What do Angelenos and Southern Californians think of Chicago? (Los Angeles: insuring, lawyers)

[DewDropInn]

It's a fun place to visit. World-class museums. Shedd aquarium. Da Bears. Navy Pier. Taste of Chicago is all kinds of fun.

But it's way too hot and humid in the summer and shoveling snow is not my thing.

[jessemh431]

Originally Posted by DewDropInn

It's a fun place to visit. World-class museums. Shedd aquarium. Da Bears. Navy Pier. Taste of Chicago is all kinds of fun.

But it's way too hot and humid in the summer and shoveling snow is not my thing.

My thing about shoveling snow is, well, don't drive! Haha. If you live in an apartment building, they have a responsibility to clear the walkways. Walk to the L. Get into your heated L car. Walk to work. Never shovel snow. And in summer, Chicago is way better than NYC because they both can get to 100 and humid, but at least the L platforms are above ground for the most party. Waiting for the NYC subway underground feels like waiting for the train to Hell. And Chicago has beaches right next to the city...not Coney Island haha.

[jacktravern]

Originally Posted by munchitup

They have a NYC name and NYers make up their fan base - they are a NYC team. If a team played at the Rose Bowl would they not be a Los Angeles team? Even though the city limits are like a mile away?
.

What a ridiculous comparison for anyone that doesnt know any better. the Rose Bowl is in Pasadena which is a part of LA county.

Did you not understand that I said the Jets and Giants play in an entirely different STATE?

Thats like an LA team that plays in Nevada

[seain dublin]

Originally Posted by munchitup

I have got to agree. I visited Chicago in early Sept/late August on two occasions, and while I do love me a little bit of humidity and hot summer nights, it was brutal - especially staying in our friends apartment with no AC.

Then I visited in October. It was amazing, and a taste of the kind of weather we do not get in LA (light snow, brisk mornings and evenings).

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Nafster

All the best city festivals and events are usually from May - October, so those are the best times to go.

I like humidity, so the rather in Chicago works for me.

If you hate humidity then you have very few options in the US outside of LA, so then yes, those would be the best times for you to visit the city.

I'm surprised Munchitup that you like the weather in Ocotober. It's not too chilly for you?

But your location is West Hollywood, so you're not living in a humid climate.

Anyone can put up with the humidity for a week knowing they don't have to stay there. If you really liked a humid climate than you would live in one.

It's easy to say humidity doesn't bother me when you live in Southern CA and go somewhere for a week that is, it's another thing to have to put up with it for several months living and working there.

And anyone who comes out to CA in the summer from a humid climate raves about the weather and how nice it is to be out of the humidity.

[pvande55]

Compared to LA it's very cold. Compared to Minnesota too hot. Chicago doesn't get the extremes but the weather changes quickly. It can be jacket weather in the morning and shirtsleeve by afternoon. Sometimes it changes even quicker. And it is flat as a pancake.

[PDF]

I love both LA and NYC. Chicago not so much.

[StreetLegal]

Originally Posted by jacktravern

What a ridiculous comparison for anyone that doesnt know any better. the Rose Bowl is in Pasadena which is a part of LA county.

Did you not understand that I said the Jets and Giants play in an entirely different STATE?

Thats like an LA team that plays in Nevada

Not ridiculous at all. That other "state" New Jersey is right across the Hudson River. Roughly 10 miles from lower Manhattan to the stadium in New Jersey. The "New York" teams are playing in the same metro area even if they have to cross the state line to get to the stadium.

But it is 225 miles from central LA to the Nevada state line. Now that would be ridiculous...

[jessemh431]

Let's be honest though. If the north side and south side were different cities, this would be a different argument. The north side is a complete 180 from the south side. The north side is one of the nicest, safest, vibrant parts of the country. The south side is basically Detroit, Compton, NoLa, Bmore, the Bronx, Oakland, and East St Louis all rolled up into one. If the north side was "Chicago" then the crime argument probably wouldn't even be relevant.

According this article, the North and Northwest sides have a murder rate of 3.3, while the South side are 40. 3.3 is lower than NYC and on par with Toronto. Detroit is at 45. NoLa is at 39. Baltimore 34. Even Ciudad Juarez is at 40, on par with the South Side. Cities safer than the South Side include many Latin American and South African cities that Americans are extremely cautioned against going to...including TIJUANA!
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...-is-two-cities

So basically, yeah Chicago overall is dangerous. But as for a reason to dislike, I think it's a little exaggerated because the crime is all kept into one area where the vast majority of tourists will never step foot. Sadly, half the population is there. But if you can afford the north side, which most Angelenos could easily compared to our COL, you'll be totally safe.

[BeatAngMoh]

Originally Posted by jessemh431

Let's be honest though. If the north side and south side were different cities, this would be a different argument. The north side is a complete 180 from the south side. The north side is one of the nicest, safest, vibrant parts of the country. The south side is basically Detroit, Compton, NoLa, Bmore, the Bronx, Oakland, and East St Louis all rolled up into one. If the north side was "Chicago" then the crime argument probably wouldn't even be relevant.

According this article, the North and Northwest sides have a murder rate of 3.3, while the South side are 40. 3.3 is lower than NYC and on par with Toronto. Detroit is at 45. NoLa is at 39. Baltimore 34. Even Ciudad Juarez is at 40, on par with the South Side. Cities safer than the South Side include many Latin American and South African cities that Americans are extremely cautioned against going to...including TIJUANA!
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...-is-two-cities

So basically, yeah Chicago overall is dangerous. But as for a reason to dislike, I think it's a little exaggerated because the crime is all kept into one area where the vast majority of tourists will never step foot. Sadly, half the population is there. But if you can afford the north side, which most Angelenos could easily compared to our COL, you'll be totally safe.

Great stats. Well not great but provocative and very much so. I thought Chicago was 'hood but didn't know it is that bad. Seems a travel warning needs to be issued within our own borders. Ironically the N and S is split along racial lines.

[jessemh431]

Originally Posted by BeatAngMoh

Great stats. Well not great but provocative and very much so. I thought Chicago was 'hood but didn't know it is that bad. Seems a travel warning needs to be issued within our own borders. Ironically the N and S is split along racial lines.

Yeah I never looked into until now and it's scary how much a stark contrast exists. And so suddenly too! Like in LA the rich coastal and Santa Monica mountains regions have somewhat of a buffer between them and south central. South Bay cities have Hawthorne and North Redondo and similar places between them and Compton. I'm not sure if Chicago has much of a buffer between the north and south like LA does. But having been to Chicago many times and always staying on the north side, I honestly have never once felt afraid. The worst that happens is some really sketchy people riding the Red Line that goes into the heart of the south side. But for the bad rep that Chicago gets, I have never once felt unsafe in the north side.