Having a hard time choosing between DC and Chicago. Forum

[09042014]

We built Chicago because getting between the east and west coasts took a long time and everyone wanted a nice, central location to stop for food / pissing / rest.

After inventing the airplane, Chicago's decline began. It has continued unabated since then, and will continue into the future. Mark my words: There is absolutely no reason for a city to exist in the location that Chicago is, and as the population pieces that together (read: becomes increasingly unemployed / cannibalistic) the city shall fall.

It was born and so it shall die.

Of course, DC is a swamp, so that's not ideal either.

(Guy who thinks transportation of goods is primarily by air)

[Borhas]

goods don't need to eat food, piss, or rest

[IAFG]

What? There are heavily used commuter rails.
http://mta.maryland.gov/marc-train
http://www.vre.org/

Yeah but look where the commuter rails go and compare to metra. Metra hits all the major suburbs. VRE goes weird places and skips a lot of the more popular commuter suburbs.

[dixiecupdrinking]

We built Chicago because getting between the east and west coasts took a long time and everyone wanted a nice, central location to stop for food / pissing / rest.

After inventing the airplane, Chicago's decline began. It has continued unabated since then, and will continue into the future. Mark my words: There is absolutely no reason for a city to exist in the location that Chicago is, and as the population pieces that together (read: becomes increasingly unemployed / cannibalistic) the city shall fall.

It was born and so it shall die.

Of course, DC is a swamp, so that's not ideal either.

Sort of accurate, except that being the biggest city between the coasts is probably enough to sustain it going forward. There isn't much economic reason for most businesses to be in any physical location over any other one these days, other than costs, which is why we've seen such a Sun Belt boom over the past few decades. But culturally, cities are gaining an almost luxury-good sort of cachet. People will pay more to be in a place that's existed for more than 20 years and where you can walk or take transit places, etc. And if we're talking longer term, gas prices will only make denser areas more attractive from a cost perspective. So I suspect Chicago will continue to do (as) okay (as it currently is, which is not that well if you aren't an affluent white person, but I digress).

DC, obviously, will remain extant and relatively thriving unless and until we move the White House to a strip mall in Manassas to save money.

[rayiner]

Added randomly at the end after seeing rayiner's most recent anti-DC comments. My wife and I rode the Metro to work pretty much everyday. If you love near Metro in DC you are far better off than living near Metra in Chicago. Metra in Chicago doesn't connect to the 'L', so after commuting 30 minutes in on Metra you have to either take a cab, hope your office is near Union Station, or walk the half mile to the 'L' and hop on. Metro goes everywhere in DC and is pretty convenient throughout much of Northern Virginia or Montgomery County in Maryland.

In most of the DC suburbs, it's difficult to live within walking distance of a Metro stop. The metro stations in say Vienna, Falls Church, etc, are surrounded by low-density suburban development. Many Chicago suburbs have "downtowns" surrounding the Metra station.

Yes, the L doesn't connect to the Metra, but it really doesn't matter. First, the Loop is extremely compact--only a mile across. Most firms are within a 10-minute walk of Ogilvie or Union Station. Second, if you do have an office on the other side of the Loop, you'd take the bus not the L. Nobody takes the bus in DC for some reason, but Chicago's bus network is amazing. Very clean, runs frequently, and quite punctual.

[thelaststraw05]

FWIW, I love the buses in DC. I take them often.

[rayiner]

And there are definitely no commuter rails, but rush hour does NOT extend into most of the day. I own a car and drive to VA and MD a lot and do not encounter rush hour outside of normal hours. Inside the city, traffic isn't bad except right at Dupont Circle.

What? There are heavily used commuter rails.
http://mta.maryland.gov/marc-train
http://www.vre.org/

I've been here 25 years, "rush hour" is 7am-7pm in and around Washington. If you think traffic here isn't bad you haven't lived in another major metro area.

LOL, just LOL @ MARC/VRE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un ... _ridership

Metra has 6x the ridership for a metro area with 1.7x the population. Chicago's commuter rail ridership is quite comparable, adjusted for population, to the NY/NJ metro area. DC's is comparable with other suburban prole metro areas.

[Anonymous User]

What? There are heavily used commuter rails.
http://mta.maryland.gov/marc-train
http://www.vre.org/

Yeah but look where the commuter rails go and compare to metra. Metra hits all the major suburbs. VRE goes weird places and skips a lot of the more popular commuter suburbs.

I can't speak to the VRE, but I personally took the MARC train to work for 2 years and never had any problem.

In most of the DC suburbs, it's difficult to live within walking distance of a Metro stop. The metro stations in say Vienna, Falls Church, etc, are surrounded by low-density suburban development. Many Chicago suburbs have "downtowns" surrounding the Metra station.

