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.
Chicago and NYC have very similar average temps. Differences, are pretty inconsequential.
I mean, there are cities with larger differences, yes. Chicago is definitely colder for longer over winter and with an average high difference of 7 degrees during a solid four months of winter which I think is noticeable to people. Boston is somewhere in between the two in temps and duration and I'd be more comfortable saying the difference between Chicago and Boston is pretty inconsequential, but I understand the band.
I definitely would not say that Minneapolis and Montreal have a pretty inconsequential average winter temps difference from Chicago and Montreal has the kind of numerical difference from Chicago in winter that Chicago has from NYC.
I did winter in Montreal before. I saw the numerical difference and thought that numerical difference from NYC was actually very large and that would mean Montreal was very cold. It turned out to be extremely true. I do think their very good underground network and the many odd greenhouses of different types were done very well though. The Chicago Pedway could use a bit of work and expansion.
There's a huge difference between winter in Chicago and winter in London/Paris. Winter in London/Paris is closer to winter in Nashville or Charlotte, which are cities that people in Chicago move to so that they can get away from Chicago winter. Winter in Chicago is certainly tougher than winter in most major cities around the world.
The stereotype for our major American cities ALWAYS had Chicago as a epicenter of worst winters. Only other large city a contender is the Twin-Cities and Cleveland if not always forgotten, but Chicago is the defacto Midwest region city and as a region .... worst weather as its huge scourge.
Much of Europe has moderating factors not for this thread. Just for a point. Chicago is the same latitude as the French Riviera and Paris not too far north has a above freezing Jan night-average temp of 36 F. London is further north yet average-night temp Jan of 39 F. Chicago's is well .... below freezing at night. North America's Continental winters clearly will be colder on average.
This WHOLE THREAD of two cities having a COL removed .... has clearly swayed it then to LA more and the other factor of weather and winters being left in. Has had it steered hugely toward LA and kept the gap 2 to 1. If weather was not in comparisons? The stats would probably have been closer. Still most would see LA would have won as S Cali outside of COL generally always did with weather huge point for its Growth that predates most of the South's Sunbelt.
Many comments in this thread were positive mentions to Chicago for many factors and then the --- but for weather/winters come in. LA certainly has plenty other reasons it can win on. Just we all can agree that weather was key in comments that even said.... but for winters then in Chicago's favor could be much higher. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There's a huge difference between winter in Chicago and winter in London/Paris. Winter in London/Paris is closer to winter in Nashville or Charlotte, which are cities that people in Chicago move to so that they can get away from Chicago winter. Winter in Chicago is certainly tougher than winter in most major cities around the world.
The stereotype for our major American cities ALWAYS had Chicago as a epicenter of worst winters. Only other large city a contender is the Twin-Cities and Cleveland if not always forgotten, but Chicago is the defacto Midwest region city and as a region .... worst weather as its huge scourge.
Much of Europe has moderating factors not for this thread. Just for a point. Chicago is the same latitude as the French Riviera and Paris not too far north has a above freezing Jan night-average temp of 36 F. London is further north yet average-night temp Jan of 39 F. Chicago's is well .... below freezing at night. North America's Continental winters clearly will be colder on average. Still Europe does get its POLAR VOTEX winters it recently had one and a heat wave of a summer ....
This WHOLE THREAD of two cities having a COL removed .... has clearly swayed it then to LA more and the other factor of weather and winters being left in. Has had it steered hugely toward LA and kept the gap 2 to 1. If weather was not in comparisons? The stats would probably have been closer. Still most would see LA would have won as S Cali outside of COL generally always did with weather huge point for its Growth that predates most of the South's Sunbelt.
Many comments in this thread were positive mentions to Chicago for many factors and then the --- but for weather/winters come in. LA certainly has plenty other reasons it can win on. Just we all can agree that weather was key in comments that even said.... but for winters then in Chicago's favor could be much higher. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The stereotype for our major American cities ALWAYS had Chicago as a epicenter of worst winters. Only other large city a contender is the Twin-Cities and Cleveland if not always forgotten, but Chicago is the defacto Midwest region city and as a region .... worst weather as its huge scourge.
Much of Europe has moderating factors not for this thread. Just for a point. Chicago is the same latitude as the French Riviera and Paris not too far north has a above freezing Jan night-average temp of 36 F. London is further north yet average-night temp Jan of 39 F. Chicago's is well .... below freezing at night. North America's Continental winters clearly will be colder on average.
