Chicago or Atlanta - City Preference Forum

[Bronck]

You people complaining about the Chicago cold are just wimps! I also think you are exaggerating. I mean, yeah, it's pretty cold from December-February, with November and March being on the cooler side but still very tolerable. The other 7 months are fairly pleasant, even if it does get a little too warm in the summer sometimes. Can you really not just tough it out and wear more clothes for 3 months out of the year? Also, for those 3 months, does it really matter if the average temperature is 15 degrees in Chicago vs 30 in NYC? It's not like you'll be hitting the beach either way.

Average Temperatures for Chicago
http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimat ... h/USIL0225

EDIT: Remember to take the wind into account when looking at the above temperatures. It definetely does make it feel colder in the winter, but I still maintain Chicago weather is really only "bad" for about 3-4 months out of the year.

I'm sorry but a place that only regularly experiences temperatures above 50 degrees from June to July is not pleasant weather wise. There's a reason why people retire in Florida/the rest of the South. You probably grew up in a climate like that so to you it's no big deal, but to people who are accustomed to all four seasons it's rough. Particularly if you're used to cold weather being finished by March. It's a real adjustment to go from that to it being 40 degrees in April. When I think March I think spring break and sunny weather. That's just not what you're going to get in a place like Chicago in March (and in fairness as someone pointed out not in NYC or DC either). Plus women look a hell of a lot better in Summer/spring clothing--which you will only see from for 3 months in Chicago. After that it's turtlenecks and uggs.

Talk about hyperbole, lol....
Avg high/low in April: 60/41.... avg high/low in October: 62/46

[romothesavior]

You people complaining about the Chicago cold are just wimps! I also think you are exaggerating. I mean, yeah, it's pretty cold from December-February, with November and March being on the cooler side but still very tolerable. The other 7 months are fairly pleasant, even if it does get a little too warm in the summer sometimes. Can you really not just tough it out and wear more clothes for 3 months out of the year? Also, for those 3 months, does it really matter if the average temperature is 15 degrees in Chicago vs 30 in NYC? It's not like you'll be hitting the beach either way.

Average Temperatures for Chicago
http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimat ... h/USIL0225

EDIT: Remember to take the wind into account when looking at the above temperatures. It definetely does make it feel colder in the winter, but I still maintain Chicago weather is really only "bad" for about 3-4 months out of the year.

I'm sorry but a place that only regularly experiences temperatures above 50 degrees from June to July is not pleasant weather wise. There's a reason why people retire in Florida/the rest of the South. You probably grew up in a climate like that so to you it's no big deal, but to people who are accustomed to all four seasons it's rough. Particularly if you're used to cold weather being finished by March. It's a real adjustment to go from that to it being 40 degrees in April. When I think March I think spring break and sunny weather. That's just not what you're going to get in a place like Chicago in March (and in fairness as someone pointed out not in NYC or DC either). Plus women look a hell of a lot better in Summer/spring clothing--which you will only see from for 3 months in Chicago. After that it's turtlenecks and uggs.

Talk about hyperbole, lol....
Avg high/low in April: 60/41.... avg high/low in October: 62/46

Yeah seriously... Only 50 degrees+ in June/July? What?

[rayiner]

YMMV regarding the weather issue. I grew up in DC and adjusted to Chicago just fine. Yes, it is bitterly cold in the winter with wind chill, but it's not a dark climate. The upside is that it's only humid a couple of months out of the year. That's a huge benefit in terms of being able to walk around in a suit.

Overall, I think Atlanta is an awesome city. But in a way, it's everything that is wrong with America. The suburban sprawl, the congested highways, everyone's enormous carbon footprint. The longer I live in a city like Chicago that has proper urban planning (Atlanta has none) the less inclined I am to go back to all that.

[Entchen]

I will admit I've never been to Atlanta, so my impressions could be totally wrong, but I would not want to live there, for the following reasons:

1. All four seasons? Really? You call a low of 34 in January winter? As a cross-country-skiing New Englander, I don't think this would work for me. And I'm pretty sure I'd melt in the summer.

2. Seems very suburban-sprawl-y, which I would hate. I maintain that any place that requires the use of a car should not get to call itself a city -- its just a bunch of suburbs smushed together. I enjoy driving, but I never want to have to drive. I should be able to walk to everything I need on a daily basis.

But as I said, never been there, so perhaps I am wrong.

