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.
Depends on what you want--Chicago definitely has the better peak urbanity with a larger contiguous area of urban zones. However, you'd have to be decently cold-tolerant and/or like the change of seasons. Los Angeles is a much more moderate climate and its generally surrounded by what many would be consider more interesting topography with the coast and the mountains.
It depends who you ask.... and a big factor is obviously weather. If you prefer seasons, Chicago will obviously appeal more. If you want sunshine year round, LA.
Both cities can have bad traffic, but LA's traffic is much worse. Also has worse air quality.
Chicago has significantly better public transportation options.
Suburbs? I like Chicago's historic, more walkable suburbs over LA's more sprawly suburb, post-war suburbs. Just MO
Shopping? Tough one to answer, really. But I'd say slight edge to Chicago.
Dining: I would say Chicago wins this, but I could see someone voting for LA here too. LA definitely excels more in Asian food, but both cities are tops in the nation for Mexican eats. Both cities have great "greasy spoon", neighborhood hamburger/hot dog/sandwich spots.
Vibe: Depends who you ask. Both cities have laid-back elements, and fast-paced elements to them.
Entertainment? Probably a draw.
QOL? IMO Chicago
Overall: I pick Chicago. But this is a pretty subjective question, as the two cities are very very different.
quality of life
entertainment
dining
shopping
overall vibe
etc.
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.
It all comes down to preferences. For more of a traditional urban experience, I would say Chicago. But when you factor in the "full package," of nice weather, urban options, beaches, etc....I would probably say LA would win out.
I'm from the Midwest, and I like have 4 seasons. But the bitter cold winters can get tiresome. If you took where family is located out of the equation as well, I'd probably go with LA.
Also a big advantage for LA is the suburbs. Chicagoland suburbs are underrated IMO, but they are traditional suburbs (minus the few that directly border the city), whereas several LA suburbs are really an extension of the city, so LA wins this category by a lot. LA is just more vast in terms of different living options.
It all comes down to preferences. For more of a traditional urban experience, I would say Chicago. But when you factor in the "full package," of nice weather, urban options, beaches, etc....I would probably say LA would win out.
I'm from the Midwest, and I like have 4 seasons. But the bitter cold winters can get tiresome. If you took where family is located out of the equation as well, I'd probably go with LA.
Also a big advantage for LA is the suburbs. Chicagoland suburbs are underrated IMO, but they are traditional suburbs (minus the few that directly border the city), whereas several LA suburbs are really an extension of the city, so LA wins this category by a lot. LA is just more vast in terms of different living options.
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.
Suburbs? I like Chicago's historic, more walkable suburbs over LA's more sprawly suburb, post-war suburbs. Just MO
LA has plenty of pre war, walkable suburbs like Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Redondo Beach, Burbank, and even Santa Ana. Outer Chicago postwar suburbs like Naperville are more sprawly than comparable outer LA burbs like Irvine.
The stereotype of LA is that its suburbs are all new and that LA is the poster child of sprawl. The stereotype of Chicago is that it is dense, and that most of its suburbs look like Oak Park, Wilmette, Skokie, and all these classic, dense, pre war suburbs that really just look like an extension of the dense Chicago inner city.
In reality, while LA proper is in fact less dense than Chicago proper, LA urbanized (built up) area is denser than any other urbanized area in America, including Chicago. And that is because LA has the densest outer suburbs in the country.
quality of life-LA
entertainment-LA
dining-LA
shopping-LA
overall vibe-LA
Sorry I maybe a little biased toward my hometown. But other than NYC, I really don’t see another city that can offer an overall package, variety and depth in the way LA can. LA is a global city and for a city of LA’s size, it is relatively safe, too.
Architecture and urbanity I give to Chicago, though.
Last edited by SnobbishDude; 10-22-2020 at 04:00 PM..
It depends who you ask.... and a big factor is obviously weather. If you prefer seasons, Chicago will obviously appeal more. If you want sunshine year round, LA.
Both cities can have bad traffic, but LA's traffic is much worse. Also has worse air quality.
Chicago has significantly better public transportation options.
Suburbs? I like Chicago's historic, more walkable suburbs over LA's more sprawly suburb, post-war suburbs. Just MO
Shopping? Tough one to answer, really. But I'd say slight edge to Chicago.
Dining: I would say Chicago wins this, but I could see someone voting for LA here too. LA definitely excels more in Asian food, but both cities are tops in the nation for Mexican eats. Both cities have great "greasy spoon", neighborhood hamburger/hot dog/sandwich spots.
Vibe: Depends who you ask. Both cities have laid-back elements, and fast-paced elements to them.
Entertainment? Probably a draw.
QOL? IMO Chicago
Overall: I pick Chicago. But this is a pretty subjective question, as the two cities are very very different.
Really. Outside of Evanston, Skokie, Oak Park and a few others that border the city, Chicago's suburbs are as traditional as they come. I have family that lives in Chicagoland, and there are some really nice suburbs with cool downtowns (Naperville, Downer's Grove, and many others). But to compare that to Santa Monica, Irvine, Newport Beach, Pasadena, Anaheim, Long Beach, and too many others to name????? As you said, it all comes down to personal opinion and age as well. if you are an older adult I can see you maybe preferring Chicagoland, but on the whole, for the <45 crowd, I think most would prefer LA's suburbs by a huge margin.
There aren't many young, social professionals flocking to many of the Chicagoland suburbs (most of them stay in the city), whereas there are several trendy LA suburbs (with tons of bars, restaurants, and nightlife) that you will find you many social young adults/professionals.
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.