What? Why would you ever expect to be walking distance of anything in the suburbs? That's why they're suburbs! People want their space and backyards and puppies and flowers and various other assorted shit. Who would move out of the city to be within walking distance of trains that run all day long?

Most of the suburban metro stations have parking garages so that you can drive to them, like a normal suburbanite.

[09042014]

I'd say Chicago. The culture and food is better, and it's a lot cheaper to live in. It's the best American city.

But I think Rayiner is overhyping several aspects. Chicago burbs and NOVA burbs are virtually identical to me. The only reason I can tell Arlington from Arlington Heights is the hills. Chicago summers are a lot warmer then maybe Rayiner understands.

It's only maybe 5 degrees warmer on average in DC, in the three big summer months. But Chicago is a lot colder for longer. I think Chicago has objectively worse weather.

Chicago traffic is pretty damn terrible too. And commuter lines don't really help that much. They don't run very often after the ~6:15 express trains stop. You have to drive to the Metra stations because there is virtually zero public transit in the burbs. I'd imagine biglawyers who work in Chicago but live in the far burbs probably just drive.

Chicago is a midclass city who enjoys being middle class. DC is a middle class city that strives to be elite and just fucking fails. DC is a city full of posers.

Chicago guy who took DC biglawl.

[rayiner]

In most of the DC suburbs, it's difficult to live within walking distance of a Metro stop. The metro stations in say Vienna, Falls Church, etc, are surrounded by low-density suburban development. Many Chicago suburbs have "downtowns" surrounding the Metra station.

What? Why would you ever expect to be walking distance of anything in the suburbs? That's why they're suburbs! People want their space and backyards and puppies and flowers and various other assorted shit. Who would move out of the city to be within walking distance of trains that run all day long?

Most of the suburban metro stations have parking garages so that you can drive to them, like a normal suburbanite.

Chicago and DC have very different ideas of what suburbs should be. In DC, suburbs are places that are zoned completely residential for miles in every direction, where you have to get in a car and drive 20 minutes just to get a bite to eat. In Chicago, most of the close-in suburbs are little towns. You have the backyard and shit, but can walk or bike a short distance to a town center where you have your shopping, etc, along with transit to the city.

E.g. this is "downtown" Arlington Heights:

[09042014]

Added randomly at the end after seeing rayiner's most recent anti-DC comments. My wife and I rode the Metro to work pretty much everyday. If you love near Metro in DC you are far better off than living near Metra in Chicago. Metra in Chicago doesn't connect to the 'L', so after commuting 30 minutes in on Metra you have to either take a cab, hope your office is near Union Station, or walk the half mile to the 'L' and hop on. Metro goes everywhere in DC and is pretty convenient throughout much of Northern Virginia or Montgomery County in Maryland.

In most of the DC suburbs, it's difficult to live within walking distance of a Metro stop. The metro stations in say Vienna, Falls Church, etc, are surrounded by low-density suburban development. Many Chicago suburbs have "downtowns" surrounding the Metra station.

Yes, the L doesn't connect to the Metra, but it really doesn't matter. First, the Loop is extremely compact--only a mile across. Most firms are within a 10-minute walk of Ogilvie or Union Station. Second, if you do have an office on the other side of the Loop, you'd take the bus not the L. Nobody takes the bus in DC for some reason, but Chicago's bus network is amazing. Very clean, runs frequently, and quite punctual.

Why does nobody take the bus in DC? I took it every day to work and got weird looks for doing it. Apparently there is a white only bus called the Circulator.

[Byakuya769]

Well, DC is growing while Chicago shrinks. As long as we're trolling.

[Dany]

OP, i live in chicago ... the public transportation is horrible, and it does get cold, but a lot of bands come through and there are a lot of places to shop, eat, etc. my biggest gripes are getting groceries, ridiculously embarrassingly horrible terrible and awful public transportation (you need a car)

This is ridiculous.

[rayiner]

But I think Rayiner is overhyping several aspects. Chicago burbs and NOVA burbs are virtually identical to me. The only reason I can tell Arlington from Arlington Heights is the hills.

But Arlington is basically part of the DC downtown. Arlington Heights is 25 miles from downtown Chicago, about the same distance as truly unbearable DC suburbs like Burke or Chantilly.

[thesealocust]

Seriously, 10 years from now Top-Prison-Schools.com will be debating which area of Chicago to demolish and establish more prisons in before the guys at Top-Landfill-Schools.com can take all the available space for garbage dumps.

There is no reason for Chicago to exist.