[johnnyutah]

As a cross-country-skiing New Englander

I thought you were from New York City?

[Entchen]

As a cross-country-skiing New Englander

I thought you were from New York City?

Nope, actually really dislike New York. Grew up in CT, though.

[BruceWayne]

Talk about hyperbole, lol....
Avg high/low in April: 60/41.... avg high/low in October: 62/46

WTF??? LOL were these numbers supposed to make what I said look hyperbolic? I said average temperatures don't get much above the 50s until the summer and then you post that the average HIGH is 60 and average low is 41 in April to disprove that? Hell didn't I say something about having to get used to it being in the 40's in April too? What do you think hyperbolic means exactly?

[lobolawyer]

I will admit I've never been to Atlanta, so my impressions could be totally wrong, but I would not want to live there, for the following reasons:

1. All four seasons? Really? You call a low of 34 in January winter? As a cross-country-skiing New Englander, I don't think this would work for me. And I'm pretty sure I'd melt in the summer.

2. Seems very suburban-sprawl-y, which I would hate. I maintain that any place that requires the use of a car should not get to call itself a city -- its just a bunch of suburbs smushed together. I enjoy driving, but I never want to have to drive. I should be able to walk to everything I need on a daily basis.

But as I said, never been there, so perhaps I am wrong.

You need a car in Los Angeles. Is it not a city?

[AreJay711]

People here just don't like ATL because it is a majority black city.

[Entchen]

I will admit I've never been to Atlanta, so my impressions could be totally wrong, but I would not want to live there, for the following reasons:

1. All four seasons? Really? You call a low of 34 in January winter? As a cross-country-skiing New Englander, I don't think this would work for me. And I'm pretty sure I'd melt in the summer.

2. Seems very suburban-sprawl-y, which I would hate. I maintain that any place that requires the use of a car should not get to call itself a city -- its just a bunch of suburbs smushed together. I enjoy driving, but I never want to have to drive. I should be able to walk to everything I need on a daily basis.

But as I said, never been there, so perhaps I am wrong.

You need a car in Los Angeles. Is it not a city?

[romothesavior]

Talk about hyperbole, lol....
Avg high/low in April: 60/41.... avg high/low in October: 62/46

WTF??? LOL were these numbers supposed to make what I said look hyperbolic? I said average temperatures don't get much above the 50s until the summer and then you post that the average HIGH of 60 and average low of 41 in April to disprove that? Hell didn't I say something about having to get used to it being in the 40's in April too?

The average in Chicago is WELL over 50 in May and August, and probably during April and September (even October) as well. So it may drop to the 40s at 3 am in April while you are sleeping? Umm okay. Sorry man, your post was pure hyperbole. You said that Chicago "only regularly experience temperatures over 50 degrees from June to July," and anyone who knows a thing about Chicago's weather would find that to be just silly.

[Bronck]

Talk about hyperbole, lol....
Avg high/low in April: 60/41.... avg high/low in October: 62/46

WTF??? LOL were these numbers supposed to make what I said look hyperbolic? I said average temperatures don't get much above the 50s until the summer and then you post that the average HIGH is 60 and average low is 41 in April to disprove that? Hell didn't I say something about having to get used to it being in the 40's in April too? What do you think hyperbolic means exactly?

Are you really that stupid? First, that's not what you said. Second, the mean temperature generally hovers around 50 in April, and in the low to mid 50s in October. Third, Romo is completely right.

[BruceWayne]

Talk about hyperbole, lol....
Avg high/low in April: 60/41.... avg high/low in October: 62/46

WTF??? LOL were these numbers supposed to make what I said look hyperbolic? I said average temperatures don't get much above the 50s until the summer and then you post that the average HIGH is 60 and average low is 41 in April to disprove that? Hell didn't I say something about having to get used to it being in the 40's in April too? What do you think hyperbolic means exactly?

Are you really that stupid? First, that's not what you said. Second, the mean temperature generally hovers around 50 in April, and in the low to mid 50s in October. Third, Romo is completely right.

FYI this part right here is really stupid--that's literally what I said in my Damn post. That the AVERAGE (i.e another word for MEAN. Do you have a limited vocab or something???? You didn't realize that mean and average are synonyms? Really??? RC raped you didn't it?) And when someone starts with the, "but that's not what you said!" that's basically moron for "my RC isn't too great".

