I'm looking at Philly and HOA seems generally lower than Chicago.
Sell me on Philly some more! And what do you feel Pittsburgh does well?
They both have access to mountains which is cool and ofc Philly has NYC right next door.
Nightlife - Chicago, just on sheer size alone it will have a much better nightlife than Pittsburgh
People - Midwestern friendliness vs Pennsylvania's east coast "rude" ie blunt behavior, take your pick.
Music Scene - Chicago. You got hip hop, indie, pop punk, hardcore. Pittsburgh is more about country music, Kenny Chesney is insanely popular and the city gets trashed whenever he performs
Downtowns - Chicago. Pittsburgh is nice and compact, it's like a rural town with skyscrapers in the middle of it. Chicago is a giant metropolis and has a legit downtown core.
Hiking & Recreation - Pittsburgh, it's kind of known for this
Petty Crime in Neighborhoods - Not sure, but Chicago's south side is notorious for crime. I imagine Pittsburgh has more property crime, drug crime, and Chicago more violent crime like homicides, shootings, etc
Food (Especially desserts and pastries and pizza) - Pittsburgh would have better Italian food being closer to NYC/Philly. Chicago's pizzas are like Chicago's women, nice, THICC, and homegrown if ya know what I mean
Walkability - Chicago by far. Pittsburgh is too hilly
Public Transit - Chicago. The "L". One of the best public transit systems in the country
Nightlife - Chicago, just on sheer size alone it will have a much better nightlife than Pittsburgh
People - Midwestern friendliness vs Pennsylvania's east coast "rude" ie blunt behavior, take your pick.
Music Scene - Chicago. You got hip hop, indie, pop punk, hardcore. Pittsburgh is more about country music, Kenny Chesney is insanely popular and the city gets trashed whenever he performs
Downtowns - Chicago. Pittsburgh is nice and compact, it's like a rural town with skyscrapers in the middle of it. Chicago is a giant metropolis and has a legit downtown core.
Hiking & Recreation - Pittsburgh, it's kind of known for this
Petty Crime in Neighborhoods - Not sure, but Chicago's south side is notorious for crime. I imagine Pittsburgh has more property crime, drug crime, and Chicago more violent crime like homicides, shootings, etc
Food (Especially desserts and pastries and pizza) - Pittsburgh would have better Italian food being closer to NYC/Philly. Chicago's pizzas are like Chicago's women, nice, THICC, and homegrown if ya know what I mean
Walkability - Chicago by far. Pittsburgh is too hilly
Public Transit - Chicago. The "L". One of the best public transit systems in the country
Ammenities - Chicago, much bigger
Neighborhoods & Suburbs - Chicago
Economy/Job Market - Chicago
Have you spent time in both cities? It sounds like you're going off stereotypes with a lot of this. Hills don't phase me and I've been to a lot of Chicago's southside (some of it is awful) Also to Pittsburgh's credit on music, Code Orange is from there. That's basically as good as it gets for hardcore/metal.
It also seems like Pittsburgh has plenty of urban districts outside of its CBD. Oakland (Pittsburgh) alone is very impressive seeming. Also, are Pittsburgh people really "east coast rude/blunt" It's like an hour and a half from Cleveland. Not saying I can't handle a blunter attitude though.
Back in the mid 2010s, I was considering moving to Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or Chicago. In a sense, Philadelphia brought together what attracted me to the other two that it seemed the best fit.
I think for most of your criteria, Pittsburgh packs a great punch for its size. It is just pretty small relative to Chicago. So even though Pittsburgh performs well, Chicago still comes out on top in most of the criteria besides hiking and outdoor recreation.
I'm not sure what your expected income in Pittsburgh is relative to what you make in Chicago, but I think you're right that you could get more bang-for-your-buck in Pittsburgh than Chicago. If that, coupled with the superior topography for hiking and outdoor recreation (also important to me) makes Pittsburgh an appealing place to put down roots, then it is definitely worth considering. Pittsburgh is a fantastic city.
Since you sound a bit conflicted about what you'd be giving up relative to what you'd be gaining by making such a move, you should visit and consider how your day-to-day life would change.
It's been a really long time since I've been to Pittsburgh (and I was only briefly there), so I can't accurately assess it.
But, living in Chicago, I definitely understand you about the lack of direct access to nature and the long winters can get taxing. I live in Lincoln Park, and that has been great for me to get access to greenery and nature.
Pittsburgh seems like a very nice, classic mid-sized city. I think you would have more direct access to nature, and cost of living is really cheap by big city standards. I have a childhood friend who lives in Pittsburgh now and has a nice SFH that is really affordable. Also, Pittsburgh would have milder winters than Chicago. Also, while the downtown and public transportation would not be comparable to Chicago's, it's again, a nice midsized downtown that would have most of what you need.
It seems like nature, being active, along with slightly milder weather is a high priority on your list which would all lean towards Pittsburgh. To add to that, COL is cheaper there too, which is an added bonus. You would be missing out on the "big city" amenities, but Pittsburgh is still "big enough" to have most of what you would need.
Back in the mid 2010s, I was considering moving to Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or Chicago. In a sense, Philadelphia brought together what attracted me to the other two that it seemed the best fit.
I think for most of your criteria, Pittsburgh packs a great punch for its size. It is just pretty small relative to Chicago. So even though Pittsburgh performs well, Chicago still comes out on top in most of the criteria besides hiking and outdoor recreation.
I'm not sure what your expected income in Pittsburgh is relative to what you make in Chicago, but I think you're right that you could get more bang-for-your-buck in Pittsburgh than Chicago. If that, coupled with the superior topography for hiking and outdoor recreation (also important to me) makes Pittsburgh an appealing place to put down roots, then it is definitely worth considering. Pittsburgh is a fantastic city.
Since you sound a bit conflicted about what you'd be giving up relative to what you'd be gaining by making such a move, you should visit and consider how your day-to-day life would change.
This was a great answer. How do you feel Philly’s topography compares to Pittsburgh?
And I know Philly is much warmer but is Pittsburgh really much warmer than Chicago? Strictly temperature wise it seems fairly similar.
I’ll visit both before I make any sudden decisions though. This was good input!
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.
