Having a hard time choosing between DC and Chicago. Forum

[thelaststraw05]

I think most people here are super one sided. Both are good cities. I prefer both to NYC. They both have their different charms. Chicago is a one of the three largest cities in the US. DC is not. Chicago has all of the things that go along with that. Including the crime and the culture. DC is the seat of government in one of the most powerful countries in the world. Chicago is not. DC has all of the things that go along with that. Including the terror plots and the pomp and circumstance.

You'll work like a dog, figure out how to commute, and see regrettably little of your family in each. You'll have a lower cost of living in Chicago. You'll be closer to the centers of power in DC. You just have to figure out what you want. Anybody who says one is objectively better is full of shit.

ETA: Living in Reston is like living in Naperville or Aurora. Most of the people who live out there don't actually work in the city. Many work along the Dulles tech corridor. It is pretty dumb to compare 25 miles outside Chicago with 25 miles outside of DC. If you go 25 miles out of DC to the north, you are closer to Baltimore or Annapolis than you are to DC.

[rayiner]

I think most people here are super one sided. Both are good cities. I prefer both to NYC. They both have their different charms. Chicago is a one of the three largest cities in the US. DC is not. Chicago has all of the things that go along with that. Including the crime and the culture. DC is the seat of government in one of the most powerful countries in the world. Chicago is not. DC has all of the things that go along with that. Including the terror plots and the pomp and circumstance.

You'll work like a dog, figure out how to commute, and see regrettably little of your family in each. You'll have a lower cost of living in Chicago. You'll be closer to the centers of power in DC. You just have to figure out what you want. Anybody who says one is objectively better is full of shit.

False equivalency: http://www.travelandleisure.com/america ... hington-dc

[071816]

I'm here for the pro-Chicago trolling.

[thesealocust]

There are people in this world who rank the cocktail hours of multiple cities?

What does that even mean?

Note to self: destroy all humans

[thelaststraw05]

You're right. We should all base our opinions off of Travel & Leisure. Because what we have learned about picking both law firms and law schools is that the rankings are God.

My wife is from Chicago. I left the decision about where to go after law school to her. She chose DC.

[rayiner]

You're right. We should all base our opinions off of Travel & Leisure. Because what we have learned about picking both law firms and law schools is that the rankings are God.

My wife is from Chicago. I left the decision about where to go after law school to her. She chose DC.

I'm perfectly willing to agree that you shouldn't base your choice on the rankings, as long as we can agree that Chicago is in fact ahead of DC in the rankings.

[09042014]

There are people in this world who rank the cocktail hours of multiple cities?

What does that even mean?

Note to self: destroy all humans

Chicago traders cop dat happy hour special after work. You: Work til 2 am and then cop dat 250 sq ft junior 1 bed.

[thelaststraw05]

I agree that Chicago is ahead of DC in Travel + Leisure rankings. I looked up rankings based on walk ability and the sites I found on initial googling rated DC better. But given how many different sources rank different cities by different criteria, I am sure we could find a ranking that said whatever we want.

Neither city is objectively better. I've lived in both. I liked both. Saying one is better is simple homerism.

[Total Litigator]

I think we know where Rayiner stands on this issue....

[IAFG]

There are people in this world who rank the cocktail hours of multiple cities?

What does that even mean?

Note to self: destroy all humans

I think if you just kill all the lawyers you'll largely get to all the cocktail hour rankers.

[thesealocust]

There are people in this world who rank the cocktail hours of multiple cities?

What does that even mean?

Note to self: destroy all humans

I think if you just kill all the lawyers you'll largely get to all the cocktail hour rankers.

For some reason people who love ranking things all do seem to wind up in the profession -.-

[EdgarWinter]

Thesealocust your argument would make sense if it weren't for the extremely well-supported idea that major market areas are self-perpetuating by virtue of the economic benefits of locating next to masses of consumers and useful suppliers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration

Chicago was built for reasons that might not matter much today, but hugeness is its own reason for existence. Chicago is probs too big to fail anytime soon.