LOL at a Motherfucker who doesn't know what hyperbolic means calling someone stupid. Let me break it down for you.

Hyperbolic--of, relating to, or marked by hyperbole

Hyperbole--extravagant exaggeration

Not that I do realize that there is a HIGH likelihood that you do not understand what extravagant or exaggeration mean either.

Not to mention that's exactly what I said

"BruceWayne"]I'm sorry but a place that only regularly experiences temperatures above 50 degrees from June to July is not pleasant weather wise. There's a reason why people retire in Florida/the rest of the South. You probably grew up in a climate like that so to you it's no big deal, but to people who are accustomed to all four seasons it's rough. Particularly if you're used to cold weather being finished by March. It's a real adjustment to go from that to it being 40 degrees in April. When I think March I think spring break and sunny weather. That's just not what you're going to get in a place like Chicago in March (and in fairness as someone pointed out not in NYC or DC either). Plus women look a hell of a lot better in Summer/spring clothing--which you will only see from for 3 months in Chicago. After that it's turtlenecks and uggs.

[Bronck]

FYI this part right here is really stupid--that's literally what I said in my Damn post. That the AVERAGE (i.e another word for MEAN. Do you have a limited vocab or something???? You didn't realize that mean and average are synonyms? Really??? RC raped you didn't it?) And when someone starts with the, "but that's not what you said!" that's basically moron for "my RC isn't too great".

LOL at a Motherfucker who doesn't know what hyperbolic means calling someone stupid. Let me break it down for you.

Hyperbolic--of, relating to, or marked by hyperbole

Hyperbole--extravagant exaggeration

Not that I do realize that there is a HIGH likelihood that you do not understand what extravagant or exaggeration mean either.

Not to mention that's exactly what I said

FTFY

[romothesavior]

--ImageRemoved--

[Gleason]

These cities are so different I can't imagine someone wouldn't have a definite preference.

Actually, that's not true. Chicago is hands-down the better city. But to me, Chicago's climate is unfit for human habitation. Chicago's cold is oppressive. Is the city way more walkable and more urban? Definitely. But between December and March the cold makes every moment outside an exercise in masochism. Taking together November and April, you can count on another month's worth of time in a frozen hell. That's five months. And then the summers? Well they're better than ATL's, sure. But July and August aren't a walk in the park either. It's a wretched midwestern heat that strangely makes you crave a winter breeze. And taking together June and September, you can count on another month's worth of time in a sweat bath. That's 7-8 months. Out of 12. The time in between? It's mostly nice. Two months of spring and two months of fall--precious weeks that always feel fleeting and brief. Looking at monthly averages is a little deceptive, especially in that area of the world.

Atlanta is only intolerable in the summer. Winter hits, but it's not painful. So ATL has maybe 4 months of intolerable heat and zero months of intolerable cold.

When the outside hurts, it's all the same. So, to me, ATL wins the climate race. I like the more urban feel of Chicago, but the walkability and public transit of a city is a moot point when walking anywhere or waiting 5 minutes outside is like sitting in an ice bath.

And the weather has a dramatic effect on the people and culture. Pour ice in your bathtub, lay in it, and then call your closest friend and see how friendly and talkative you are.

[BruceWayne]

These cities are so different I can't imagine someone wouldn't have a definite preference.

Actually, that's not true. Chicago is hands-down the better city. But to me, Chicago's climate is unfit for human habitation. Chicago's cold is oppressive. Is the city way more walkable and more urban? Definitely. But between December and March the cold makes every moment outside an exercise in masochism. Taking together November and April, you can count on another month's worth of time in a frozen hell. That's five months. And then the summers? Well they're better than ATL's, sure. But July and August aren't a walk in the park either. It's a wretched midwestern heat that strangely makes you crave a winter breeze. And taking together June and September, you can count on another month's worth of time in a sweat bath. That's 7-8 months. Out of 12. The time in between? It's mostly nice. Two months of spring and two months of fall--precious weeks that always feel fleeting and brief. Looking at monthly averages is a little deceptive, especially in that area of the world.

Atlanta is only intolerable in the summer. Winter hits, but it's not painful. So ATL has maybe 4 months of intolerable heat and zero months of intolerable cold.

When the outside hurts, it's all the same. So, to me, ATL wins the climate race. I like the more urban feel of Chicago, but the walkability and public transit of a city is a moot point when walking anywhere or waiting 5 minutes outside is like sitting in an ice bath.

