Los angeles vs chicago (living, best, better, compared)
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.
Both are so different, Chicago city itself blows LA downtown out of the water, but if you live in LA you've got far more than Downtown, with many diverse districts such as Long Beach, Hollywood, Topanga etc, the beautiful ocean, canyons, mountains, desert.etc. Around Chicago it just seems there is generic Midwestern farmland.
I like this post the most. It tickles me.
You see, to people in real cities, "downtown" means the central business district. It's a place with a lot of office towers and perhaps a few high rise apartments. Chicagoans would also be confused comparing only their downtown to another city; after all, they work there but it isn't where they live or play. It's certainly not where they pass their weekends.
The various areas and cities around (and sometimes inside) of LA are major downgrades. Long Beach, Hollywood and Topanga Canyon are otherwise unremarkable suburban areas. Admittedly there's some interesting stucco on the overpriced homes in question, but when West Hollywood (one strip of basic retail) is the big draw... It's not even one square block of Boystown, and it's smack dab in the middle of salt box homes.
Good luck getting to the ocean, canyons, mountains or desert. You will be spending your day in traffic. These are not easily accessible areas, after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAnative10
Thats a little extreme. I said eariler that I thought Chicagos cultural offereings were better, but LA still offers alot.
I dont know why a city needs architecture to be good. Its like when people go on and on about which city had a better skyline. Who cares? They are buildings meant for people to work in. If you need to see tall buildings, look at a picture.
Ask yourself this question the next time you sit in traffic for two hours on your way to work. Why indeed are tall buildings important? What advantages could they possibly offer? I mean to hell with basic urban planning, I'd much rather look at a poster of a city designed for human habitation than sacrifice my views of a brown mountain.
When the smog doesn't block it, that is.
Quote:
But as must people will tell you, whats great about LA (and why so many live there) is the weather and topography. It is a city set in one of the most prestine environments in the world. We never had to worry about bad days, we could go to the beach year round, we could go hiking, we could go to the desert, and we could go skiing in the winter/spring.
What is great about LA isnt so much the city itself, but the whole area. Its a place you can spend your entire year outdoors. Whats great about Chicago is the city itself. Theres not too much to the outdoors in Chicago or Illinois in comparrison.
If that's your thing, I'm happy for you. I, and most people I know, never do any of those things. Just like people in Manhattan rarely ever do touristy things, I've never been hiking. Or skiing.
My point is that there should be far more weight given to the basics of human existence than the frills. You could live in a tight, dense urban neighborhood with extensive public transit and walk everywhere you need to go... or you could live in an area where you could go skiing but have absolutely nothing else. What idiot really needs time to make that decision? Do you want to take a half hour to get home on the train and then pick up dinner at any one of the dozens of shops/restaurants/grocery stores on your block or add another forty minutes to your hours-long commute?
Would you rather have ready access to the beach but all of the severe complications of living in LA... or have the extreme convenience of every day life at your fingertips in Chicago?
Before you answer, if you actually need time, consider this: We're entering brushfire season again. Who here stands to lose their home this year?
If that's your thing, I'm happy for you. I, and most people I know, never do any of those things. Just like people in Manhattan rarely ever do touristy things, I've never been hiking. Or skiing.
My point is that there should be far more weight given to the basics of human existence than the frills. You could live in a tight, dense urban neighborhood with extensive public transit and walk everywhere you need to go... or you could live in an area where you could go skiing but have absolutely nothing else. What idiot really needs time to make that decision? Do you want to take a half hour to get home on the train and then pick up dinner at any one of the dozens of shops/restaurants/grocery stores on your block or add another forty minutes to your hours-long commute?
Would you rather have ready access to the beach but all of the severe complications of living in LA... or have the extreme convenience of every day life at your fingertips in Chicago?
Before you answer, if you actually need time, consider this: We're entering brushfire season again. Who here stands to lose their home this year?
I spent 22 years in the LA area, 2 years in Chicago, 1 year in Tokyo, 1 year in Hong Kong, and now 1 year in Dallas.
Of the places Ive lived, if I were only to move back to one, it would be LA.
Tokyo and Hong Kong were fun for a year, but I went into them knowning that I would only be there a year so I enjoyed it for what it was. When I moved to Chicago, it was supposed to be for good.
I moved in May. Let me tell you I was in love with the place. It was so urban, but so midwestern at the same time. I could leave the Loop and the Lincoln Park/Lakeview/Gold Coast area, and it was just like being in the heart of the midwest away from the big city. I loved how everyone stayed outdoors in the summer and all of the festivals. I also loved the food.
