Not as fashionable as Krakow according to the Global Language Monitor. (If the Polish are so fashionable, we have more Polish in Chicago than Krakow, so what gives?). Krakow ranked 25th. Chicago didn't rank on the list which can be found here: http://www.languagemonitor.com/Fashion.html . The Trib also ran a story on this.

I don't really care about the rankings, but it made me wonder how fashionable is Chicago. Do Chicagoans have style? We are having a little luxury shop boom. A boom that will likely continue and grow as the more monied folks move into their new luxury condos. Are we too steak and potatos for haute coutour? A lot of the big names in fashion still venture to San Francisco, and even houston, boston, and Atlanta before opening shops in Chicago. Cook County is a pretty wealthy area, so if we have the cash, do we just lack the style?

I only been in Chicago for a year. So in addition to my above wonderings, I wonder how long has some of these high end shops been in chicago, like the ones on Oak, halsted/Armitage in Lincoln Park and the shops in Wicker Park/Bucktown? Is high end relatively new to Chicago?

I would like to see Chicago become more fashionable, but Chicago style of course, and that means without the attitude.

Vogue on folks!

This is something I've heard visitors and relocators from the coasts complain about, and in reference to a wide variety of kinds of fashion. Chicago is just not a real big fashion city. I'm pretty okay with that, although it's odd for 20-something visitors to come here and see that people have adopted styles at a considerable lag after they've hit the West Coast. I don't know about the heavily monied areas of fashion, although I've heard that the dress shoe selection here is not what one would hope for. With winter wear, it's hard to be fashionable when it's as cold and windy as it is here.

Not as fashionable as Krakow according to the Global Language Monitor.

Don't be so shocked. Ever buy a $7000 babushka on the Magnifiski Milski?

fashion is all subjective. chicago is the dive bar (a real dive bar, not some hipster douche bag equivalent) of the world's global cities. you either like that style or you don't, but it doesn't mean we lack style, we're just pragmatically casual about our style because suspicion of over the top showiness (aka phoniness) is a core midwestern character trait.

With winter wear, it's hard to be fashionable when it's as cold and windy as it is here.

I think this is where our fashionableness really comes through. Anybody can buy a nice coat and look good through whatever it is they call winter in LA or SF or NYC. But you see people here who actually make an art of stylishly putting together the many pieces of equipment needed for living through our winter, and that takes some real talent.

When it's warm, who gives a damn, it's just about exposing and enjoying as much flesh as possible in that brief window of time. It's not by mistake that I have more coats that shorts.

(welcome to my world of elaborate justification)

What the hell is Las Vegas doing on this list??!?

Chicago does have good shopping, but does seem filled with 300 pounders wearing stretch pants.... Chicagoans definitely are less concerned with their appearance than people on the coasts.

Chicago does have good shopping, but does seem filled with 300 pounders wearing stretch pants

Stretch pants are a Privilege, not a right!

I think the list is BS. No way does Rome rank above Paris, Milan, and London. I wouldn't even rank New York above Paris.

shopping in chicago is way better than Atlanta, Houston and many other cities in the country. I've been to nearly every city in the country and the only ones that have better shopping in the U.S. is NYC and L.A.(concentration of highend stores). Chicago is once again misunderstood in an area of culture. Most of the people on this forum don't really care about fashion but, it is important to a world or global city because most visitors from the U.S. or Overseas will notice how people dress and make a not so flattering judgement. It's a fact rather you believe it or not. The creative types do dress to reflect their personality and there's nothing wrong with it. I believe Chicagoans do dress well. It depends on where you are in the city. In the loop people usually dress for work. There's nothing special about what they wear. It's usually conservative and safe and could be better but it is what it is. On North Michigan Avenue people dress somewhat better, except the tourist from small mid-western towns. You can usually spot them very easy. European tourist dress a lot better and the well heel of chicago, young and middle aged dress better. People in European cities usually dress better than people in U.S. cities overall. Wicker Park/Bucktown is a very stylish neighborhood. Many small unique boutiques are located there and more are moving into this area (the latest announced is Marc Jacobs). The style in this neiborhood probably comes from the student artist and other working artist that started the neighborhoods turn around years ago. It has become one of the city's more interesting shopping destinations. Lincoln Park, around Halsted and Armitage Avenue has developed into one of the city's best shopping corridors. Women in this neighborhood do dress very nice. It may not be creative but, it very nice. The south loop is also becoming a place where the stylish and creative are concentrating. The next time any of you Chicagoans go out check out these neighborhoods and there vibe. Most tourist don't venture outside of the central area so they only see office workers in the loop and that's not a true representation on the whole city. In most parts of NYC outside of Manhattan or In L.A., outside of the trendy neighhoods, expecially Orange county, people dress very average. Yes ther are many people in this city who don't care about fashion but, there are many who do and that's why the amount of high end, upscale, designer stores have been growing here over the past 5 years.

People in New York are the most stylish I've seen, although I have yet to go to Paris.

I tend to view style and fashion as more important than people give it credit for. It's certainly important to look good when you go out. If one doesn't care about how he looks, then he might as well spend all day on the toilet.

I noticed that the 20 somethings out and about at night dress well in Chicago, as well as the downtown office workers, but other than that, everybody seems to be wearing sweat pants.

That's cool though--people value comfort, I guess. That certainly won't be me though, whenever I eventually get to town ;)

Does anyone know what factors (other than Neiman Marcus) gave Dallas its role as a major fashion center which far bigger Chicago, apparel mart and all, never achieved?

I've been to nearly every city in the country and the only ones that have better shopping in the U.S. is NYC and L.A.(concentration of highend stores). .

I'd agree with the "better" for both NY and LA. As far as "on paar" with Chicago...I'd easily say San Francisco.

Chicago is all about classic style and tradition. But, avant garde boutiques are also well represented here because our tradition of arts is strong.

But what Chicago does not have(thankfully, in my opinion) is glitz and ostentatiousness. For example, Italian clothier Versace ultimately bit the dust in Chicago. The former Oak St. boutique was mostly patronized by the Chicago Bulls. Yet, traditional styled Ralph Lauren operates the country's most sucessful store on the Mag Mile.

Midwesterners are conservative and conspicuous consumption is considered mostly vulgar. You'll rarely see obvious displays of wealth in Chicago which is common in other large metro areas(LA, Dallas, Las Vegas, Miami). As a result, Chicagoan's style is understated and tailored.

Hey, long time lurker here, but this topic compelled me to finally register. I'm from Dallas and about to move to Chicago and I do think that Dallas is much flashier and concerned about apperances, fashion, etc. I think one factor that led to Dallas being a fashion center is the Market Center which has an Apparel Mart, Dallas Market Hall, etc. Obviously the Merchandise Mart is much larger, but Dallas' focus was long apparel. However, Neiman's was such a big deal because it introduced a fairly new city with a lot of new money to luxury goods.
I like the shopping in Chicago, but it's a different experience. Here, you drive to the mall, buy your stuff and leave. In Chicago, you get to walk from store to on Michigan Ave, window shop, etc. I do think that Chicago is much more toned down than Dallas, however. When I went out during visits up there, I always felt overdressed.

I think this picture, posted elsewhere by Sevens, best displays how your average Chicagoans dress (note, this is not representative of everybody, but just your average, run of the mill Joe Schmoe Chicagoan):

WARNING: YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEE SOME INCREDIBLY BLAND STYLES. VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED ;)

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c262/sevens_1974/078a.jpg

I think this picture, posted elsewhere by Sevens, best displays how your average Chicagoans dress (note, this is not representative of everybody, but just your average, run of the mill Joe Schmoe Chicagoan):

WARNING: YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEE SOME INCREDIBLY BLAND STYLES. VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED ;)

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c262/sevens_1974/078a.jpg

Give me a break, Urban. They obviously have just parked their cars and are headed to a $200,000 black tie only wedding at the Peninsula or Four Seasons for which they are impecably, trendily, and most appropriately dressed! Paris, New York and LA: eat your hearts out!:banana:

technical difficulties....... please stand by.

thread will be reopened shortly

I think this picture, posted elsewhere by Sevens, best displays how your average Chicagoans dress (note, this is not representative of everybody, but just your average, run of the mill Joe Schmoe Chicagoan):

That may show how run-of-the-mill midwesterners dress on vacation, but I bet you those aren't Chicagoans. That photo was taken in Grant Park in the middle of the day just steps from Buckingham Fountain and the Art Institute (with what looks like Lollapalooza rising in the background), a place with very few actual Chicagoans this time of year.

