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.
Compared to Philadelphia (which is only an hour or two away from NYC), Chicago may seem isolated, but what I don't get is, so what if Chicago is isolated geographically? It isn't landlocked as there's a giant lake literally right there, and the city is so massive that it has everything you could possibly need. No other neighboring city has something that Chicago doesn't have, so there's really no reason to leave the area, unless for work, visiting someone, vacation, etc. Do I want to go to a different part of the country? Chi has two of the busiest airports in the U.S. with tons of flight options. It is not as if people in Chicago feel trapped and can't leave to anywhere.... there are tons of places in the region to visit for a daytrip, but most people here don't have the "need" to do that very often. Chicago has everything they could possibly need.
For my girlfriend and I, who are still considering Chicago (at least temporarily), the lack of nearby "quick escapes" is absolutely a factor. Though I wouldn't exactly call it "isolation." As you said, it's actually very well connected by air and you can fly cheaply and directly to many places in the U.S. and beyond. That's a check in the plus column for us.
But while the city is very self-contained and offer all the urban amenities one could want (as well as the lakeshore and beaches within the city limits), it doesn't really compete with east or west coast metros on the day trip/weekend getaway front. That's a negative for many people, and it would be mean a lifestyle change for us. We do several big, long distance trips per year (and ORD would make that easier for us as AA/Oneworld loyalists); but many of our weekends are spent on day trips, overnights, and weekend trips up to the mountains, the coast/islands, the lakes, any number of the dozens of small cities (Providence, Burlington, Portland), and/or cute small towns and villages within a few hours of us, and even up to Montreal once or twice per year. With all due respect to the Lake (which is beautiful) and towns like Galena (charming), this is very much a "win" for the coastal metros. Most people choosing cities aren't expecting to wall themselves off within the city limits and never leave, so it's a factor. Chicago is still a very intriguing option (one of our favorite cities), but this is one of the biggest knocks against it for us (that, and the lack of skiing nearby).
For me, the weather is the largest setback for Chicago. It can be downright miserable for a good chunk of the year, whereas Philadelphia is fairly temperate with easy winters compared to Chicago. (Chicago summers are wonderful though).
Such a crutch argument. The weather in NYC and Philadelphia isn't that much better than in Chicago.
I know it's Boston, and not Philly or NYC, but the weather in the Greater Boston suburbs and the Chicago suburbs are identical.. Boston is actually windier, Boston get's more snow, temperatures are the same inland.
What I would say though, when it comes to winter, it's far (far far far) more enjoyable in the Northeast for me. I've lived equal time in Chicago and Boston, and I can honestly say that Greater Boston just has more, and more close. More usable fresh water in the metro, ski hills in the metro, trips up to NH/VT/ME. It's just more active year around in that way.
Such a crutch argument. The weather in NYC and Philadelphia isn't that much better than in Chicago.
I know it's Boston, and not Philly or NYC, but the weather in the Greater Boston suburbs and the Chicago suburbs are identical.. Boston is actually windier, Boston get's more snow, temperatures are the same inland.
What I would say though, when it comes to winter, it's far (far far far) more enjoyable in the Northeast for me. I've lived equal time in Chicago and Boston, and I can honestly say that Greater Boston just has more, and more close. More usable fresh water in the metro, ski hills in the metro, trips up to NH/VT/ME. It's just more active year around in that way.
No its not, its a valid argument and noticeable enough to me, I spend quite a bit of time in each city.
For my girlfriend and I, who are still considering Chicago (at least temporarily), the lack of nearby "quick escapes" is absolutely a factor. Though I wouldn't exactly call it "isolation." As you said, it's actually very well connected by air and you can fly cheaply and directly to many places in the U.S. and beyond. That's a check in the plus column for us.
But while the city is very self-contained and offer all the urban amenities one could want (as well as the lakeshore and beaches within the city limits), it doesn't really compete with east or west coast metros on the day trip/weekend getaway front. That's a negative for many people, and it would be mean a lifestyle change for us. We do several big, long distance trips per year (and ORD would make that easier for us as AA/Oneworld loyalists); but many of our weekends are spent on day trips, overnights, and weekend trips up to the mountains, the coast/islands, the lakes, any number of the dozens of small cities (Providence, Burlington, Portland), and/or cute small towns and villages within a few hours of us, and even up to Montreal once or twice per year. With all due respect to the Lake (which is beautiful) and towns like Galena (charming), this is very much a "win" for the coastal metros. Most people choosing cities aren't expecting to wall themselves off within the city limits and never leave, so it's a factor. Chicago is still a very intriguing option (one of our favorite cities), but this is one of the biggest knocks against it for us (that, and the lack of skiing nearby).
easy, take a 2 hr flight to Denver. there are 4~5 AA & 4~5 United planes daily
No city near Chicago is of particular interest to most. Much like Chicago, DC/Philly/NYC/Boston are all interesting places overly worthy of a weekend or vacation. So, when you live in Philly, it's really nice to have those options at your fingertips.