Then late September happened.
I walked to work in the sleet. Also from that point on it got dark really early. Then from October until mid-November it was a "spin-the-wheel" as to what kind of weather you would get. Some days it was cold and very gray, some days it was nice and mild. Then from December to the begginning or March, it was hell. On top of this, I really missed the mountains, the beaches, and the desert and all of the activities they offered. I decided that the urbanity, the cheaper cost of living, and the public transit was not worth it. I moved back to LA.
So no coldwine, it was not worth it to me. I think Chicago is a great city, but Southern California offers so much more to me.
Personally, I like the idea of having space. If I have to drive 5 minutes to get to the store instead of walking 5 minutes in the blistering cold, thats fine with me.
You see, to people in real cities, "downtown" means the central business district. It's a place with a lot of office towers and perhaps a few high rise apartments. Chicagoans would also be confused comparing only their downtown to another city; after all, they work there but it isn't where they live or play. It's certainly not where they pass their weekends.
. Admittedly there's some interesting stucco on the overpriced homes in question, but when West Hollywood (one strip of basic retail) is the big draw... It's not even one square block of Boystown, and it's smack dab in the middle of salt box homes.
Good luck getting to the ocean, canyons, mountains or desert. You will be spending your day in traffic. These are not easily accessible areas, after all.
Ask yourself this question the next time you sit in traffic for two hours on your way to work. Why indeed are tall buildings important? What advantages could they possibly offer? I mean to hell with basic urban planning, I'd much rather look at a poster of a city designed for human habitation than sacrifice my views of a brown mountain.
When the smog doesn't block it, that is.
If that's your thing, I'm happy for you. I, and most people I know, never do any of those things. Just like people in Manhattan rarely ever do touristy things, I've never been hiking. Or skiing.
My point is that there should be far more weight given to the basics of human existence than the frills. You could live in a tight, dense urban neighborhood with extensive public transit and walk everywhere you need to go... or you could live in an area where you could go skiing but have absolutely nothing else. What idiot really needs time to make that decision? Do you want to take a half hour to get home on the train and then pick up dinner at any one of the dozens of shops/restaurants/grocery stores on your block or add another forty minutes to your hours-long commute?
Would you rather have ready access to the beach but all of the severe complications of living in LA... or have the extreme convenience of every day life at your fingertips in Chicago?
Before you answer, if you actually need time, consider this: We're entering brushfire season again. Who here stands to lose their home this year?
I know I wrote earlier that I would not respond to your comments about Los Angeles but you are putting out such a distorted & untrue description that I must correct your misinformation. I see you claim to be from Chicago & if I am not mistaken you now live in Los Angeles. But I find it very hard to believe that you live in SoCal based on your comments.
Starting with this absurd statement: "The various areas and cities around (and sometimes inside) of LA are major downgrades. Long Beach, Hollywood and Topanga Canyon are otherwise unremarkable suburban areas"
Topanga is not a suburb of Los Angeles but rather a steep canyon in the Santa Monica Mts that drops down to the Pacific Ocean. But rather than grace your comments with a verbal response I will show the reader what Topanga Canyon looks like. For anyone to denigrate the beauty of Topanga as "unremarkable" is quite perplexing.
Here's a look at Santa Monica viewed from the mountains near Topanga Canyon:
Boy, Los Angeles is so unremarkable compared to Chicago I just don't understand why all the celebrities live here. The rest of your statement about LA is just as ridiculous.
I do not know what your motive is but clearly it isn't to portray accurate information. Impostors must be exposed.
You see, to people in real cities, "downtown" means the central business district. It's a place with a lot of office towers and perhaps a few high rise apartments. Chicagoans would also be confused comparing only their downtown to another city; after all, they work there but it isn't where they live or play. It's certainly not where they pass their weekends.
The various areas and cities around (and sometimes inside) of LA are major downgrades. Long Beach, Hollywood and Topanga Canyon are otherwise unremarkable suburban areas. Admittedly there's some interesting stucco on the overpriced homes in question, but when West Hollywood (one strip of basic retail) is the big draw... It's not even one square block of Boystown, and it's smack dab in the middle of salt box homes.
Good luck getting to the ocean, canyons, mountains or desert. You will be spending your day in traffic. These are not easily accessible areas, after all.
