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 having elevated tracks and platforms in the middle of buildings is such a clusterf*ck lol. They need to tear them all down and put them underground like Manhattan did. Elevated trains only look good in areas that aren't highly urban. And in those cases, the pillars and platforms shouldn't be of metal like in Chicago. That's what gives it that rusty ugly look. Instead, they should be of rock or stone. That's why the Silver line in Tysons looks so nice, compared to Chicago's el:
Hello so I’m having a really tough time making a decision here so looking for some insight into these three cities. I’m a 28 y/o African American male from Cincinnati who is looking to for a new adventure. While I love Cincinnati I’ve been here my entire life and looking to spend the rest of my youth in a new city. Struggling to pick between these 3 great cities.
Top five most important things to me
1. Great social and networking opportunities
2. Fun activities and Nightlife, I prefer a diverse scene with bar hopping opportunities and outdoor activities.
3. Urban living
4. Black professional scene
5. Affordability, current rent budget $1700
Chicago - Really high on this city right now, I just have two main concerns and that’s what do I with my car? Because it doesn’t look like I’ll be able to afford to bring it. Also, is there a scene/nightlife for African Americans here?
Atlanta - I’m most familiar with Atlanta out of these cities as I have some family here. I like Atlanta a lot but worried I might not be able to find the urban environment here and that it may be difficult to make friends.
DC - This appears on the surface to check all of my boxes but my number one worry is the cost?, would it be possible to find rent within my budget?
Which of these cities are the best for me to spend the rest of my 20s/early 30s? I’m looking to move in January so any insight is much appreciated!
Part of your choice will depend on what your work is, or what you want it to be, so consider that as well. But for almost any type of white-collar work, or work in the non-profit sector, D.C. will be tops and offer more opportunities than Atlanta or Chicago. The jobs there will likely pay better as well. DC is close to other major cities to visit, and a quick day trip to the shore or mountains. No need for a car in many places within the city limits--though it's always nice to have one--and rents are still not outrageous. You can live outside the hood within your budget or slightly more. Night life there looks respectable from what I've heard. My clubbing and bar-hopping days are in the past, but when I visit, it always looks lively in Adams Morgan, Georgetown, the U Street Corridor., the Navy Yard area. (Just FYI, weed is quasi-legal in DC and fully legal in Chicago, but still illegal in Atlanta.)
Washington can be sorta insular, however. Since government and politics are a big deal there, a lot of talk and activity revolves around that in some circles. Sure, people get excited about the Nats or Redskins (now Commanders) or go to concerts and shows, but in general, DC seems to me much more work and career oriented than Chicago and Atlanta. What you do for a living seems to take on a greater importance there than ithe other two cities.
All that said, I'd still go with DC as a first choice and Atlanta as last, with Chicago, obviously, a runner up.
Good luck.
Dude, rents in DC have always been high! Chicago city has a larger footprint and you can find some affordable areas as you can in ATL but you have to look farther out in the latter. FYI, I lived in both DC and ATL.
You probably searched for that. There isn't a single American public transit system that is well off financially. This isn't Japan where they can make the finances of such a system work.
Wages aren't super low. Atlanta has the highest tech jobs per capita and was chosen as the best US city for a tech career based on cost of living, average salary, etc: https://www.computerworld.com/articl...eid=b96e0bd959
The Economist criteria I question when it has Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Miami and St. Louis but not AUSTIN or Dallas home of AT&T, Texas Instruments, Mckesson and ranks 2nd nationwide in Fortune 500 Companies aggregate revenue behind only NYC and that was before Caterpillar moved there this year. https://fortune.com/longform/fortune...iness-revenue/
You probably searched for that. There isn't a single American public transit system that is well off financially. This isn't Japan where they can make the finances of such a system work.
I actually saw that on a newsfeed just last week. I would say NONE are well off but some are better than others. I lived in D.C when they were building out the green line and a few years ago they extended the orange line out towards Dulles Airport. THAT is a very costly endeavor and I'm betting its' really impacted budgeting.
Chicago having elevated tracks and platforms in the middle of buildings is such a clusterf*ck lol. They need to tear them all down and put them underground like Manhattan did. Elevated trains only look good in areas that aren't highly urban. And in those cases, the pillars and platforms shouldn't be of metal like in Chicago. That's what gives it that rusty ugly look. Instead, they should be of rock or stone. That's why the Silver line in Tysons looks so nice, compared to Chicago's el:
Nah, they're loud and somewhat unsightly, but to most Chicagoans, it's a part of the city fabric and frankly part of its physical structure. If *any* el lines are going underground, the money better be used for new lines.
Chicago having elevated tracks and platforms in the middle of buildings is such a clusterf*ck lol. They need to tear them all down and put them underground like Manhattan did. Elevated trains only look good in areas that aren't highly urban. And in those cases, the pillars and platforms shouldn't be of metal like in Chicago. That's what gives it that rusty ugly look. Instead, they should be of rock or stone. That's why the Silver line in Tysons looks so nice, compared to Chicago's el:
Yeah, that's the classic big city vs suburb. It's part of the urban landscape of the city for Chicago. Chicago's underground subway is limited to the Loop area and a little bit north and west of downtown. Once you get outside of that it's all elevated.
That's part of the urban fabric of the city thought. That sterile look of the sliver line in Tyson's would not work in Chicago or any northeastern urban city (Philly, NYC, Boston, etc.).
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.