When you live in Chicago, you make statements like "No other neighboring city has something Chicago doesn't have". You don't make that statement in the Northeast.
And, regardless of how much you love Wisconsin or Western Michigan, you're never really going to have a comp to Newport, or Nantucket, or Burlington, or Portland, or Portsmouth. It's not to dismiss the former areas entirely, but if you have to choose between the offerings within 4 hours of Chicago, or the offerings within 4 hours NYC... Kind of an easy one for me.
I don't disagree there's a benefit to Philly's connectivity to northeastern cities.... but saying Chicago is "isolated" is a different argument.... just because Chicago is the biggest city in several hundred miles doesn't mean it is isolated, and just because one prefers east coast cities over Milwaukee, Madison, and Indianapolis also doesn't mean it is a problem. There are smaller cities between 1-3 hours away, and things to do in all directions. Chicago has never felt "isolating" to me, because it is a massive urban/suburban area of over 9 million people with dozens upon dozens of unique neighborhoods, suburbs, and things to see and do. Why would I want to go to Milwaukee? Do people in NYC regularly go to Philly, even though NYC has pretty much everything they could possibly need?
I get what you're saying, but I've been to small cities that legitimately make you feel "isolated" (Omaha being on of them). Chicago is not one of them. Landlocked, small, lack things you can get in bigger cities, feeling "trapped".... etc. Whether or not you prefer Madison/Milwaukee/Indianapolis/Minneapolis and Lake Michigan nearby instead of Providence/Wilmington/Long Island and the Ocean nearby really doesn't matter. I agree proximity to other cities is better in the NE, but could not disagree more that Chicago is, or feels "isolated". Even in much smaller cities like Seattle and Miami, which geographically also are not near cities larger than them, have a large enough and diverse offering to not be isolated.
Also, the cohesive "Bos-Wash" corridor thing is not really true. For one there's awful traffic on I-95, making regular traffic between cities not very easy and smooth. For another, Boston is a 7 hour drive to DC. To put that in perspective, Chicago is a 7 hour drive from Nashville, TN. So, not all cities in this corridor are as "close" as some here are making them out to be. Just looking at a map really doesn't tell you the whole story.
Last edited by CCrest182; 10-28-2020 at 01:21 PM..
For my girlfriend and I, who are still considering Chicago (at least temporarily), the lack of nearby "quick escapes" is absolutely a factor. Though I wouldn't exactly call it "isolation." As you said, it's actually very well connected by air and you can fly cheaply and directly to many places in the U.S. and beyond. That's a check in the plus column for us.
But while the city is very self-contained and offer all the urban amenities one could want (as well as the lakeshore and beaches within the city limits), it doesn't really compete with east or west coast metros on the day trip/weekend getaway front. That's a negative for many people, and it would be mean a lifestyle change for us. We do several big, long distance trips per year (and ORD would make that easier for us as AA/Oneworld loyalists); but many of our weekends are spent on day trips, overnights, and weekend trips up to the mountains, the coast/islands, the lakes, any number of the dozens of small cities (Providence, Burlington, Portland), and/or cute small towns and villages within a few hours of us, and even up to Montreal once or twice per year. With all due respect to the Lake (which is beautiful) and towns like Galena (charming), this is very much a "win" for the coastal metros. Most people choosing cities aren't expecting to wall themselves off within the city limits and never leave, so it's a factor. Chicago is still a very intriguing option (one of our favorite cities), but this is one of the biggest knocks against it for us (that, and the lack of skiing nearby).
Chicago is maybe as isolated as Boston is which has a bit more of a distance to the major cities than the other major northeast corridor cities. Milwaukee is like your Providence with a cool small nearby city. Madison is the odd even smaller city and geographically interesting with its downtown on an isthmus between two lakes. There are nice sand beaches on the southern and southeastern coastline of Lake Michigan that are warm enough to swim in in the winter and there are towns there that can be cute like St. Joseph. The big thing is that it's a longer haul to less spectacular mountains in comparison to what Boston has.
One thing to hope for is that the transit investments that Chicago and the region are going for get fast-tracked if a federal government comes in place that backs investment in infrastructure, so you can get high-speed rail rides to St. Lous, more frequent service to Detroit, Grand Rapid, Madison, and Minneapolis, and the start of service to Rockford and the Quad Cities.
easy, take a 2 hr flight to Denver. there are 4~5 AA & 4~5 United planes daily
No, it's not "easy." I feel like only people who don't actually ski make these types of comments.
