Considering moving to either NY or Chicago

[AndySocks]

Um... why did you post the same picture twice, and from two different sources? By looking at the clouds behind the um... "skyline", before and after what?

I mean, LA does have things going for it. The natural beauty of California in general in mindboggling (NYC was built on a freaking swamp, ya know, so anything attractive you see, even in the parks, had to be man-made). The weather is enviable. It is the popular culture capital of the world. It's a hell of a lot cleaner.

But then again, the housing of LA leaves much to be desired when compared to the cities, small and large, of the northeast. Maybe block after block of rowhouses and duplexes isn't your thing, so you beg to differ. In the same way, I can't imagine living in a place so decentralized, and where I can't simply hop on trains to get virtually everywhere.

[Westsidelife]

Originally Posted by AndySocks

Um... why did you post the same picture twice, and from two different sources? By looking at the clouds behind the um... "skyline", before and after what?

I mean, LA does have things going for it. The natural beauty of California in general in mindboggling (NYC was built on a freaking swamp, ya know, so anything attractive you see, even in the parks, had to be man-made). The weather is enviable. It is the popular culture capital of the world. It's a hell of a lot cleaner.

But then again, the housing of LA leaves much to be desired when compared to the cities, small and large, of the northeast. Maybe block after block of rowhouses and duplexes isn't your thing, so you beg to differ. In the same way, I can't imagine living in a place so decentralized, and where I can't simply hop on trains to get virtually everywhere.

What do you mean that i posted the same photo twice. The second one is DIFFERENT!!!

[nygirl]

Lol. I could tell the difference. Looks nice but why does every building have to have a a helipad?

[Westsidelife]

Originally Posted by nygirl

Lol. I could tell the difference. Looks nice but why does every building have to have a a helipad?

I think it's because of the chance of an earthquake. But I don't understand. It's possible to have a building with a spire AND a helipad as well...

[AndySocks]

Oh! It's future stuff, sorry, you were bitching about the pollution right before the pictures came up, so I wasn't even really looking at the buildings (hence noticing the clouds were the same, haha).

More tall buildings, while good, does not mean the city is any better or any more urban, does not promise a future of vibrancy that the downtowns of Chicago and New York have. Take a look at the Northeast forum and look at the beautiful pictures of Reading, PA and similar cities. For many people, that's American urbanity at its greatest, all in spite of the fact that most of the small northeastern cities are suffering economically. And for all many people care, NYC and LA are just oversized perversions of what cities should be.

[Westsidelife]

Originally Posted by AndySocks

Oh! It's future stuff, sorry, you were bitching about the pollution right before the pictures came up, so I wasn't even really looking at the buildings (hence noticing the clouds were the same, haha).

More tall buildings, while good, does not mean the city is any better or any more urban, does not promise a future of vibrancy that the downtowns of Chicago and New York have. Take a look at the Northeast forum and look at the beautiful pictures of Reading, PA and similar cities. For many people, that's American urbanity at its greatest, all in spite of the fact that most of the small northeastern cities are suffering economically. And for all many people care, NYC and LA are just oversized perversions of what cities should be.

I wasn't "bitching" about the pollution. I simply stated that EVERY city deals with that problem. As for the city being better, IT IS GETTING BETTER AS WE SPEAK. Crime levels are falling, the city is extending the subway, downtown is in the midst of a residential boom, so forth. And the LA River will not remain like that forever, i guarantee it. And I used the term "better" because people on this forum obviously think that density, vibrancy, and essentially having a city center is "better". And YES, you can believe LA's future will be one of vibrancy.

[LLoydGeorge]

I spent 7 years in South Bend, In. and went to Chicago hundreds of times. I will sum up its plusses and minuses for you.

Minuses:
1. Chicago is not an international city. It is a city composed of Midwestern transplants from Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Nebraska, etc.

2. It's winters are generally 10 to 15 degrees colder.

3. It has no history.

Pluses:

1. Real estate is a fraction of the cost of what it is in NY.

[Jules]

Originally Posted by LLoydGeorge

I spent 7 years in South Bend, In. and went to Chicago hundreds of times. I will sum up its plusses and minuses for you.

Minuses:
1. Chicago is not an international city. It is a city composed of Midwestern transplants from Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Nebraska, etc.

2. It's winters are generally 10 to 15 degrees colder.

3. It has no history.

Pluses:

1. Real estate is a fraction of the cost of what it is in NY.

lmao!



No history!? Can you believe this guy! troll alert, troll alert hide the women and children.

[LLoydGeorge]

Chicago was established as a city about two hundred and thirty years after NY was. I hardly consider a city that was formed in the 1840's to have any history.

[Jules]

Originally Posted by LLoydGeorge

Chicago was established as a city about two hundred and thirty years after NY was. I hardly consider a city that was formed in the 1840's to have any history.

well then you must have "hardly" any nueral activity. But while you're at it, why don't you erase all American history from 1840 to the present:

Martin luther king, see ya. FDR, good bye! The Empire State building, who cares! I mean, it was only built in the 1930s!

[LLoydGeorge]

Originally Posted by RP1

well then you hardly have any nueral activity. and while you're at it, why don't you erase all American history from 1840 to the present.