I didn't know Versace once had a store here. I wonder if it will ever attempt to open another one.

But, anyway. I believe a stronger sense of style is growing in Chicago and a stronger, larger industry to support that style. Much to your chagrin or delight I believe the days are numbered when we can write of this question about style with a simple reply of "we're just casual", or "laid-back" or "not pretentious like the people on the coast" or "the dive-bar of the midwest" (that's a new one, I like it). The sucess and growth of high-end boutiques like Marc Jacobs, True Religion and Nanette Lepore opening up outside of downtown area says a lot. It kind of signifies that these brands are not relying on tourist for sales; these store are for Chicagoans. And style is contagious, so it won't be long until Hoosiers and Badgers are running around in Marc Jacob drainpipe trousers.

what the hell is the "Global Language Monitor", and who on earth did they survey?

I suppose you folks are aware of the Daley-appointed fashion czar, right? The mayor seems to want to change this image.

[QUOTE=Urbanight;14569710]I didn't know Versace once had a store here. I wonder if it will ever attempt to open another one.

Yep. It was located at 101 E. Oak Street which was formerly Kate Spade and soon to be Juicy Couture. I believe it opened in 1986. I doubt they will open another boutique. Versace is too over the top ridiculous for Chicago. Anyhow, the more conservative pieces can be found in in-store boutiques in Nieman Marcus.

i dont think of chicago as stylish. in fact, i think most people downtown are on the poorly dressed side. and no, you do not have to be rich to avoid being poorly dressed.

...but id like to point out that the "street people" tend to be less fashionable then the young business pros hidden away in office buidldings. try walking in the business district during lunch time to see all the yuppies come out. ive seen a lot of good looking and well dressed women (nice hair too!) at this time.

I suppose you folks are aware of the Daley-appointed fashion czar, right? The mayor seems to want to change this image.

i hope it was a Romanoff. They designed those way-cool dresses with those thick pleats to hide the family jewels. unfortunately for them, they didn't use bullet proof insulation to block out the shots from the bolshevik guns.

hopefully the concept of czardom has improved a century later.

Well, maybe they can start fashion pogroms, to root those blandly dressed folks out.

Well, maybe they can start fashion pogroms, to root those blandly dressed folks out.

as they said in Fiddler on the Roof: Get with the pogrom.

fashion is all subjective. Chicago is the dive bar (a real dive bar, not some hipster douche bag equivalent) of the world's global cities. you either like that style or you don't, but it doesn't mean we lack style, we're just pragmatically casual about our style because suspicion of over the top showiness (aka phoniness) is a core Midwestern character trait.

I think that this is a very accurate observation. Many people in Chicago appear to be concerned that spending too much time or effort in dressing well would somehow be interpreted as an indicia of phoniness.
Even so, when I moved to Chicago from eastern Europe several years ago, I was surprised with some of the local "fashion expressions", such as business women wearing suits with nylons, while having cotton socks with sneakers on their feet :)
I don't think that Chicago and Chicagoans need to be concerned about following latest fashion trends, as some of that haute couture stuff is impractical and sometimes right out ridiculous looking. However, realizing that being "laid back" does not necessarily entail dressing in a sloppy manner would be a step in the right direction.

Give me a break, Urban. They obviously have just parked their cars and are headed to a $200,000 black tie only wedding at the Peninsula or Four Seasons for which they are impecably, trendily, and most appropriately dressed! Paris, New York and LA: eat your hearts out!:banana:

Edsg - did you NOT see the Macy's banners in the backdrop of that picture? If they were coming from there....it's almost a virtual impossibility that they're going to the Four Seasons. However, I can atest that the Four Seasons is a wonderful hotel, and it truly is very ritzy. Just don't ask me for the pictures of my suite - it was a disaster! :nuts:

Edsg - did you NOT see the Macy's banners in the backdrop of that picture? If they were coming from there....it's almost a virtual impossibility that they're going to the Four Seasons. However, I can atest that the Four Seasons is a wonderful hotel, and it truly is very ritzy. Just don't ask me for the pictures of my suite - it was a disaster! :nuts:

actually, brew, I took a bullet for you on that one for you. the picture was obviously taken in downtown Milwaukee by Milwaukee Magazine for its article and photo spread on "Best-of-theBest Beautiful Brewtowners: the Chic, the Trendy, The Stylish"

you cant spell Chicago without chic! haha. But, Chicago does have some fashion sense but it's far from a power. Chicagoans really dont seem to mind.

But, Chicago does have some fashion sense but it's far from a power. Chicagoans really dont seem to mind.

^ One could make an argument that that is the whole problem

I don't think you'll ever see over-the-top fashion in Chicago.

For example, when I was in New York on 5th ave, I saw a woman in a shiny red leather suit. I don't really know how your average New Yorker views that, but my hunch is that it would be viewed as silly on Michigan Ave.

We're stylish enough to lure Bruce Mau away from Toronto, but I think that has more to do with innovative design in the built environment. I always thought the disparity between architecture, which the city's so praised for, and personal style, where the consensus seems to be against it, was odd. Either the consensus, for whatever reason, is accurate and steeped in fact (if so, I think Steely Dan explained it best:)

fashion is all subjective. chicago is the dive bar (a real dive bar, not some hipster douche bag equivalent) of the world's global cities. you either like that style or you don't, but it doesn't mean we lack style, we're just pragmatically casual about our style because suspicion of over the top showiness (aka phoniness) is a core midwestern character trait.

or it's not, in which case typical stereotypes about supposed Midwestestn insularity and parochialism prevail. The reality might be a bit of both, i.e., fashion isn't our strong-suit but the problem isn't as bad as our friends on the coasts make it out to be.

Between New York and Los Angeles, though, I think there's a pretty big divide. New Yorkers are famed for being un-phased; you can dress as oddly as differently as you'd like without fear of social ostracism or something. Consequently, you have a ton of people from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds with very distinct and confident personal styles.

I think that in L.A. fashion is mostly found among the very wealthy (image-conscious people who made their fortunes in the entertainment industry and pay attention to trends because they both have to and can afford to) and the wealthy (who emulate them and to whom fashion spreads in a trickle-down sort of way). I doubt fashion in L.A. is as individualistic and democratic as it is in New York.

^^ And fashion in Chicago seems to follow Aristotle's golden mean. It is somewhere between excess and deficiency.

How's that?

^^ And fashion in Chicago seems to follow Aristotle's golden mean. It is somewhere between excess and deficiency.

How's that?

This is probably true. I made a comment earlier that it depends on where you are in the city. About a month ago there was an article in the Sun Times about fashion in Chicago. The hosts of the TLC show "What Not To Wear" came to Chicago this March. After being here for a week they made comments about the city style. Both host were very impressed with Wicker Park/Bucktown and thought it was on the cutting edge of fashion. They were also impressed with the increase of upcoming fashion designers and selection of choices in stores as well as increases in designer boutiques. Their comment on office wokers in the loop was not as good. They felt that people in the loop dressed to safe and wore to much black. Overall they called Chicago a middle of the rode town as far as fashion.

I do see people dressing better in the areas that are new and growing (South Loop, West Loop, The area around the Merchandise Mart, River North, etc.). Being fashionable does not make you phony. it is great way to express yourself.

I don't think you'll ever see over-the-top fashion in Chicago.

