Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've lived in both and both of them are so different in concept and composition, it's not really possible to compare them straight-up.
Chicago is a more classical, proper city with a spectacular metropolis downtown, crowded streets and street corners, sky-scrapers, subways, taxi cabs, hustling business men and women, etc, etc. Chicago offers the urban life-style: walk-able streets, efficient transportation, parks, museums, architecture, dive bars, lounges, cafes and diverse restaurants. The near suburbs remain pretty dense, however the mid-to-more-distant suburbs around the periphery of Cook Co drop off density-wise and are noticeably less happening than the thick suburbs of Los Angeles. These burbs have really grown since my childhood though, and are feeling more and more sprawly. The quirky thing about Chicago is you can be standing on Wacker under the shadow of the Sears Tower one moment and 30 miles later you're out in these thin, wooded and even farm-y looking suburbs in Lake Co or DuPage Co. A friend of mine once said Chicago is the "world's biggest small town". Chicago is tall, attractive, happening, a good definition of a global city, but it's burbs are relatively tame and unremarkable, at least in comparison to the dense and moving 'burbs of the san fernando and san gabriel valleys.
Los Angeles is whole 'nother animal. It's a thick, seemingly endless suburb; it looks like a massive circuit board from the sky at night, the myriad of six-lane interstate freeways connecting one node to the next. Most of the Los Angeles suburbs are alive and happening, and each one has it's own distinct flavor. Downtown Los Angeles is relatively small and is a mere afterthought for most Angelenos. Of course, when you live in So Cal and have the pacific ocean, the mountains an endless jungle of cool neighborhoods to explore, maybe it doesn't matter, but you certainly will not get the genuine urban life-style in L.A. I can remember how refreshing it was to get out of L.A. and visit Chicago, San Francisco, etc and see what I was missing. Los Angeles is a beast and a breed apart and is an amazing experience, but it's lack of the vertical downtown and classical urban amenities are notable demerits. Pasadena is probably the closest thing Los Angeles can offer that gives you the more classy/cosmopolitan vibe of these other major cities.
Last edited by fightforlove; 03-17-2013 at 09:30 PM..
Not as dense as the Inner Loop in Chicago. Chicago's in a different league of a dense urban core compared to LA. I was overwhemled by the Inner Loop when I was in The Chi. While Downtown LA has never given me that feeling, and right outside of downtown becomes fairly residential of SFH's with front yards and strip malls on the commercial streets. Most of LA's density is more of a spread out built up area sense.
LA's core is just as densely populated, but it's nowhere near as densely built.
That population density you are talking about is mainly a few families staying in a SFH or Apartment. The density of the core of LA is inflated mostly because of this.
Obviously Chicago, in fact, you would be hard pressed to find a more 'urban' city anywhere in the world.
I can name dozens that are more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