Martin luther king, see ya. FDR, good bye!

Speaking of a lack of neural activity, your statement is rather retarded. NY, Boston and Philly are the prominent cities in US history. Chicago is not.

[Jules]

Originally Posted by LLoydGeorge

Speaking of a lack of neural activity, your statement is rather retarded. NY, Boston and Philly are the prominent cities in US history. Chicago is not.

What did I say that was retarded? You've got things backwards; according to you Chicago has "no history." that's about as retarded as it gets if you ask me, and most other people for that matter.

and when did I ever claim Chicago having more history than Boston, NYC, or Philly?

[pottebaum]

Chicago is a very international city. Chicago is also very key in the history of the United States. To say it has no history is idiotic.

[UrbanSophist]

Loyd, you're just plain wrong. Get over it.

But... that's the last that I'm going to say about that.

[UrbanSophist]

Originally Posted by LLoydGeorge

I hardly consider a city that was formed in the 1840's to have any history.

[DonQui]

Both are fantastic cities.

However, I think that New York really does have it all. Although everything is a tad more expensive than I would like it to be.

I think of Chicago as the Midwestern New York, on a smaller scale. I think that public transport though, while it has its problems, is better in New York, and overall I think that several cultural offerings are more plentiful/diverse here than in Chicago.

In any case, I do not think that you could go wrong living in Chicago or New York, especially coming from the eternal suburb of LA. I prefer living in NYC though.

[DonQui]

Originally Posted by LLoydGeorge

I spent 7 years in South Bend, In. and went to Chicago hundreds of times. I will sum up its plusses and minuses for you.

Minuses:
1. Chicago is not an international city. It is a city composed of Midwestern transplants from Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Nebraska, etc.

2. It's winters are generally 10 to 15 degrees colder.

3. It has no history.

Pluses:

1. Real estate is a fraction of the cost of what it is in NY.

[Westsidelife]

Originally Posted by AndySocks

Um... why did you post the same picture twice, and from two different sources? By looking at the clouds behind the um... "skyline", before and after what?

I mean, LA does have things going for it. The natural beauty of California in general in mindboggling (NYC was built on a freaking swamp, ya know, so anything attractive you see, even in the parks, had to be man-made). The weather is enviable. It is the popular culture capital of the world. It's a hell of a lot cleaner.

But then again, the housing of LA leaves much to be desired when compared to the cities, small and large, of the northeast. Maybe block after block of rowhouses and duplexes isn't your thing, so you beg to differ. In the same way, I can't imagine living in a place so decentralized, and where I can't simply hop on trains to get virtually everywhere.

You can't really compare the east coast to the west coast because they pose too great of a difference. As for the communities, i'd say that the west coast beats the east coast BY FAR!!! For example, the west coast has Pasadena, Beverly Hills, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, La Jolla, Santa Barbara, Pebble Beach, Palos Verdes, Malibu, Pacific Palisades, Santa Monica, San Jose, etc. And the pictures of Reading, PA to me display the quintessential boring and dead northeastern community. You are correct, I don't like how the houses are so cramped in. I like to have breathing room. Take a look at my Pasadena,CA thread in the west coast forum and then you'll see what I'm talking about.

I'm aware of east coast communities like Greenwich, Southampton, White Plains, Palm Beach, etc. but the west coast communities are more recognized and more in the spotlight. I have read before that many want to move to the "OC" because of shows such as "Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County" and "The OC".

[waccamatt]

Originally Posted by RP1

I guess it depends on your definition of "ALOT" milder, but I'm not here to argue it.

The average January low in downtown NYC is 26 and the high is 39 for an overall average of 32.5. The average July low in NYC is 70 with a high of 85, a daily average of 77.5. The overall all-time record low is -4 and the all-time record high is 105.

The average January low in downtown Chicago is 18 with an average high of 32, which is an average of 25, 7.5 degrees less than in NYC. The record low is -24, 20 degrees less than NYC. In July, Chicago has an average July low of 66 with an average high of 84, a daily average of 75. The all-time record high temperature is 104.

Rather than argue about who has the most extreme climate, why not aimply look up facts? Chicago certainly has more extreme winter weather.

[Jules]

Originally Posted by waccamatt

The average January low in downtown NYC is 26 and the high is 39 for an overall average of 32.5. The average July low in NYC is 70 with a high of 85, a daily average of 77.5. The overall all-time record low is -4 and the all-time record high is 105.

The average January low in downtown Chicago is 18 with an average high of 32, which is an average of 25, 7.5 degrees less than in NYC. The record low is -24, 20 degrees less than NYC. In July, Chicago has an average July low of 66 with an average high of 84, a daily average of 75. The all-time record high temperature is 104.

Rather than argue about who has the most extreme climate, why not aimply look up facts? Chicago certainly has more extreme winter weather.

Sure, if weather generally in the 30s qualifies as extreme, then yes, Chicago has a more "extreme" winter. What I'm trying to say is that annually Chicago and New York weather are fairly similar, not who's winter is 5 degrees colder than the other. Or who's summer has 90% humidity while the other boasts a measly 88%.

The fact is Chicago has an overly bad rep when it comes to weather, one that I really don't think is justified.