The flight time itself is around 2 hours. It's about an hour each way between the Loop and ORD on transit (with boot bag, ski bag, and luggage for clothes - not fun). On a good day it's 1/2 hour each way in an Uber/Lyft. Then, even with pre-check, you need to get there at least hour early to check your bags and clear security. Then when you land, it's an hour or so from the time you touch down, collect bags, pick up your rental car, and hit the road. Then it's another hour and a half (more with I-70 traffic on a Friday afternoon) to the closest ski areas (Loveland, A-Basin) from the airport. So... the absolute best case scenario is about 6 hours from downtown Chicago to Loveland if you go for the Uber, have zero issues with delays, and have no traffic on either end. Realistically, I'd bank on 8-10 hours door to door. Not to mention the hundreds of dollars for flights, Uber, rental car, etc. (versus the $50 or so for gas/tolls round trip for us to NH,VT,ME). That's a lot for a weekend without taking time off. Right now, we have our choice of decent ski areas within 2-3.5 hours - an easy drive after work. It's how we're able to ski 10-15 weekends or so every winter, plus several spontaneous "sick days" when we get a good snow midweek. That's just not feasible from Chicago - either financially or in terms of time.
No, it's not "easy." I feel like only people who don't actually ski make these types of comments.
The flight time itself is around 2 hours. It's about an hour each way between the Loop and ORD on transit (with boot bag, ski bag, and luggage for clothes - not fun). On a good day it's 1/2 hour each way in an Uber/Lyft. Then, even with pre-check, you need to get there at least hour early to check your bags and clear security. Then when you land, it's an hour or so from the time you touch down, collect bags, pick up your rental car, and hit the road. Then it's another hour and a half (more with I-70 traffic on a Friday afternoon) to the closest ski areas (Loveland, A-Basin) from the airport. So... the absolute best case scenario is about 6 hours from downtown Chicago to Loveland if you go for the Uber, have zero issues with delays, and have no traffic on either end. Realistically, I'd bank on 8-10 hours door to door. Not to mention the hundreds of dollars for flights, Uber, rental car, etc. (versus the $50 or so for gas/tolls round trip for us to NH,VT,ME). That's a lot for a weekend without taking time off. Right now, we have our choice of decent ski areas within 2-3.5 hours - an easy drive after work. It's how we're able to ski 10-15 weekends or so every winter, plus several spontaneous "sick days" when we get a good snow midweek. That's just not feasible from Chicago - either financially or in terms of time.
You do have skiing nearby--you just don't have *great* skiing nearby, though there is good skiing if you're willing to drive a few hours each way. Or at least that's what it seems as I've never done so in the Midwest before: https://www.thrillist.com/entertainm...t-near-chicago
Chicago is maybe as isolated as Boston is which has a bit more of a distance to the major cities than the other major northeast corridor cities. Milwaukee is like your Providence with a cool small nearby city. Madison is the odd even smaller city and geographically interesting with its downtown on an isthmus between two lakes. There are nice sand beaches on the southern and southeastern coastline of Lake Michigan that are warm enough to swim in in the winter and there are towns there that can be cute like St. Joseph. The big thing is that it's a longer haul to less spectacular mountains in comparison to what Boston has.
One thing to hope for is that the transit investments that Chicago and the region are going for get fast-tracked if a federal government comes in place that backs investment in infrastructure, so you can get high-speed rail rides to St. Lous, more frequent service to Detroit, Grand Rapid, Madison, and Minneapolis, and the start of service to Rockford and the Quad Cities.
Providence and Worcester are much close to Boston than Milwaukee to Chicago. Not to Mention Nashua and Manchester.
Hartford to Boston is more Milwaukee to Chicago (101 miles and 93 miles apart, respectively) and the Hartford Metro is also 1 million-plus. The density of settlement and urbanity between Boston and NYC is amongst the very highest in the nation.
I get what you're saying, but I've been to small cities that legitimately make you feel "isolated" (Omaha being on of them). Chicago is not one of them. Landlocked, small, lack things you can get in bigger cities, feeling "trapped".... etc. Whether or not you prefer Madison/Milwaukee/Indianapolis/Minneapolis and Lake Michigan nearby instead of Providence/Wilmington/Long Island and the Ocean nearby really doesn't matter. I agree proximity to other cities is better in the NE, but could not disagree more that Chicago is, or feels "isolated". Even in much smaller cities like Seattle and Miami, which geographically also are not near cities larger than them, have a large enough and diverse offering to not be isolated.
Yeah, having lived in Tucson and small town New Mexico for 17 years which are actually very isolated, it's interesting that people find Chicago isolated. The only major nearby metro area was Phoenix, which never felt like a huge city due to the sprawl. When I first moved to the midwest, it was striking just how close together all these fairly big (urban) cities were to each other. I haven't spent much time in the northeast so my frame of reference is probably very different than people from that area.
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.