For example, when I was in New York on 5th ave, I saw a woman in a shiny red leather suit. I don't really know how your average New Yorker views that, but my hunch is that it would be viewed as silly on Michigan Ave.

Chicagoans are not trend setters in fashion (not that im calling silly red suits trend setting), we like our classics. What I have noticed is that the tourists on Michigan Ave. dress god awful! I think cities like NYC tend to draw a more fashion conscious tourist crowd than Chicago.

Chicagoans are not trend setters in fashion (not that im calling silly red suits trend setting), we like our classics. What I have noticed is that the tourists on Michigan Ave. dress god awful! I think cities like NYC tend to draw a more fashion conscious tourist crowd than Chicago.

That's a good point. Tourists have the feeling that they need to dress up in Manhattan. They don't see Chicago that way.

This being said, back in the day, it was an unwritten rule to dress well in downtown Chicago. By "back in the day", I am of course referring to several generations before my birth, and thus relying on the testimony of my elders.

Chicagoans are not trend setters in fashion (not that im calling silly red suits trend setting), we like our classics. What I have noticed is that the tourists on Michigan Ave. dress god awful! I think cities like NYC tend to draw a more fashion conscious tourist crowd than Chicago.

So, are you saying Chicagoan don't dress any worse than people in other cities? Don't forget that many of those tourist on North Michigan are from the suburbs and midwest. :)

That's a good point. Tourists have the feeling that they need to dress up in Manhattan. They don't see Chicago that way.

This being said, back in the day, it was an unwritten rule to dress well in downtown Chicago. By "back in the day", I am of course referring to several generations before my birth, and thus relying on the testimony of my elders.

^ When I lived in Chicago, I once came to the Mag Mile with a shirt & tie and a black wool coat. I found it appropriate.

That was only on one occasion, but nevertheless I always dressed decently when I went downtown, but that was mostly because I knew there would be a lot of cute girls, and I had to look my best ;)

Between New York and Los Angeles, though, I think there's a pretty big divide. New Yorkers are famed for being un-phased; you can dress as oddly as differently as you'd like without fear of social ostracism or something. Consequently, you have a ton of people from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds with very distinct and confident personal styles.

I think that in L.A. fashion is mostly found among the very wealthy (image-conscious people who made their fortunes in the entertainment industry and pay attention to trends because they both have to and can afford to) and the wealthy (who emulate them and to whom fashion spreads in a trickle-down sort of way). I doubt fashion in L.A. is as individualistic and democratic as it is in New York.

I disagree fully and completely. If you're implying that the upper class are the most fashionable of the bunch, then you're correct. But that's no different from New York or any other city for that matter.

However, I can guarantee you that the middle class suburbs of not just Los Angeles, but all of Southern California are fashionable and keep up with the latest trends. The middle class can't afford the same caliber of fashion as the middle class, but that's not to say that the middle class aren't tasteful with their fashion choices.

I don't see what you're trying to get at. Each socio-economic class has their own sense of style. That goes for every city, not just New York and Los Angeles. But in refernce to your first comment, you're way off if you think fashion is limited to the upper class, specifically the celebrities. ;)

Hey, I just made a list. Global Language Monitor made #1 on my list of magazines no one has ever read.

Hey, I just made a list. Global Language Monitor made #1 on my list of magazines no one has ever read.

How can there be a ranking of magazines no one has ever read? Wouldn't they all be tied? lol.

chicago is the dive bar (a real dive bar, not some hipster douche bag equivalent) of the world's global cities.
Hehe, I like that analogy. I really could care less if Chicago is "fashionable"...leave that to LA

actually, brew, I took a bullet for you on that one for you. the picture was obviously taken in downtown Milwaukee by Milwaukee Magazine for its article and photo spread on "Best-of-theBest Beautiful Brewtowners: the Chic, the Trendy, The Stylish"

Hey I'd say Milwaukee is definitely more stylish than Chicago! :lol: I mean who can possibly argue that point!?

Also what does that have to do Macy's banners along that street?? Milwaukee wouldn't put up with that. Oh, and DAMN when did downtown Milwaukee get all those super-tall buildings!? Last week?!?! I think I need to leave suburbia tomorrow to take a peek at our new skyline. Thanks Chicago!

To be frank, based on my 7 years of living in the LA region I have to agree with Ch.G, Ch.G.

If you disagree with that then it's fine cuz this topic is subjective. But I do find folks in LA have more awareness about fashion than here in Chicago.

I've been to Paris, London, Milan, Sydney, Rome (too bad I missed out Tokyo & Hong Kong) and I must say New York is the only US city that should be called "fashionable". You can see that just walking the streets.

I consider Chicago fashion scene is a bit above average... Not too trendy or too conservative. The high-end stores here are on par with NYC and LA. Most of the big names in the fashion industry can be found here in Chicago, some of which are Louis Vuitton, Hermes, Gucci, Burberry, Salvatore Ferragamo, Ermenegildo Zegna, Jil Sander, Ralph Lauren, Giorgio Armani, Prada, Dennis Basso, Jimmy Choo, Barneys, Neiman Marcus, Cole Haan, Yves Saint Laurent, Calypso..etc

I don't know if I can trust this ranking since I find it hard to believe that Rome is rated higher than Milan. I've been to both cities and find that Milan is way ahead of Rome when it comes to fashion trends. I am sure many people who've been to both Rome & Milan would agree with me.



I disagree fully and completely. If you're implying that the upper class are the most fashionable of the bunch, then you're correct. But that's no different from New York or any other city for that matter.

However, I can guarantee you that the middle class suburbs of not just Los Angeles, but all of Southern California are fashionable and keep up with the latest trends. The middle class can't afford the same caliber of fashion as the middle class, but that's not to say that the middle class aren't tasteful with their fashion choices.

I don't see what you're trying to get at. Each socio-economic class has their own sense of style. That goes for every city, not just New York and Los Angeles. But in refernce to your first comment, you're way off if you think fashion is limited to the upper class, specifically the celebrities. ;)

The high-end stores here are on par with NYC and LA. Most of the big names in the fashion industry can be found here in Chicago, some of which are Louis Vuitton, Hermes, Gucci, Burberry, Salvatore Ferragamo, Ermenegildo Zegna, Jil Sander, Ralph Lauren, Giorgio Armani, Prada, Dennis Basso, Jimmy Choo, Barneys, Neiman Marcus, Cole Haan, Yves Saint Laurent, Calypso..etc



I dont know that I agree with this; designers who have a boutique or have a few outfits in a dept. store in chicago, often have flagship stores and huge collections in NYC.

Those are the exclusive stores that I am talking about, not just the outfits found in a dept store.

Strolling along Rush, Oak st. & Michigan Ave. and you can find all the big names that I mentioned. And of course, they are not as huge as those in NYC because Chicago is a smaller market.

I dont know that I agree with this; designers who have a boutique or have a few outfits in a dept. store in chicago, often have flagship stores and huge collections in NYC.

I think that Chicago's lack of fashion does not come from the lack of fashionable options in the city. Shopping in Chicago is very good, with a great selection of different styles and types of clothing. I do not think, however, that the availability of high end stores in a particular place significantly affects the the overall sense of "style". Afterall, a relatively small portion of population is able to regularly shop at these super high end stores. The thing is that in Chicago, more so than NYC, or any European city it is considered normal to go out wearing such items like shorts, sneakers and flipflops. And no matter what the current trends are, wearing such casual items with such frequency as Chicagoans do, cannot make a place look fashionable.

A few points:
*I cannot really agree that the officer works are fashionable- there are way too many men in pleated pants and bad shoes.
*You do not need to be rich to be fashionable.
*Casual can easily be fashion, there are a ton of fashionable sneakers (the white runners that the midwesterners do love are NOT fashionable)
*The shopping here is great, my issue is when the next young hot designer is ploting out a plan to open boutiques in the US, it should go NYC, LA, Chicago - well, thats my dream.
*Also, I should stop generalizing, there are ton of fashionable Chicagoans. But there are also a ton of people that just don't care about style at all, every city has those people - Chicago may just have too many.
*I don't really care about the rankings, but it was based on a survey of language in the media. Which reinforces my contempt for the Tribune. The Trib style section is awful. There is a lot going on in chicago regarding fashion and style but you would never realized that reading the Trib.