Ask yourself this question the next time you sit in traffic for two hours on your way to work. Why indeed are tall buildings important? What advantages could they possibly offer? I mean to hell with basic urban planning, I'd much rather look at a poster of a city designed for human habitation than sacrifice my views of a brown mountain.
When the smog doesn't block it, that is.
If that's your thing, I'm happy for you. I, and most people I know, never do any of those things. Just like people in Manhattan rarely ever do touristy things, I've never been hiking. Or skiing.
My point is that there should be far more weight given to the basics of human existence than the frills. You could live in a tight, dense urban neighborhood with extensive public transit and walk everywhere you need to go... or you could live in an area where you could go skiing but have absolutely nothing else. What idiot really needs time to make that decision? Do you want to take a half hour to get home on the train and then pick up dinner at any one of the dozens of shops/restaurants/grocery stores on your block or add another forty minutes to your hours-long commute?
Would you rather have ready access to the beach but all of the severe complications of living in LA... or have the extreme convenience of every day life at your fingertips in Chicago?
Before you answer, if you actually need time, consider this: We're entering brushfire season again. Who here stands to lose their home this year?
Bravo!! This is one of the best posts I've seen on this message board! I am glad there are people out there that talk about the reality of what life in L.A. is really like. Good job!!!
Bravo!! This is one of the best posts I've seen on this message board! I am glad there are people out there that talk about the reality of what life in L.A. is really like. Good job!!!
Unless you are being facetious [which I believe you are] then this discussion has sunk to an all time low!
No, I was actually serious. L.A. is not a pretty metro area in terms of scenery. I think what coldwine said is so brilliantly written and described that I don't even need to go into the details here. People need to be well informed about what life in both L.A. and Chicago is really like. I can't comment on the Chicago portion of it because I've never been there but I've been living in the L.A. metro long enough to know that it is far from perfect. It was much better back in the 80s.
Last edited by AliveandWell; 04-04-2010 at 12:19 AM..
Reason: add more text
No, I was actually serious. L.A. is not a pretty metro area in terms of scenery. I think what coldwine said is so brilliantly written and described that I don't even need to go into the details here. People need to be well informed about what life in both L.A. and Chicago is really like. I can't comment on the Chicago portion of it because I've never been there but I've been living in the L.A. metro long enough to know that it is far from perfect. It was much better back in the 80s.
Did you ignore the photos? So Topanga canyon is "unremarkable"? At least let's be honest! If you don't like living in Los Angeles, fine but making up negative stuff only puts your credibility in a hole. Desperate unhappiness projected onto the environment. I read a comment you made on another thread that it is the person that determines self-satisfaction. Maybe this thread would improve if we just showed photos of Los Angeles and Chicago. Then readers would know if the poster is being serious or just in a foul mood
Last edited by californio sur; 04-04-2010 at 12:58 AM..
Here's another photo looking toward Topanga Canyon from the beach in Santa Monica. But this discussion isn't about Topanga per se but rather Los Angeles compared to Chicago so I'll post more photos of LA.
I took these photos on President's Day in February. This is Venice Beach on a winter day.
Los Angeles during a storm this year
The good and the bad: this is during last autumn's fire in Angeles Forest [which is 10 miles from Los Angeles]
Please join me in posting photos of Chicago and Los Angeles. I have never been to Chicago but am anxious to visit the city that our president is from I've heard many good things about Chicago but I don't know the city & would appreciate honest feedback [not a lot of negative stuff that isn't even true about Chicago].
We have bad fires every autumn or even late summer and the hot winds fan the flames out of control. It is not a very good image of Los Angeles but having 8 months of zero rainfall makes the foothills super dry. Even a car's muffler backfire can start a fire or if the wind makes electrical wires touch.
Please join me in posting photos of Chicago and Los Angeles. I have never been to Chicago but am anxious to visit the city that our president is from I've heard many good things about Chicago but I don't know the city & would appreciate honest feedback [not a lot of negative stuff that isn't even true about Chicago].
We have bad fires every autumn or even late summer and the hot winds fan the flames out of control. It is not a very good image of Los Angeles but having 8 months of zero rainfall makes the foothills super dry. Even a car's muffler backfire can start a fire or if the wind makes electrical wires touch.
Back to Venice [much nicer
I like how you show BOTH sides.
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.
The rest of your statement about LA is just as ridiculous. 
I've heard many good things about Chicago but I don't know the city & would appreciate honest feedback [not a lot of negative stuff that isn't even true about Chicago]. 