It is merely a historical accident.

[09042014]

OP, i live in chicago ... the public transportation is horrible, and it does get cold, but a lot of bands come through and there are a lot of places to shop, eat, etc. my biggest gripes are getting groceries, ridiculously embarrassingly horrible terrible and awful public transportation (you need a car)

This is ridiculous.

People who say CTA sucks usually live really far out, or never look at buses. The El is really designed to take you downtown and back. Buses to take you across.

[KidStuddi]

Chicago and DC have very different ideas of what suburbs should be. In DC, suburbs are places that are zoned completely residential for miles in every direction, where you have to get in a car and drive 20 minutes just to get a bite to eat. In Chicago, most of the close-in suburbs are little towns. You have the backyard and shit, but can walk or bike a short distance to a town center where you have your shopping, etc, along with transit to the city.

Yes because Silver Spring
--ImageRemoved--

and Bethesda


Look so much more rural than your "walkable" Arlington Heights. Surely you're just trolling now, or have never been to D.C's suburbs.

[09042014]

Chicago suburbs are just not walker friendly, and they, for the most part, aren't even biker friendly.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. FWIW, I have a family. Will live in city for 2-3 years then buy house in the suburbs.

Also, I don't want to mention firm names. Both are great firms, I'm just thinking about city now. I've lived in Nashville & Columbus.

Chicago is a much more family friendly city. The lower COL means that you can afford to live somewhere with decent schools or maybe send your kids to private school. DC region has some great public schools, but the costs of housing in those areas are generally astronomical. If you really want to live in the city for a few years before going suburban than Chicago also has an edge there.

I can't understate the differences in work though. Chicago has infinitely better corporate work, while DC is dominated by regulatory practices that don't exist anywhere else. General litigation is also going to be different in certain ways too, mainly influenced by the types of clients that the office serves for other matters.

[09042014]

Chicago suburbs are just not walker friendly, and they, for the most part, aren't even biker friendly.

I should point out, that places like Silver Spring and Bethesda, corrispond to far north side nieghboorhoods in chicago, not suburbs. So something like this, is further from downtown chicago than Bethesda and Silver Spring is. And you can get a huge 1 bed for 1000 a month here.

[a11 1n]

Seriously, 10 years from now Top-Prison-Schools.com will be debating which area of Chicago to demolish and establish more prisons in before the guys at Top-Landfill-Schools.com can take all the available space for garbage dumps.

There is no reason for Chicago to exist.

It is merely a historical accident.

I imagine Milwaukee, Detroit, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Cleveland and St. Louis will all need to fall before Chicago's time comes. By that time, I reckon rising sea levels will have turned Chicago into a coastal town.

[09042014]

RMDR: NYC Fails when Wall Street relocates to North Carolina.

[rayiner]

Well, DC is growing while Chicago shrinks. As long as we're trolling.

Both cities are about the same size as they were in 1990, about 75% below their 1950 peak. The long-term trend is a consistent decline in population since 1950 that seems to have bottomed out for both. Chicago grew in the 1990's and lost the gains in the 2000's, while DC shrank in the 1990's and made back some of the gains in the 2000's.

The metro areas for both cities have been growing consistently.

[rayiner]

Chicago and DC have very different ideas of what suburbs should be. In DC, suburbs are places that are zoned completely residential for miles in every direction, where you have to get in a car and drive 20 minutes just to get a bite to eat. In Chicago, most of the close-in suburbs are little towns. You have the backyard and shit, but can walk or bike a short distance to a town center where you have your shopping, etc, along with transit to the city.

Yes because Silver Spring
--ImageRemoved--

and Bethesda


Look so much more rural than your "walkable" Arlington Heights. Surely you're just trolling now, or have never been to D.C's suburbs.

I grew up in the DC suburbs, bro. While Arlington, Silver Springs and Bethesda aren't part of the city of DC, they're part of the contiguous urbanized area of the city. They're all less than 8 miles from downtown DC. Arlington Heights is 25 miles from downtown Chicago. Arlington Heights is more comparable to a planned suburb like Reston. Reston is actually great, but most of the suburbs that far from DC are more like Chantilly or somewhere equally shitty.

[rayiner]

Definitive: http://www.travelandleisure.com/america ... hington-dc

The survey actually captures all the things that I like better about Chicago.

#2 in luxury stores, versus #21 for DC.
#4 in cocktail hour, versus #22 for DC.
#1 in architecture, versus #9 for DC.
#3 in public transit, versus #6 for DC.
#2 in theater, versus #16 for DC.
#4 in fine dining, versus #18 for DC.
#10 in microbrew, versus #28 for DC.