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.
Great post. I'm sorry you didn't like the Asian-ness of Chicago. Have you tried visiting one of the Asian enclaves? The Koreans have mostly moved out to the suburbs, however you might want to try Koreatown, which still has much of its ethnic charm. There are also a lot of Filipino people up there. While you're there, check out Little Vietnam/New Chinatown and Little India on Devon Street. Then head south to visit Chinatown, which is home to tens of thousands of Chinese people and a great park.
Anyone else have any other suggestions?
As an addendum to that, visit the Phoenix restaurant. The dim sum there is spectacular! Just don't ask what was in it (an ex-gf of mine who is Chinese said that too ... I won't bother )
There tends to be a lot of asians in the Mag Mile. I would have to agree though that Asians in Chicago are a bit more rare than I would have expected of a large city. If you want the more asian feel LA is definitely more like it, and even more so upstate in San Fran and Berkeley. That's probably since it's like ... more than 1000 miles closer to Asian xD ... and many asian americans moved there first to raise families.
LA ftw. LA to me is much more diverse geographically and culturally. Culturally speaking, LA has a wider array of foods. On one day I'm craving some Vietnamese Pho, the other day I'm craving some Filipino food and for the rest of the week I have a choice of Hawaiian BBQ, Korean BBQ, Indian Curry, some Japanese food or even some carne asada fries!
In the last neighborhood I lived in while in Chicago, this was literally one side of an alley around the block from my home.
I live in Wrigley (not a very diverse area which I don't like) and there is Morrocan, Thai, Japanese, Chinese, Indian, Italian, African (I believe Ethiopian), and prob more all within a few blocks.
LA is far more relevant and important. Why do people in Chicago think it is above LA?
Lol I love how you tried to make this a bash Chicago thread and Chiacgo is leading in the poll.
Chicago's the better city. People seem to think L.A is better just because it has a higher population.
L.A is almost 500 sq miles. Its 469.1 sq miles of land to be exact. Lets take this and shrink it down to Chicago's size 227.2 sq miles of land.
Multiply its averaged density of 8,205 people per square mile and you get...1,864,176 people.
I'm sure the population would be higher than this because this is the averaged density of the entire city as it is now, but the city would be smaller than Chicago.
Chicago offers a better quality of life and more oppurtunity. I cant wait till L.A starts to experience losses in population.
Lol I love how you tried to make this a bash Chicago thread and Chiacgo is leading in the poll.
Chicago's the better city. People seem to think L.A is better just because it has a higher population.
L.A is almost 500 sq miles. Its 469.1 sq miles of land to be exact. Lets take this and shrink it down to Chicago's size 227.2 sq miles of land.
Multiply its averaged density of 8,205 people per square mile and you get...1,864,176 people.
I'm sure the population would be higher than this because this is the averaged density of the entire city as it is now, but the city would be smaller than Chicago.
Chicago offers a better quality of life and more oppurtunity. I cant wait till L.A starts to experience losses in population.
City boundaries depend on where you decide to actually draw the boundary lines. If you drew that 227.2 sq. miles actually in Los Angeles' most urban areas, it would likely outpopulate Chicago still. Over half of Los Angeles' land area is in the San Fernando Valley, but this region only contains a little over one million of the city's 3.8 million residents. The other 2.8 million are living in much higher densities than the more sprawling San Fernando Valley. If you subtracted the San Fernando Valley from L.A.'s area, you roughly match Chicago's land area, population, and also see a dramatic increase in density (losing the sprawling San Fernando Valley).
Also, the Los Angeles Metropolitan area is dramatically more dense than Chicagoland. Los Angeles Metro has a land area of 4,850 sq. mi. for 12.9 million people. Chicagoland has a much larger land area of 7,214 sq mi for only 9,524,673 people. The Los Angeles Urban Area density is 7068.3 per square mile and the Chicagoland urban area is 3913.6 per square mile.
FYI, Los Angeles' population desnity without the San Fernando Valley is about 10,000 per square mile.
Last edited by missionhome; 05-27-2009 at 09:13 PM..
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.
)