Why would people choose Chicago over other major cities? (Washington: real estate, bankruptcy)

[WesleyPrescott]

Originally Posted by marothisu

It's definitely less congested here, more livable, but still a big city with tons going on. I don't know if you've ever been to Chicago, but you should take a visit. You never know, you might not like it either afterall..or you may love it.

As far as Advertising (/marketing) goes..there's a number here. Look at Leo Burnett as they are headquartered here. I'm sure you know who they are if you're in college for advertising.

I am actually planning a trip to see Chicago in June. I'm going to check out some neighborhoods I'm interested in, the food, do some fun touristy stuff like take a ferry down the Chicago river and see Vince Vaughn at the Chicago Theatre.

[Aleking]

the architecture river cruise is one of the few touristy attractions everyone digs...especially if the weather is nice.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

NYC actually has a significantly higher percentage of parkland than Chicago; that is actually one of the things I noticed when I moved to Chicago last year, that outside of the lakefront there were not that many large parks, at least compared to what I was used to in NYC.

1. New York City - 19.6% - [38,229 acres]
2. Washington DC -19.4% - [7,617 acres]
3. San Francisco -18% [5,384 acres]
4. Jersey City -17.3% [1,660 acres]
5. Boston -16.3% [5,040 acres]
6. Philadelphia -12.6% [10,886 acres]
7. Long Beach -10.1% [3,275 acres]
8. Baltimore -9.5% [5,905 acres]
9. Chicago -8.2% [11,860 acres]
10. Los Angeles -7.9% [23,761 acres]

First, what do these percentages represent? And second, Chicago has a whole series of large parks strategically placed throughout the city to be accessible to as many people as possible -- Humboldt Park, Garfield Park, Jackson Park, Douglas Park, Marquette Park, Horner Park, Portage Park, McKinley Park... if you want open space, it's available and accessible to you just about no matter where you live in the city.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by Drover

First, what do these percentages represent? And

Sorry I didn't realized the entire link didn't post. The list is percentage of City land area that is dedicated to parks.

[It'sAutomatic]

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

Sorry I didn't realized the entire link didn't post. The list is percentage of City land area that is dedicated to parks.

I think even these statistics are up for debate. Surely a large portion of that acreage count for New York is that giant swampland nature preserve in south Queens. I'm sure it's great, but is it something useful and accessible to a typical New York resident? And I don't think it's realistic to count that for NYC and not the huge forest preserve system just to the west of Chicago's city limits.

I think a more relevant statistic would be that of how close the average resident is to a park. I'm sure that Chicago would fare well in that category, and New York would do better than people think.

There are a few large parks in Chicago off of the lakefront, but they're in neighborhoods where yuppies don't go. Even besides that, the point that people are making is that in most neighborhoods in Chicago, there are a lot of smaller parks scattered around.

[Mathguy]

Those %'s are also greatly skewed by the denominator. Which for Chicago includes large amounts of land out to and encompassing O'hare airport.

It's just not an apt comparison unless you are comparing residential zones to park space.

Regardless, NY is just incredibly expensive...really that's what it boils down to. Nothing like spending all your money on rent and never being able to afford your own place.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

I think even these statistics are up for debate. Surely a large portion of that acreage count for New York is that giant swampland nature preserve in south Queens. I'm sure it's great, but is it something useful and accessible to a typical New York resident? And I don't think it's realistic to count that for NYC and not the huge forest preserve system just to the west of Chicago's city limits.

I think a more relevant statistic would be that of how close the average resident is to a park. I'm sure that Chicago would fare well in that category, and New York would do better than people think.

There are a few large parks in Chicago off of the lakefront, but they're in neighborhoods where yuppies don't go. Even besides that, the point that people are making is that in most neighborhoods in Chicago, there are a lot of smaller parks scattered around.

The bigger point I was trying to make to a few posters saying there is little green space in NYC, when in fact that is very far from the truth. Having lived in both Chicago and NYC, I think NYC is actually "greener".
There is no doubt NYC can be very expensive, it can also be very livable (there are 8.3million people!) on a tight budget. I grew up in Manhattan to lower middle class parents and had a pretty normal life.
Im just shocked at how little people here really know about day to day life in NYC, not everybody lives in a $4,000 a month studio.

[AKrunner88]

I like NYC to visit but would pick Chicago any day of the week. And this coming from someone who doesn't like Chicago.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

The bigger point I was trying to make to a few posters saying there is little green space in NYC, when in fact that is very far from the truth. Having lived in both Chicago and NYC, I think NYC is actually "greener".
There is no doubt NYC can be very expensive, it can also be very livable (there are 8.3million people!) on a tight budget. I grew up in Manhattan to lower middle class parents and had a pretty normal life.
Im just shocked at how little people here really know about day to day life in NYC, not everybody lives in a $4,000 a month studio.

Everything is relative. Heck, even the definition of "major city".

Kansas City has pro-sports, opera etc. but is a vastly smaller and doesn't have the "city" feel like Chicago or NY. So, I'm not sure if major city means the 3 big urban centers in the US or maybe just the top 10 or top 25?

Then again, it's 1/2 the cost of Chicago and thus vastly cheaper than NY with commute times measured in minutes.

To each their own.

[It'sAutomatic]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Everything is relative. Heck, even the definition of "major city".

Kansas City has pro-sports, opera etc. but is a vastly smaller and doesn't have the "city" feel like Chicago or NY. So, I'm not sure if major city means the 3 big urban centers in the US or maybe just the top 10 or top 25?

Then again, it's 1/2 the cost of Chicago and thus vastly cheaper than NY with commute times measured in minutes.

To each their own.

Half the cost? Seeing as one can get a decent place in a decent neighborhood here for about $500 per bedroom, does that mean your 2BRs average about $500? And do you take into account the fact that one can easily live carless in Chicago and not Kansas City? If a car costs ~$100 per month to own, then that would be $400 per month for a two-person apartment with one car to be half the cost of Chicago. Or less than that, because the cost of groceries and do-dads might be slightly cheaper, but definitely not by half.