A few points:
*I cannot really agree that the officer works are fashionable- there are way too many men in pleated pants and bad shoes.
*You do not need to be rich to be fashionable.
*Casual can easily be fashion, there are a ton of fashionable sneakers (the white runners that the midwesterners do love are NOT fashionable)
*The shopping here is great, my issue is when the next young hot designer is ploting out a plan to open boutiques in the US, it should go NYC, LA, Chicago - well, thats my dream.
*Also, I should stop generalizing, there are ton of fashionable Chicagoans. But there are also a ton of people that just don't care about style at all, every city has those people - Chicago may just have too many.
*I don't really care about the rankings, but it was based on a survey of language in the media. Which reinforces my contempt for the Tribune. The Trib style section is awful. There is a lot going on in chicago regarding fashion and style but you would never realized that reading the Trib.

All of your comments are valid especially about the fact that the Tribune, which is the area's largest paper. But, is there anything the Trib does cover well? The fact is, fashion or dressing appropiatley is more important than people give it credit for. It's great to live in a beautiful city (architecturally or natural) but, what helps that place stand out even more are the people on the streets. They are the real theater or the supporting cast that enhance the built environment. Toronto, imo does not have the grace and beauty that Chicago has architecturally but, what makes it stand out or feel more wordly is its diversity and creative types. They have a great prescence there.

Is Chicago fashionable? It doesn't really matter but, there are lots of well dressed people in this city. You don't have to dress up or spend a lot of money to look great. You can be casual and still look great if it is done right. It does not not take a lot of effort either.

I'm done with this topic.

I consider Chicago fashion scene is a bit above average... Not too trendy or too conservative. The high-end stores here are on par with NYC and LA. Most of the big names in the fashion industry can be found here in Chicago, some of which are Louis Vuitton, Hermes, Gucci, Burberry, Salvatore Ferragamo, Ermenegildo Zegna, Jil Sander, Ralph Lauren, Giorgio Armani, Prada, Dennis Basso, Jimmy Choo, Barneys, Neiman Marcus, Cole Haan, Yves Saint Laurent, Calypso..etc



But honestly, those hallmark high end stores all have rather small stores in Chicago. For instance. the Hermes store on Rodeo Dr. is at least 3x the size as the one on Oak street. I just got back from San Fran, and even those stores near Market street were larger. For instance, the selection of mens shoes at the Louis Vuitton in Chicago is rather pathetic. I had bought a pair about a week before heading out to cali, and had regretted not waiting, as the selection at both LA and SF was at least 2x as large.

As far a caring about fashion being phony.... That's bullshit. That's a rationalization for people who are too lazy or cheap to put in the effort to try to look fashionable. Also, some people just don't have the imagination to put together an interesting look, and these people take comfort in the slobs around them. I think trying to look good is, in fact, important.

Agreed. Good point. But I also stress that if one is too obsessed with fashion,its not a good thing either.



As far a caring about fashion being phony.... That's bullshit. That's a rationalization for people who are too lazy or cheap to put in the effort to try to look fashionable. Also, some people just don't have the imagination to put together an interesting look, and these people take comfort in the slobs around them. I think trying to look good is, in fact, important.

To be frank, based on my 7 years of living in the LA region I have to agree with Ch.G, Ch.G.......If you disagree with that then it's fine cuz this topic is subjective. But I do find folks in LA have more awareness about fashion than here in Chicago.


I would agree that, on average, LA is more fashionable than Chicago. But there is the breast-implanted, botoxed, facelifted, browlifted segment of LA that is beyond any help that fashion can give. Those fake knockers are just plain silly. Put a hip outfit on a pair those and they're still goofy.

Oh, and about Chicago's comparison to other "global" cities. Having lived in NYC and in Europe, I would say that Chicago has a big contrast, fashionwise, between its inner neighborhoods and the rest of the area. This sort of contrast seems more pronounced in Chicago than it is in most other "global" cities.

I think NearNorth makes an excellent point. There is a huge difference between those who live in the city and those in the suburbs. I see this in DC and New York too. Suburbanites and tourists tend to be badly dressed and about 30 lbs heavier. Those people in Seven's photo don't look anything like cityfolk.

As far a caring about fashion being phony.... That's bullshit. That's a rationalization for people who are too lazy or cheap to put in the effort to try to look fashionable. Also, some people just don't have the imagination to put together an interesting look, and these people take comfort in the slobs around them. I think trying to look good is, in fact, important.

^ I wholeheartedly agree

As far a caring about fashion being phony.... That's bullshit. That's a rationalization for people who are too lazy or cheap to put in the effort to try to look fashionable. Also, some people just don't have the imagination to put together an interesting look, and these people take comfort in the slobs around them. I think trying to look good is, in fact, important.

If architecture is frozen music, what might we say about clothing?

Hehe, I like that analogy. I really could care less if Chicago is "fashionable"...leave that to LA

Don't say you don't care when you obviously do. ;)

To be frank, based on my 7 years of living in the LA region I have to agree with Ch.G, Ch.G.

If you disagree with that then it's fine cuz this topic is subjective. But I do find folks in LA have more awareness about fashion than here in Chicago.

I've been to Paris, London, Milan, Sydney, Rome (too bad I missed out Tokyo & Hong Kong) and I must say New York is the only US city that should be called "fashionable". You can see that just walking the streets.

I consider Chicago fashion scene is a bit above average... Not too trendy or too conservative. The high-end stores here are on par with NYC and LA. Most of the big names in the fashion industry can be found here in Chicago, some of which are Louis Vuitton, Hermes, Gucci, Burberry, Salvatore Ferragamo, Ermenegildo Zegna, Jil Sander, Ralph Lauren, Giorgio Armani, Prada, Dennis Basso, Jimmy Choo, Barneys, Neiman Marcus, Cole Haan, Yves Saint Laurent, Calypso..etc

I don't know if I can trust this ranking since I find it hard to believe that Rome is rated higher than Milan. I've been to both cities and find that Milan is way ahead of Rome when it comes to fashion trends. I am sure many people who've been to both Rome & Milan would agree with me.

I was referring more to the younger generation. The most fashionable people are not to be found where you lived (West Covina). And since you can't really walk in Los Angeles, it's hard to fully judge how "fashionable" people here are. Some may not consider Los Angeles "fashionable" because we're too casual. But that's ridiculous. There's this little store called Hollister Co. which names all of their products after locales in Southern California and is extremely popular with kids all around the country. Many people regard Hollister Co. as being very Southern California. To say that New York is the only fashionable city in the US is a little ridiculous, considering how many kids take after Southern California trends. New York fashion and Los Angeles fashion are on opposite ends. New York is more classic while Los Angeles is more contemporary. New York is where labels such as Marc Jacobs, Coach, Ralph Lauren, and Calvin Klein were born. Labels such as Guess, Von Dutch, Juicy Couture, 7 For All Mankind, BCBG, Max Azria, Citizens of Humanity, True Religion, etc. were born in Los Angeles. That's what sets the two apart. You not only have to absorb trends, you have to also create them. These are the two primary fashion hubs in the United States and the big designers are choosing both LA and NYC for their flagship locations. But I do think Chicago has a solid fashion base. I'd rank it with San Francisco and Las Vegas. Also, I woudn't list Sydney, Rome, Tokyo, and Hong Kong with Los Angeles, Paris, New York, London, and Milan.

I would agree that, on average, LA is more fashionable than Chicago. But there is the breast-implanted, botoxed, facelifted, browlifted segment of LA that is beyond any help that fashion can give. Those fake knockers are just plain silly. Put a hip outfit on a pair those and they're still goofy.