Also DC transportation sucks if you aren't lucky enough to live on a subway stop (and there aren't nearly enough stops). It's not even close.

[rayiner]

Thesealocust your argument would make sense if it weren't for the extremely well-supported idea that major market areas are self-perpetuating by virtue of the economic benefits of locating next to masses of consumers and useful suppliers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration

Chicago was built for reasons that might not matter much today, but hugeness is its own reason for existence. Chicago is probs too big to fail anytime soon.

Also DC transportation sucks if you aren't lucky enough to live on a subway stop (and there aren't nearly enough stops). It's not even close.

In the 50 year time frame, Chicago is well-placed. Global warming will cause SoCal and Arizona to dry up. San Francisco and Portland/Seattle will be overrun by invaders from SoCal. Texas will be eaten alive by West Nile. Boston, New York, and DC will be under water due to rising sea levels. Chicago and Toronto will be sitting pretty next to the largest source of fresh water in the world. Even Detroit will not suck.

[PDaddy]

I have offers in each city. The firms are equal in my eyes. Cannot decide. Help. Can residents please talk about their likes and dislikes with respect to each city?

I have spent extensive time in both cities, and each has its advantages.

D.C. is closer to NY, Philly, Virginia Beach, Miami, Nashville, and Atlanta. It's a very clean, green city where you can rub shoulders with powerful and influential people. It's very "international" in terms of its population and feel. If you want to get into politics and policy-making, D.C. is the place to be. The restaurants mostly suck, but there is a fair number of good ones. The arts scene isn't as lacking as you might think, but it doesn't rival what you would find in NY, Chicago, Miami, or L.A.. Weather-wise, it's extremely hot and humid in the summer and freezing cold in the winter, though not as cold as in Chi-town. The snow doesn't last nearly as long as it does in Chicago.

In my opinion, Chicago is a far more exciting place in which to live than in D.C., and it has most of the offerings of NY without the NY problems, and that includes being a corporate business hub. More celebrities call Chicago home. Living in Chicago is like living in NY but better. It's almost as if someone combined NY and Seattle, sprinkled in a little bit of California, and then dropped the new city into the Midwest. Like DC., it is hot as hell in the summer and freezing cold in the winter.

If you don't mind walking in knee-deep snow for about two months (and it takes forever to melt), Chicago is a really cool place to live. It is also a bit reminiscent of L.A. in that it is a major entertainment hub. It's a theater capital in which many films are shot. It's also a fashion capital. The Magnificent Mile is the second best place to shop in the entire country (Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills would be #1, IMO); the stores never seem to end.

Chicago is home to some of the greatest restaurants in the world and has a thriving sports scene that far surpasses that of D.C. Chicago is also a beautiful city that offers great schools, great diversity and pretty much something for everyone. Like I said above, mix the best of NY and Seattle, along with Seattle's worst, sprinkle in a little California, and drop it into the Midwest...and that's Chicago.

In the end it's about your goals, but I would choose Chicago - and I actually love D.C.

[IAFG]

Thesealocust your argument would make sense if it weren't for the extremely well-supported idea that major market areas are self-perpetuating by virtue of the economic benefits of locating next to masses of consumers and useful suppliers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration

Chicago was built for reasons that might not matter much today, but hugeness is its own reason for existence. Chicago is probs too big to fail anytime soon.

Also DC transportation sucks if you aren't lucky enough to live on a subway stop (and there aren't nearly enough stops). It's not even close.

In the 50 year time frame, Chicago is well-placed. Global warming will cause SoCal and Arizona to dry up. San Francisco and Portland/Seattle will be overrun by invaders from SoCal. Texas will be eaten alive by West Nile. Boston, New York, and DC will be under water due to rising sea levels. Chicago and Toronto will be sitting pretty next to the largest source of fresh water in the world. Even Detroit will not suck.

Apocalyptic scenarios? I think this thread is done.