And the weather has a dramatic effect on the people and culture. Pour ice in your bathtub, lay in it, and then call your closest friend and see how friendly and talkative you are.

This is generally what I hear from most people. Basically you're looking at a tradeoff--one city has more to offer but that's made up for by the down grade in weather.

--ImageRemoved--

FYI I wasn't responding to you in that post at all. And frankly Bronck is a typical TLS know it all moron. Bronck you might want to be careful about calling people stupid when you're using words beyond the scope of your vocabulary. I applaud your attempt at implementing your daily vocab improvement flash cards; but don't forget to actually read the definitions next time. I would recommend picking up a thesaurus as well. Turn to the word "average" and then look up "mean" --you're going to be blown away.

[romothesavior]

I would recommend picking up a thesaurus as well. Turn to the word "average" and then look up "mean" --you're going to be blown away.

For someone who criticizes others' reading comp skills, you sure are good at picking fights over things no one even said.

[Bronck]

Look, dude, I'll make it nice and simple for you.

You said that "[Chicago] only regularly experiences temperatures above 50 degrees from June to July". I countered and said that it averages a high of 60 and 62 in April and October, respectively. You then decided to change your original position and say that "average temperatures don't get much above the 50s until the summer". I then responded and said that mean (or average, for your sake) temperatures were in the low to mid 50s in April and October (which implies that May, June, July, August, and September are all warmer) and piggybacked off of Romo who said that it's much better to use average high as a metric since it's bizarre to use sleep-time temperatures in your calculus.

Chill out.

[romothesavior]

Look, dude, I'll make it nice and simple for you.

You said that "[Chicago] only regularly experiences temperatures above 50 degrees from June to July". I countered and said that it averages a high of 60 and 62 in April and October, respectively. You then decided to change your original position and say that "average temperatures don't get much above the 50s until the summer". I then responded and said that mean (or average, for your sake) temperatures were in the low to mid 50s in April and October (which implies that May, June, July, August, and September are all warmer) and piggybacked off of Romo who said that it's much better to use average high as a metric since it's bizarre to use sleep-time temperatures in your calculus.

Chill out.

Pretty much this. BW said Chi-town only experiences the 50s regularly for two months, Bronck pointed out that the mean temperature for 6-7 months is in the 50s.

BW, this is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen. And I used the term argument very loosely since you are the only one blowing a gasket.

[Real Madrid]

ATL It's warmer. The food is better - if you like southern food. And I like southern hospitality.

troll take your flame outside tyia. Chicago's food options are second only to NYC. Atlanta has a solid secondary food scene, it's better than most of its peers size-wise, like Cleveland, but you really cannot compare the options you'd get in a place with barely 400k residents vs. a place with 2.8 million.

However, I'd definitely take into consideration the 3 years you'd be living in a college town in the midst of cornfields. If you're not particularly a fan of such a setup, 3 years is a long time to hate your environment.

Uh, no. First off, Atlanta and Cleveland aren't "peer cities size-wise." Atlanta's metro area has 5.2 million people; Cleveland's has 2.2 million. Further, Atlanta is one of two U.S. cities to have hosted the Summer Olympics, it is the headquarters of the busiest airport in the world, the busiest airline in the world, the largest drink manufacturer in the world, the largest telecommunications company in the country, and the largest package delivery in the country. So, yeah, not quite peers.

Secondly, there are a few more cities that are objectively better for foodies than Chicago - San Francisco and New Orleans come to mind immediately.

I will concede that transportation in Atlanta can be a nightmare, but most of the rapidly growing cities these days (e.g. Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, etc.) are the same way.

[rad lulz]

.

[rayiner]

ATL It's warmer. The food is better - if you like southern food. And I like southern hospitality.

troll take your flame outside tyia. Chicago's food options are second only to NYC. Atlanta has a solid secondary food scene, it's better than most of its peers size-wise, like Cleveland, but you really cannot compare the options you'd get in a place with barely 400k residents vs. a place with 2.8 million.

However, I'd definitely take into consideration the 3 years you'd be living in a college town in the midst of cornfields. If you're not particularly a fan of such a setup, 3 years is a long time to hate your environment.