Actually, if you watch Dr. 90210 on the E! Channel, which I've seen a couple of times, you will see that most of the people that come to the Beverly Hills offices to get procedures done are from all over the country, many not from Los Angeles. And don't believe everything you see on television. The men and women who get plastic surgery make up a very small percent of the population and exist only in certain parts of the city.

I think that what disappoints some people about the way Chicagoans dress is not really whether they're on top of the latest fashion trends but simply whether they are well put-together at all. The comment has been made that there are way too many poorly dressed office workers downtown. That's true. Walk around downtown and you see tons of younger men wearing rumpled suits and scuffed-up, crummy shoes, often with all the important details (e.g. belt matching shoes, good tie knot) done wrong. They would look better if they just dressed casual.

Seriously, I don't think Chicagoans are badly dressed. Especially amongst younger people. Just about any average single person is going to do their best to look good. And Chicago is a big enough city to support a trendy and fashionable lifestyle. However, I wouldn't regard it as cutting edge. And I think women in places like LA and Miami do noticeably dress more provocatively (which is nice :colgate:).

Also, amongst the married, and over 34 crowd, I think their is a default to a more conservative style. For instance, I notice less fitted and pinstriped suits, as well as brightly colored ties on people walking around the loop, than Manhattan, for instance.

Oh...I once lived in Chatsworth, not West Covina. Some of my relatives used to live in Covina (not West Covina) but they are now relocating to Carrollton, TX.

I used to go to places like Santa Monica, Huntington Beach, Laguna, West Hollywood on the weekend trips and could have some ideas how Angelenos dress up in general, especially the young crowds. Honestly, I think they look nice and at times trendy. But if I had to use the word "fashionable" to describe it then NYC is the only US city that I could pick (IMO).

I don't think you've been to cities like Paris, London, Milan where fashion is part of daily life there. When I compare the way people dress in LA vs those cities, I notice the difference. Folks who live in Hollywood need to dress up for success but the rest of LA is not really fashionable as compared to those fashion mecca. When there is a need to issue a fashion statement....Paris, New York, Milan, London and of course Tokyo are still a class above the rest. Those are the cities of style and they rule.



Don't say you don't care when you obviously do. ;)



I was referring more to the younger generation. The most fashionable people are not to be found where you lived (West Covina). And since you can't really walk in Los Angeles, it's hard to fully judge how "fashionable" people here are. Some may not consider Los Angeles "fashionable" because we're too casual. But that's ridiculous. There's this little store called Hollister Co. which names all of their products after locales in Southern California and is extremely popular with kids all around the country. Many people regard Hollister Co. as being very Southern California. To say that New York is the only fashionable city in the US is a little ridiculous, considering how many kids take after Southern California trends. New York fashion and Los Angeles fashion are on opposite ends. New York is more classic while Los Angeles is more contemporary. New York is where labels such as Marc Jacobs, Coach, Ralph Lauren, and Calvin Klein were born. Labels such as Guess, Von Dutch, Juicy Couture, 7 For All Mankind, BCBG, Max Azria, Citizens of Humanity, True Religion, etc. were born in Los Angeles. That's what sets the two apart. You not only have to absorb trends, you have to also create them. These are the two primary fashion hubs in the United States and the big designers are choosing both LA and NYC for their flagship locations. But I do think Chicago has a solid fashion base. I'd rank it with San Francisco and Las Vegas. Also, I woudn't list Sydney, Rome, Tokyo, and Hong Kong with Los Angeles, Paris, New York, London, and Milan.



Actually, if you watch Dr. 90210 on the E! Channel, which I've seen a couple of times, you will see that most of the people that come to the Beverly Hills offices to get procedures done are from all over the country, many not from Los Angeles. And don't believe everything you see on television. The men and women who get plastic surgery make up a very small percent of the population and exist only in certain parts of the city.

I haven't been to Paris, Milan, and London (but will be going there in 4 days) but I know that those are some of the world's top fashion meccas, more so than Los Angeles. As I said before, this primarily stems from the fact that the more classic couture designer labels have their flagships there. I think you're going by the premise that to be "fashionable" you have to wear conservative couture fashion. Fashion is fashion, whether it be classic or contemporary. Trendy is trendy, whether it be classic or contemporary. Couture isn't more "fashionable" than contemporary. Conversely, contemporary isn't more trendy than couture. They're complete opposites - apples and oranges, both equally "fashionable" and trendy. Both are "of the moment", no? That said, NYC has more couture while LA has more contemporary. Lots of celebrities wear the clothing of LA-based designers when not on the Red Carpet. That alone should qualify as being "fashionable" considering how celebrities are always the ones to start trends. They're also the ones who are featured in all the magazines. Conservative is not more "fashionable" than casual. Just because the designers in Paris, New York, Milan, and London are more classic and prestigious doesn't mean they're more "fashionable." That does, however, equate to more of a fashion mecca because those are the ones that started it all. But when it comes to being current and trendy (look up the word "fashionable") then LA is no slouch. I can pick up a magazine from my local store and will find the NYC and LA designers mentioned side by side to one another. Oh, and if you think that no one here wears couture fashion, then you're wrong. We just mix it up with more casual fashion. But at the end of the day, we love our jeans and flip flops. ;)

As far a caring about fashion being phony.... That's bullshit.
it's not about what is true or not, it's about perceptions, and midwesterners do tend to look upon over the top displays of wealth and opulence as being crass and vulgar. it's not bullshit, it's part of our conservative culture.




Also, some people just don't have the imagination to put together an interesting look, and these people take comfort in the slobs around them.
that's definitely true, and it describes me perfectly, which is why i love slobby chicago so damn much. this just might be the last big city in america where having a 6 foot erection for all things style and fashion isn't required. when people from other places come to chicago and say that they notice a lack of overall fashion sense amongst our populace, it makes me so proud to call this place home.

it's cool if some people think fashion and looking stylish is important, but the fact is that a lot of chicagoans (the majority) don't care about these things very much (on a relative scale), and i fail to see what the problem is with that. there are lots of extremely fashion conscious cities in our world, if living in a place with lots of imaginative and creative dressers is so important to you, maybe you should think about moving because chicago is straight-up midwest, and outside of a few small enclaves of style here (inner-core yuppie/hipster hoods), the populace of this city/region is never going to care about "looking good" as much as the folks in the more style-conscious coastal regions.

it's cool if some people think fashion and looking stylish is important, but the fact is that a lot of chicagoans (the majority) don't care about these things very much (on a relative scale), and i fail to see what the problem is with that. there are lots of extremely fashion conscious cities in our world, if living in a place with lots of imaginative and creative dressers is so important to you, maybe you should think about moving because chicago is straight-up midwest, and outside of a few small enclaves of style here (inner-core yuppie/hipster hoods), the populace of this city/region is never going to care about "looking good" as much as the folks in the more style-conscious coastal regions.

Your point is well taken. And I don't think fashion should be a critical part of one's life, but it is certainly important.

But I mostly think that Chicago should not be destined to always be considered unfashionable. Certainly, Da Mayor agrees with me, as he has made Chicago fashion a part of his agenda.

But I mostly think that Chicago should not be destined to always be considered unfashionable. Certainly, Da Mayor agrees with me, as he has made Chicago fashion a part of his agenda.

^^ Good things are on the horizon:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?article_id=28250

Fashion shops Mag Mile
After surge of gadget merchants, trendy apparel retailers are back

By Eddie Baeb and Thomas A. Corfman

Fashion is in again on the Magnificent Mile.

After a time when it seemed like most new retailers coming to North Michigan Avenue were either electronics stores or the type of big-box shops that clog suburbia, several trendy fashion merchants are planning stores on Chicago's premier shopping strip.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/4165/og081307kyy6.gif

it's cool if some people think fashion and looking stylish is important, but the fact is that a lot of chicagoans (the majority) don't care about these things very much (on a relative scale), and i fail to see what the problem is with that. there are lots of extremely fashion conscious cities in our world, if living in a place with lots of imaginative and creative dressers is so important to you, maybe you should think about moving because chicago is straight-up midwest, and outside of a few small enclaves of style here (inner-core yuppie/hipster hoods), the populace of this city/region is never going to care about "looking good" as much as the folks in the more style-conscious coastal regions.