This WHOLE THREAD of two cities having a COL removed .... has clearly swayed it then to LA more and the other factor of weather and winters being left in. Has had it steered hugely toward LA and kept the gap 2 to 1. If weather was not in comparisons? The stats would probably have been closer. Still most would see LA would have won as S Cali outside of COL generally always did with weather huge point for its Growth that predates most of the South's Sunbelt.
Many comments in this thread were positive mentions to Chicago for many factors and then the --- but for weather/winters come in. LA certainly has plenty other reasons it can win on. Just we all can agree that weather was key in comments that even said.... but for winters then in Chicago's favor could be much higher. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
How did you leave out Detroit when talking about major midwestern cities? You have hurt some big feelings, bro.
How did you leave out Detroit when talking about major midwestern cities? You have hurt some big feelings, bro.
I mentioned Cleveland for one key reason .... it is left out even far more then Detroit IMO. At least Detroit gets some star power even if not in the positive or more with Motown and as once the true Motor City. Cleveland truly gets the old saying of as the - Red-headed step-child in the family by more ignoring. Toronto likes to see itself as the Star-City of the Great Lakes and have read it even with some boast of having a bit better weather then Chicago. .... Cleveland just also gets much more of the Lake Effect snow then even Chicago, by being due south of the Lake.
Two great cities. Chicago definitely wins on urbanity, but if COL is removed I think LA takes this all the way. Amenities are world class, plus great weather and access to the ocean.
With COL, I would give this to Chicago. As a matter of fact, if I ever "FLEE CALIFORNIA" for whatever reason, Chicago would be at the top of my list as a place to relocate to. You're getting a London level city on the cheap.
Without COL factored, I don't see an argument against Los Angeles. Its a trillion dollar GDP metro in a coastal setting with pretty much objectively perfect year round weather. There's nothing like it on this planet and the only other place something like that could even occur would be in latin America or Africa.
Chicago might be able to pick up a few points in the "overall vibe" category from what I hear and that's about it.
I grew up in Orange County, and knew LA well. Moved to Boston for college and law school and my first job, and now am in Chicago. I love the free feeling feel of LA, but think as a city I like Chicago much more. It just depends on what you are looking for.
Yeah this another big one. L.A. suburbs in many cases aren't a downgrade from the city in any regard in all directions. From what I understand about Chicago culture, the city mocking the burbs is a thing.
I now live in the Chicago suburbs ala Ferris Buellers day off. Some of them are gorgeous. Definitely not a downgrade from the city or LA, my current one is way more beautiful than the subdivision filled hills I grew up in in OC, for not much more money.
Last edited by Justabystander; 10-24-2020 at 07:12 PM..
I'm not sure where this idea is coming from that the LA Metro suburbs don't have much pre-WWII housing. LA County + Orange County population in 1940 was almost 3 million, about half of which lived in the city of LA. 2.8 million of that total was LA County; Orange County wasn't that big back then. That still means almost half the LA metro lived out in various burbs. Chicagoland by comparison was bigger in 1940, almost 5 million, but 3.4 million lived in the city, so the burbs had about 1.6 million. So, maybe about 100,000 more people were living in pre-WWII homes in 1940 Chicagoland burbs. There is plenty of pre-WWII housing in the LA Metro. As a percentage over overall housing, pre-WWII may be lower in the LA metro burbs than Chicagoland burbs, but in absolute numbers it's not that different.
LA Metro 1940 Population-3 million
1940 City pop- 1.5 million
1940 Suburban pop 1.5 million
Chicagoland 1940 Population- 5 million
1940 city pop- 3.4 million
1940 suburban pop- 1.6 million
The differences between Chicago and LA's early population history are in the 1920 and earlier census populations. In Chicago in 1910, the city alone was 2.18 million. Metro LA was 600k+.
Instead of pre-war, I should've said pre-automobile. Because Chi has plenty of pre-auto suburbs and housing from the late 19th century. As I said in an earlier comment, Chicago's core suburbs were built along railroad lines. And uniquely, the Chicago fire sent hundreds of thousands of early Chicago residents to the suburbs, and that was in 1871.
Last edited by CCrest182; 10-24-2020 at 07:55 PM..
LA could be a good life even though it's too hot. I'd work in DTLA, Venice, or somewhere else dense, and live within walking distance.
Chicago is obviously superior urbanity but the winters would be ridiculous. Half-price condos would probably be enough to choose it.
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.