Uh, no. First off, Atlanta and Cleveland aren't "peer cities size-wise." Atlanta's metro area has 5.2 million people; Cleveland's has 2.2 million. Further, Atlanta is one of two U.S. cities to have hosted the Summer Olympics, it is the headquarters of the busiest airport in the world, the busiest airline in the world, the largest drink manufacturer in the world, the largest telecommunications company in the country, and the largest package delivery in the country. So, yeah, not quite peers.

Secondly, there are a few more cities that are objectively better for foodies than Chicago - San Francisco and New Orleans come to mind immediately.

I will concede that transportation in Atlanta can be a nightmare, but most of the rapidly growing cities these days (e.g. Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, etc.) are the same way.

Suburbs don't count. The urban core of Atlanta is comporable in size to Cleaveland. The suburbs are a sea of chain establishments. Serviceable, but not part of a legit food scene.

Also, Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix suck and are by and large unsustainable. In 10 years they'll be like Northern VA, where the traffic turns even Saturday brunch into a frustrating multi-hour driving experience.

[rayiner]

ATL It's warmer. The food is better - if you like southern food. And I like southern hospitality.

troll take your flame outside tyia. Chicago's food options are second only to NYC. Atlanta has a solid secondary food scene, it's better than most of its peers size-wise, like Cleveland, but you really cannot compare the options you'd get in a place with barely 400k residents vs. a place with 2.8 million.

However, I'd definitely take into consideration the 3 years you'd be living in a college town in the midst of cornfields. If you're not particularly a fan of such a setup, 3 years is a long time to hate your environment.

Uh, no. First off, Atlanta and Cleveland aren't "peer cities size-wise." Atlanta's metro area has 5.2 million people; Cleveland's has 2.2 million. Further, Atlanta is one of two U.S. cities to have hosted the Summer Olympics, it is the headquarters of the busiest airport in the world, the busiest airline in the world, the largest drink manufacturer in the world, the largest telecommunications company in the country, and the largest package delivery in the country. So, yeah, not quite peers.

Secondly, there are a few more cities that are objectively better for foodies than Chicago - San Francisco and New Orleans come to mind immediately.

I will concede that transportation in Atlanta can be a nightmare, but most of the rapidly growing cities these days (e.g. Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, etc.) are the same way.

Re: food, San Fran yes, New Orleans no. New Orleans has great food within its niche, but Chicago has the spectrum only a huge city can offer. Everything from cheap Mexican to Michelin rated. NO definitely has a more creative food scene (along with Philly and Portland) but Chicago has the deep bench.

[Real Madrid]

ATL It's warmer. The food is better - if you like southern food. And I like southern hospitality.

troll take your flame outside tyia. Chicago's food options are second only to NYC. Atlanta has a solid secondary food scene, it's better than most of its peers size-wise, like Cleveland, but you really cannot compare the options you'd get in a place with barely 400k residents vs. a place with 2.8 million.

However, I'd definitely take into consideration the 3 years you'd be living in a college town in the midst of cornfields. If you're not particularly a fan of such a setup, 3 years is a long time to hate your environment.

Uh, no. First off, Atlanta and Cleveland aren't "peer cities size-wise." Atlanta's metro area has 5.2 million people; Cleveland's has 2.2 million. Further, Atlanta is one of two U.S. cities to have hosted the Summer Olympics, it is the headquarters of the busiest airport in the world, the busiest airline in the world, the largest drink manufacturer in the world, the largest telecommunications company in the country, and the largest package delivery in the country. So, yeah, not quite peers.

Secondly, there are a few more cities that are objectively better for foodies than Chicago - San Francisco and New Orleans come to mind immediately.

I will concede that transportation in Atlanta can be a nightmare, but most of the rapidly growing cities these days (e.g. Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, etc.) are the same way.

Suburbs don't count. The urban core of Atlanta is comporable in size to Cleaveland. The suburbs are a sea of chain establishments. Serviceable, but not part of a legit food scene.

Also, Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix suck and are by and large unsustainable. In 10 years they'll be like Northern VA, where the traffic turns even Saturday brunch into a frustrating multi-hour driving experience.

Lol, suburbs don't count? I guess that means we can also compare Boston, Miami, San Francisco and Washington, DC to Cleveland too? Yeah, I guess that sounds a little stupid now, huh?

As for your comment about New Orleans' food scene, I think I'll yield to Travel + Leisure, which just named it the top food city in the country.