The thing I love about cities is the fact that they are alive. Cities react to the global environment, and Chicago has in the past, and its very possible it will in the future. Chicago could easily develop a great reputation for fashion and style, and that is what I love to witness when living in an urban environment. Just like it has been amazing to watch the skyline develop, or the financial industry to develop, one of the benefits of living in a city is watching this development. Philadelphians who want to see skyscrapers line the rivers shouldn't have to give up and move to Chicago, nor should chicagoans who want to see fashion and style develop move to NYC. The draw of the city is the constant change.
It is not a problem if people do not care about fashion, nor is it a problem if people do care about fashion. I'm not from Chicago or the midwest, but I love it here and I wouldn't leave to find a more fashion forward city. I'm here to be part of something that is alive, not dead; I enjoy picking up the paper or a magazine and reading about a new designer is opening a boutique here. I enjoy seeing different styles - which is such a great benefit to a city. Its not all about high end stores, some of the best dressed people I know get most of their stuff from thrift stores. And the small enclaves ("inner core yuppie/hipster hood") is becoming not so small - every time one of those new condo towers we all love so much goes up, it turns that area into another, more powerful "inner core yuppie/hipster hoods". And yeah, outside the enclave people won't be that fashionable, but I'm sure all the folks in Queens aren't flipping through the latest Barneys Catalog.

But anyway, I am quite sure the Chicago reputation for lack of fashion/style will one day, in the very near future, be as dead as Jordache Jeans. (But I'm sure Jordache will be back "in" eventually because I never say never)

it's not about what is true or not, it's about perceptions, and midwesterners do tend to look upon over the top displays of wealth and opulence as being crass and vulgar. it's not bullshit, it's part of our conservative culture.

^ Granted, but what style and "over the top displays of wealth and opulence" have in common beats me

We're not talking about bling bling hip-hop here. We're talking about being well put together, and that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with flashy displays of wealth. My wife buys incredible outfits for surprisingly cheap prices when she goes boutique shopping. This is the case for a good number of people who are fashion-concious, but not necessarily loaded.

In fact, I would venture to guess that most (not all) Americans coast to coast find overt opulence, at least in regards to clothing, to be tacky.

Not sure if this thread has addressed this yet....

But Weather is of paramount importance when discussing issues of style/fashion...(style to me is more important than fashion)

Chicago gets both hotter and colder than NYC/LA.....and Chicagoans, in general, are forced to surrender any sense of style to the whims of mother nature...

When it's -20 for a week or 95 with 100% humidity for a week.... fashion/style choices take a back seat to necessity and practicality.

The needs of a 365-season environment force Chicagoans to work hard at looking good.

However, IMHO, Chicago does pretty well style-wise. Maybe because of the challenges, Chicagoans seem to be on cue when they dress well....10 million people looking/dressingtheir best on a beautiful September evening might not be picked up by the drive-by media...

Which eventually, when the coastal media dissolves, will make Chicago THE style capital of the country.....

Please note...I said Style Capital......not fashion capital..... big difference....

so... who in this forum considers themselves to be stylish and fashion conscious?

I consider myself to be somewhat fashionable...Im a big fan of Nordstrom. My style for work is: Hugo Boss, Brooks Brothers, Kenneth Cole, Ted Baker, etc...for outside of work I wear Banana Republic, Lacoste, Express, Kenneth Cole, etc...

My advice is to be stylish....and ignore fashion....

Chicago is a stylish city....

not a fashionable city....

For example, it's how you wear your scarf (style) versus the color/make of your scarf (fashion)

The first is style....the second is fashion...

Come on people, this is a skyscraper forum...as Chicagoans, the difference should be as clear as day.....

Fuck Fashion....Long live style.......

Could be Chicago's motto

so... who in this forum considers themselves to be stylish and fashion conscious?

I do my best.

I don't dress up everyday but, I do my best to look as nice as possible. When I do dress up I wear Boss or Calvin Klein suits because they fit me well. I am not caught up into labels but, certain labels, be it high end or middle of the road, fit me better and, I don't spend a ton of money on clothing.

so... who in this forum considers themselves to be stylish and fashion conscious?

Not me.

I was referring more to the younger generation. The most fashionable people are not to be found where you lived (West Covina). And since you can't really walk in Los Angeles, it's hard to fully judge how "fashionable" people here are. Some may not consider Los Angeles "fashionable" because we're too casual. But that's ridiculous. There's this little store called Hollister Co. which names all of their products after locales in Southern California and is extremely popular with kids all around the country. Many people regard Hollister Co. as being very Southern California. To say that New York is the only fashionable city in the US is a little ridiculous, considering how many kids take after Southern California trends. New York fashion and Los Angeles fashion are on opposite ends. New York is more classic while Los Angeles is more contemporary. New York is where labels such as Marc Jacobs, Coach, Ralph Lauren, and Calvin Klein were born. Labels such as Guess, Von Dutch, Juicy Couture, 7 For All Mankind, BCBG, Max Azria, Citizens of Humanity, True Religion, etc. were born in Los Angeles. That's what sets the two apart. You not only have to absorb trends, you have to also create them. These are the two primary fashion hubs in the United States and the big designers are choosing both LA and NYC for their flagship locations. But I do think Chicago has a solid fashion base. I'd rank it with San Francisco and Las Vegas. Also, I woudn't list Sydney, Rome, Tokyo, and Hong Kong with Los Angeles, Paris, New York, London, and Milan.


Great post Westsidelife. You said everything I wanted to say and more. People always seem to be surprised when they realize how much of their fashion was born in LA.

so... who in this forum considers themselves to be stylish and fashion conscious?


Well I don't consider myself fashion conscious. One reason, I don't shop for clothes all that much. Yet I've been told quite a bit I dress very nice. When I lived in Chicago, just about everyday someone would come over to my cubicle to see what I was wearing. I found it sort of odd because I had never had this happened living in Los Angeles. They would also tease me and had nickname me Mr GQ. Basically I worn business attire for an office and it was a pair of slacks, dress shirt, tie, and a sports jacket. Of course I enjoyed the attention from the women. But even the men would call me Mr GQ as well.

So to me I didn't think I dressed any different than anyone else. Of course I don't go out of the house looking like a homeless person, but I'm wasn't aware I was more stylish than the next guy. Hell I found one of my nephews whom his mom side of the family has deep roots in Chicago. Yet they are the more sefl aware fashion, trendy glamour people I've ever met. It rubbed off on him too because he has to look in the mirror, and check his hair each and everytime he step outside. Yes even when he was a teenager and lived with me, and I make him empty the trash. I actually found it quite humorous.

Oh btw I'm good just wearing a pair of jeans, and a t-shirt outside of work. Although I dress a little better when I dine out with friends. I also wear suits, and or dress pants outside work several times a week. But thats mainly because of my religion and the services I attend a few times a week.

Well, what I like about Chicago is how laid back people are in here and that they try to be comfortable. However, I don't like how sloppy some of them are. Sweat pants are a big no no for me :)

First impressions are important, as well as appearance in general. As soon as you visit someplace, there are a few ways to gauge a bit about that place: The surrounding buildings and landscapes will tell about the city, but I think even more importantly are the people and how they present themselves. If the people around you are dressed sloppily, as if they don't care much about their looks, then why should you think you are in some great place? Why be in such a highly regarded city if you're going to look subpar and "not care?" It's hard for me to understand, especially when people take so much pride in their surrounding area (the residents of the city of chicago), why a Chicago resident "shouldn't care" about how they look. You don't have to spend a lot of money to look nice, nor buy any particular brand. As some have mentioned already, style isn't about that; what it is really about is taking the time and effort to be (express) yourself. If you want someone to say "oh wow" when they visit chicago, you should take the time to "care." Your skyscrapers and landscapes look nice, but what about the people? If people aren't the most representative thing of a place, then what is? I sure don't agree that buildings make a place. While there is obviously much more to people and things than their appearance, appearance is a large piece of one's personality. There is no shame in style, or even "fashion" a lot of the time. You can't want to be thought of as classy and unique and then have the attitude "I don't care" and walk around in sweatpants all the time. There's nothing wrong with sweatpants and "not caring," but it's your loss; because just as a house would go down in value if it were not taken care of, or if it were "just another house," a city's reputation is much affected by how the city (including the people) "looks." If you want your city to have personality (and it does) then you should have personality, and appearance is a part of that...that's just life. Style and even fashion are only superficial and "over-the-top" if you intend to make it so.