[rayiner]

Thesealocust your argument would make sense if it weren't for the extremely well-supported idea that major market areas are self-perpetuating by virtue of the economic benefits of locating next to masses of consumers and useful suppliers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration

Chicago was built for reasons that might not matter much today, but hugeness is its own reason for existence. Chicago is probs too big to fail anytime soon.

Also DC transportation sucks if you aren't lucky enough to live on a subway stop (and there aren't nearly enough stops). It's not even close.

In the 50 year time frame, Chicago is well-placed. Global warming will cause SoCal and Arizona to dry up. San Francisco and Portland/Seattle will be overrun by invaders from SoCal. Texas will be eaten alive by West Nile. Boston, New York, and DC will be under water due to rising sea levels. Chicago and Toronto will be sitting pretty next to the largest source of fresh water in the world. Even Detroit will not suck.

Apocalyptic scenarios? I think this thread is done.

Being surrounded by a defensible mountain range, clearly LA wins for apocolyptic scenarios.

[09042014]

Thesealocust your argument would make sense if it weren't for the extremely well-supported idea that major market areas are self-perpetuating by virtue of the economic benefits of locating next to masses of consumers and useful suppliers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration

Chicago was built for reasons that might not matter much today, but hugeness is its own reason for existence. Chicago is probs too big to fail anytime soon.

Also DC transportation sucks if you aren't lucky enough to live on a subway stop (and there aren't nearly enough stops). It's not even close.

In the 50 year time frame, Chicago is well-placed. Global warming will cause SoCal and Arizona to dry up. San Francisco and Portland/Seattle will be overrun by invaders from SoCal. Texas will be eaten alive by West Nile. Boston, New York, and DC will be under water due to rising sea levels. Chicago and Toronto will be sitting pretty next to the largest source of fresh water in the world. Even Detroit will not suck.

Apocalyptic scenarios? I think this thread is done.

Being surrounded by a defensible mountain range, clearly LA wins for apocolyptic scenarios.

Anti earthquake trolling bro.

[portaprokoss]

For laughs.

From Paul Fussell's "Class":

"About the same time the Irish poet Thomas Moore . . . described the citizens of Washington, D.C. as creatures 'Born to be slaves, and struggling to be lords' . . . One signal of desirability is the quality of a city's best news paper. The class inferiority of Washington, despite all its pretenses to high status, with its embassies and all, can be sensed the minute you open up the Washington Post, which on Sunday provides its readers (high proles?) with not just a horoscope but lengthy plot summaries of the TV soaps, together with the advice of Ann Landers . . . In the face of this, the question arise, 'Where then may a member of the top classes live in this country?' New York first of all, of course. Chicago. San Francisco. Philadelphia. Baltimore. Boston. Perhaps Cleveland. And deep in the countryside of Connecticut, New York State, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. That's about it."

[Mike12188]

DC women...woof

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ws5pimN4mw

[09042014]

DC women...woof

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ws5pimN4mw

Downright ugly.

[The Duck]

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.

This thing is biased. It picks San Antonio over DC. Have you ever lived in San Antonio? It sucks. DC is much better.

It also picks Kansas City. It clearly has some kind of non-East-coast bias.

[shock259]

How does NYC factor into this discussion? Guessing it'll be above DC, but lower than Chicago.

What say you, TLS?

[The Duck]

How does NYC factor into this discussion? Guessing it'll be above DC, but lower than Chicago.

What say you, TLS?

I'd pick either over NYC any day. The difference in work/life style even amongst the same firms outweighs any benefit in any other category.

[hume85]

Why is no one bringing up crime and the likelihood of disasters (man made and natural)? Is it because none of you take these factors as seriously as weather, transportation, and culture? Is it that the two cities are a wash in these regards? Or something else entirely?

[09042014]

Why is no one bringing up crime and the likelihood of disasters (man made and natural)? Is it because none of you take these factors as seriously as weather, transportation, and culture? Is it that the two cities are a wash in these regards? Or something else entirely?

Both cities have nice safe areas, and tons of horrific ghettos.