That said, I will agree with someone who stated Chicago is a very stylish place (though not quite high-end in fashion). And that's very much why I love Chicago. But please care about how you look as well, it's not anything to be ashamed of. If anything it's shameful to not care in such a place that seems to care a lot. Just my opinion though. :)

When asked to rank the people in 25 US cities in terms of stylishness and good-looking, visitors gave Chicago #4 & #9 respectively.

Stylishness

1. New York 4.46
2. San Francisco 4.39
3. Las Vegas 4.30
4. Chicago 4.23
5. Miami 4.18
6. Santa Fe 4.18
7. San Diego 4.10
8. Austin 4.08
9. New Orleans 4.07
10. Seattle 4.04
11. Honolulu 4.02
12. San Antonio 3.94
13. Los Angeles 3.94
14. Boston 3.90
15. San Juan 3.88
16. Portland 3.85
17. Phoenix/Scottsdale 3.84
18. Nashville 3.83
19. Twin Cities 3.83
20. Orlando 3.82
21. Tampa/St. Petersburg 3.79
22. Houston 3.74
23. Denver 3.72
24. Washington, D.C. 3.70
25. Philadelphia 3.62

Good-Looking

1. San Diego 4.55
2. Honolulu 4.53
3. San Francisco 4.46
4. Las Vegas 4.40
5. Austin 4.34
6. Santa Fe 4.34
7. Seattle 4.33
8. San Juan 4.28
9. Chicago 4.27
10. Portland 4.26
11. San Antonio 4.26
12. Miami 4.22
13. Orlando 4.16
14. Denver 4.16
15. Twin Cities 4.15
16. Tampa/St. Petersburg 4.11
17. Nashville 4.10
18. Phoenix/Scottsdale 4.09
19. New York 4.06
20. Boston 4.03
21. New Orleans 3.96
22. Washington, D.C. 3.95
23. Houston 3.76
24. Los Angeles 3.74
25. Philadelphia


http://www.travelandleisure.com/afc/2004/results.cfm?cat=people#

nice^ :)

Someone has already correctly established the difference between style and fashion.
Style in clothing is an integral part of urban discourse. Just as cities in America and elsewhere are centers of finance, commerce, culture, they are also centers of fashion. I am not advocating blindly following fashion trends just for the sake of fashion, but some style in dressing should be given attention to. I think that it is important to note that being stylish is by not inherently better than being "sloppy". If anything, I would say that wearing "sloppy" attire tends to be more comfortable. However, just as we advocate high denisty because we believe it benefits the whole experience of city living, I would think that urban dwellers should also pay attention to look appropriate and presentable.

As some have mentioned already, style isn't about that; what it is really about is taking the time and effort to be (express) yourself.

and what if "slobby" is how i choose to be (express) myself?

it's all subjective. one man's trash is another man's treasure.

When asked to rank the people in 25 US cities in terms of stylishness and good-looking, visitors gave Chicago #4 & #9 respectively.

Stylishness

1. New York 4.46
2. San Francisco 4.39
3. Las Vegas 4.30
4. Chicago 4.23
5. Miami 4.18
6. Santa Fe 4.18
7. San Diego 4.10
8. Austin 4.08
9. New Orleans 4.07
10. Seattle 4.04
11. Honolulu 4.02
12. San Antonio 3.94
13. Los Angeles 3.94
14. Boston 3.90
15. San Juan 3.88
16. Portland 3.85
17. Phoenix/Scottsdale 3.84
18. Nashville 3.83
19. Twin Cities 3.83
20. Orlando 3.82
21. Tampa/St. Petersburg 3.79
22. Houston 3.74
23. Denver 3.72
24. Washington, D.C. 3.70
25. Philadelphia 3.62

Good-Looking

1. San Diego 4.55
2. Honolulu 4.53
3. San Francisco 4.46
4. Las Vegas 4.40
5. Austin 4.34
6. Santa Fe 4.34
7. Seattle 4.33
8. San Juan 4.28
9. Chicago 4.27
10. Portland 4.26
11. San Antonio 4.26
12. Miami 4.22
13. Orlando 4.16
14. Denver 4.16
15. Twin Cities 4.15
16. Tampa/St. Petersburg 4.11
17. Nashville 4.10
18. Phoenix/Scottsdale 4.09
19. New York 4.06
20. Boston 4.03
21. New Orleans 3.96
22. Washington, D.C. 3.95
23. Houston 3.76
24. Los Angeles 3.74
25. Philadelphia


http://www.travelandleisure.com/afc/2004/results.cfm?cat=people#

I know that this is just a poll taken by visitors, and I'm not trying to start a city vs city thread. I live in Chicago and love the city. There are a lot of attractive people here but, any poll that ranks L.A. and Miami that low, has no credibility. I find it hard to believe it. Thats just my opinion.

and what if "sloppy" is how i choose to be (express) myself?

it's all subjective. one man's trash is another man's treasure.

This is a bit too nihilistic for my taste.

Then again, Urban Politician wanted literal trash on Michigan Ave some time ago...

Then again, Urban Politician wanted literal trash on Michigan Ave some time ago...

^ No I DIDN'T.

Don't put that "trash" in my mouth (no pun intended)

I know that this is just a poll taken by visitors, and I'm not trying to start a city vs city thread. I live in Chicago and love the city. There are a lot of attractive people here but, any poll that ranks L.A. and Miami that low, has no credibility. I find it hard to believe it. Thats just my opinion.

^ I would have to agree.

And sorry, but there is so much eye-candy in New York that it's ridiculous. Yet it's way down the list :ohno:

This is a bit too nihilistic for my taste.


please explain to me then how style isn't subjective. the ignorant slobby chicago masses need to know.

please explain to me then how style isn't subjective. the ignorant slobby chicago masses need to know.

I presume your just being disagreeable to poke fun.

But I would say "slobby" is not someone trying to express oneself, but rather, a total lack of effort in trying to express oneself.

I presume your just being disagreeable to poke fun.

but of course.



But I would say "slobby" is not someone trying to express oneself, but rather, a total lack of effort in trying to express oneself.
i would generally agree, but on a serious note, what do you make of someone who clearly spends a lot of time pre-occupied with their appearance, but who still ends up looking like a clown? like the chaquita banana women i saw out at the race track a couple years ago. she very obviously thought she was hot shit with her rainbow colored skin-tight spandex dress and hat with little plastic fruit glued all over it. does that qualify as stylish merely because she thought she looked good? because she was "expressing" herself?

again i ask, how is style not subjective?

please explain to me then how style isn't subjective. the ignorant slobby chicago masses need to know.

that would be complex to answer, it's kind-of like asking why a sunset is beautiful.

humanity has not generally accepted ragged t-shirts and sweatpants (i'm just using these as example here) as "stylish" for whatever reasons.. hence we wear "dress-up clothes" for professional and "important" endeavors, some of these so-called more formal clothes include suits and the like...

so what makes suits "better looking" or "more stylish" than jeans and a wife beater?

i could agree that style is quite subjective, but it's really not so simple as ending with that declaration

I was surprised too. By the way, Travel & Leisure is a very popular magazine among world travelers and its surveys usually take 3 to 6 months before the final results get published. I guess the reason why LA and Miami did not fare well in this category has something to do with the age of the people who participated in the survey.


I know that this is just a poll taken by visitors, and I'm not trying to start a city vs city thread. I live in Chicago and love the city. There are a lot of attractive people here but, any poll that ranks L.A. and Miami that low, has no credibility. I find it hard to believe it. Thats just my opinion.

Most visitors to Chicago stick pretty close to the Loop and Michigan Avenue, easily the most stylish districts in the city. They also tend to avoid the city in the winter when most Chicagoans look little different from Muscovites.

i would generally agree, but on a serious note, what do you make of someone who clearly spends a lot of time pre-occupied with their appearance, but who still ends up looking like a clown? like the chaquita banana women i saw out at the race track a couple years ago. she very obviously thought she was hot shit with her rainbow colored skin-tight spandex dress and hat with little plastic fruit glued all over it. does that qualify as stylish merely because she thought she looked good? because she was "expressing" herself?

again i ask, how is style not subjective?

You ask a good question. But I think that relates more to different tastes. Maybe some people thought Mrs. Chaquita was hot shit; obviously she gave you a laugh. Indeed, there are some people who try hard, and still look silly in the end. This is particularly true when middle-aged women try to dress like teenagers.

But again, where-as I agree style is subjective, Mrs. Chaquita is different than many people because she puts in an effort. Generally, it's my personal belief that when something is important to somebody, there is usually a better result.

What I take issue with is a lingering belief that there is something wrong with wanting to look good. As if it's a brainless submission to pop culture, or blindly being lead like sheep. There is also still an undercurrent of belief by many males that an interest in appearance is sort of an erosion of a man's heterosexuality. And I think that attitude is more prevalent in the midwest (less-so in Chicago) than the northeast, or west coast.

What I take issue with is a lingering belief that there is something wrong with wanting to look good.
what i take issue with is a lingering belief that chicago is somehow an inferior city because its citizenry isn't as fashion-obsessed as some other cities. chicagoans are midwesterners, and relative to the hipper, trendier coastal cities, we simply have a more conservative, reserved attitude about how we dress. i think it's perfectly fine for chicago to have a more conservative style sense, but some folks seem to think it's a black mark against chicago and i don't know why. it's good for cities to have different attitudes about style and fashion. i like the fact that new yorkers are more willing to dress a bit bolder and more easily jump on what's currently hot. conversely, i also like the fact that chicagoans aren't quite so quick to jump on trends and tend more to the tried and true when it comes to style. it's okay for cities to be different.

i've obviously been playing devil's advocate in much of this thread. i think i have a balanced and healthy approach to how i dress. when occasions call for getting spiffed up (work, dinner at a nice restaurant, a show at the theater, etc.) well, giddyup cowboy, but i'm also not averse to throwing on a pair of ripped jeans and my urlacher jersey to go down a couple gallons of suds with my friends down at the local bar, or putting on a pair of shorts and a t-shirt while i'm running errands around town on a saturday afternoon.

in my opinion, balance is the key. people who obsess over their appearance in all situations are every bit as regrettable as people who don't give a shit about how they look in all situations.

what i take issue with is a lingering belief that chicago is somehow an inferior city because its citizenry isn't as fashion-obsessed as some other cities. chicagoans are midwesterners, and relative to the hipper, trendier coastal cities, we simply have a more conservative, reserved attitude about how we dress. i think it's perfectly fine for chicago to have a more conservative style sense, but some folks seem to think it's a black mark against chicago and i don't know why. it's good for cities to have different attitudes about style and fashion. i like the fact that new yorkers are more willing to dress a bit bolder and more easily jump on what's currently hot. conversely, i also like the fact that chicagoans aren't quite so quick to jump ON trends and tend more to the tried and true when it comes to style. it's okay for cities to be different.

i've obviously been playing devil's advocate in much of this thread. i think i have a balanced and healthy approach to how i dress. when occasions call for getting spiffed up (work, dinner at a nice restaurant, a show at the theater, etc.) well, giddyup cowboy, but i'm also not averse to throwing on a pair of ripped jeans and my urlacher jersey to go down a couple gallons of suds with my friends down at the local bar, or putting on a pair of shorts and a t-shirt while i'm running errands around town on a saturday afternoon.

in my opinion, balance is the key. people who obsess over their appearance in all situations are every bit as regrettable as people who don't give a shit about how they look in all situations.

^ I agree with you that balance is the key, and correct me if I've misunderstood your posts, but you seem to imply that being fashionable is equated with an ostentatious, elitist, "loud" attitude, if you will. I just don't think such an across the board assumption can be made. I like to dress well (and I'm not nearly as stylish as most people in New York), but just like you, I like to wear jeans, a crappy shirt, and head down to the bar for some beer as well. A lot of people do. I would even argue that one can be reserved, conservative, and reflect that in what they wear while still looking fashionable. It's really all about caring how you appear in public, which is not the same thing as being obsessed about your appearances.

BTW, this has nothing to do with Chicago, I'm just making a general comment

and correct me if I've misunderstood your posts, but you seem to imply that being fashionable is equated with an ostentatious, elitist, "loud" attitude, if you will.

please reread the part of my post where i said "i've obviously been playing devil's advocate in much of this thread."



It's really all about caring how you appear in public, which is not the same thing as being obsessed about your appearances.
i just think that there are times to care about your appearance and times when a more casual, relaxed attitude towards your appearance is called for, and someone who is always concerned with how stylish they look in all situations qualifies them as being "obsessed about their appearances" in my book.

let me just put it simply this way, if you're the type of guy who puts gel in your hair and irons your dress slacks before you head over to your friend's house to watch a friggin bears game, then you and i will never hang out together.

i just think that there are times to care about your appearance and times when a more casual, relaxed attitude towards your appearance is called for, and someone who is always concerned with how stylish they look in all situations qualifies them as being "obsessed about their appearances" in my book.

^ Reread the part of my post where I said "I like to wear jeans, a crappy shirt, and head down to the bar for some beer as well." ;)

let me just put it simply this way, if you're the type of guy who puts gel in your hair and irons your dress slacks before you head over to your friend's house to watch a friggin bears game, then you and i will never hang out together.

^ So if your buddy shows up to your place with ironed pants and gel in his hair, you'll end the friendship? OUCH!

^ Reread the part of my post where I said "I like to wear jeans, a crappy shirt, and head down to the bar for some beer as well." ;)

so then we agree, there are times to care about you appearance in public, and there are times when being stylish or fashionable or well dressed is inappropriate.




So if your buddy shows up to your place with ironed pants and gel in his hair, you'll end the friendship? OUCH!
someone like that would never be my buddy in the first place, at least not if he was coming over to watch the game ;)

I know that this is just a poll taken by visitors, and I'm not trying to start a city vs city thread. I live in Chicago and love the city. There are a lot of attractive people here but, any poll that ranks L.A. and Miami that low, has no credibility. I find it hard to believe it. Thats just my opinion.

It seems as though the cities that rank highly on the "good-looking" list are mostly sunny & seaside locales, you know, the kinds of places where you're surrounded by the skimpily-clad, the worked-out and the well-tanned all year round. Are people actually more attractive or do they just draw more attention to their attractiveness? Do people mistake the stand-out few for the population as a whole? (With regard to fashion, you might be able to pose the same question: Is Hollywood really all of L.A.? Manhattan and select neighborhoods in Brooklyn all of New York?)

There are probably some regionally-charged sentiments/stereotypes in those numbers as well. I've got a suspicion that Chicago might be ranked so high because of it's status as capital of a perceived wholesome, corn-fed heartland. Plus, Boston, New York, D.C. AND Philly all on the bottom? ...vast right wing conspiracy?

Remember, Chicago has one of the highest percentages of African-Americans....who have a pretty high level of fashion....

Oprah might be the country's best-dressed individual....And her audience is certainly better dressed than coastal talk show audiences....for what it's worth...