well?
well?
LA.
They both suck, but at least in LA you have a better chance of one of your kids growing up to be a famous movie star. Then who's paying the bills? Hollywood.
LA
Relatively short trips to Alaska, Hawaii, the Pacific
Northwest, the desert Southwest and Mexico when compared to
Chicago.
Milder climate, if you can get past the illegals, the quakes and gunfire now and then.
Napa Valley is within a day's drive for wine and great food.
You have the Dodgers, Lakers, Kings and the LA Marathon
there, too.
Also, and most importantly: NO (Bleeping) SNOW!!!
Windy City by default can not imagine any one of sound mind moving to LA.
Well, I'm now in a city where no car is necessary, but if I had one, I'd pick LA over Chicago. It's mainly because of all the places I could drive to from LA, not for LA itself.
Let me think about this for about 0.1 second -- LA. I lived in Chicago, and I love Chicago, but I won't ever live outside of Florida or California again. The amount of sunlight we get in Florida or they get in LA outweighs any other factor. I'm sure there's all sorts of crappy things about that area, but I'll put up with a lot for 360 days of sunlight.
I've lived in both places and Chicago is easily a better city. I agree that LA has a better area around it for travel and leisure, but the question is where would you rather live and I am picking Chicago, mostly because everything about the city of LA is awful.
Honestly, I would not want to live either location.
LA.
Grew up in Chicago burbs. LA wins, for me, nearly every comparison which comes to mind: weather, culture, food, proximity to ocean & mountains, topography of the city itself (great running, great city views), women, ... hard pressed to come up with what I'd prefer about Chicago, aside from cost of living and earthquake potential.
If I ever get banned from NYC, LA's my second choice.
If you have to ask you belong in Chicago/Indiana.
Anyplace in the Midwest over any place in California. I was born in San Diego and lived their for 15 years. I hated the people. I hated not having 4 seasons. I am now 43 years old and enjoy short trips back to my parents but will never again call it home.
I meant the city rather than surrounding areas,
so by chicago, I don't mean the chicagoland area which includes the suburbs and the same for LA, no surrounding suburbs.
I just meant everyday living in withing the city.
Lived in both. LA has a better climate but CHI wins in all other regards and I mean ALL. The women are just as good looking but less trashy, the city is more cultured and intelligent, the food is better, jobs are better. Anyone who chooses LA probably wears a shell necklace and is named Cody.
nsmb, old and slow wrote:
Grew up in Chicago burbs. If I ever get banned from NYC, LA's my second choice.
Which suburb? From what I've heard, most Chicagolanders LOVE their city and would never leave.
My Pick: neither.
Chicago for sure! Don't mind visiting LA (make that the beaches), but its a dump in my mind. Polluted, fake people, crappy transit system, night clubs instead of fun neighborhood bars. (and someday, LA is going to end up under water)Someone said the food in LA is better, your crazy. Lot more culture in Chicago! (pizza, greek, italian, polsih, etc.) More history too. (gotta love Wrigley Field!)
L.A. has 1,000,000 times the visibility, fame, notoriety of London, Tokyo, New York, Paris, Rome combined. L.A. is the T&F, Sports, Entertainment, Style, Recording, Media, Television, Porno, ... Capitol of the World. Is you want to be seen, if you want to be known, L.A. is the place.
Doggybiscuit wrote:
[quote]:
Which suburb? From what I've heard, most Chicagolanders LOVE their city and would never leave.
I never knock where anyone chooses to live and there are lots of nice places. That said, I'll never leave. I grew up on the Southside and my parents still live there. I can count on one hand the people I know that moved and stayed away. I know quite a few that tried and came back forever.
You hit it on the head asking which suburb. This guy sounds like a tool that grew up in a suburb and was too scared to live in the city, but always tells people he is from Chicago and acts like he is an expert.
Having lived in both for quite awhile, Chicago hands down.
Chicago winters can be brutal, but there's some character building there. Besides, I travel a ton, so if I want to get away for a weekend or go to a beach somewhere, I do.
LA really has nothing. The biggest mistake I made when I moved to LA was thinking I was going to be hanging out at the beach and enjoying the weather. When everyday life set in and I realized that the average guy has to work his azz off as soon as he graduates til he's 60, reality smacked me in the face.
LA has a plastic nightlife and zero substance. Chicago has some of that, but it also has the neighborhood feel and corner bars that LA can never have. Chicago is a city. LA is a bunch of suburbs pieced together. Sports wise...no comparison. All you need to know is LA can't even keep an NFL team. Terrible fans. Chicago has better restaurants, bars, museums, shows, and to my surprise the lakefront in the summer is amazing. Unfortunately, summers only seem to last about three weeks.
If you're a pansy and can't handle snow and cold in exchange for some genuine culture and great life experiences, don't live in Chicago or NY. If you're a collar popping douche who wants to be on a reality show, live in LA.
f.b. teams can play in l.a. if they want to. the city of l.a. welcomes the nfl today and they can bring any team or teams they want to. they have to build their own facilities with their own money like everyone else who has established businesses in l.a. welcome to hollywood.
c is dull, unknown, immaterial, insignificant. Los Angeles has had 2 Olympics, etc. What else ?
this has to be a joke. Chicago has some virtues (Wrigley, hot italian beef sandwiches, relatively cheap rents and restaurants, the lakeshore), but the weather is almost always bad, most of the city is very ugly, the people are ugly, crime is high, and the culture is good but not great. Los Angeles is spectacular in its scenery, gorgeous weather most of the year, beaches and mountains very nearby, and culturally probably superior. In Chicago, you have the U of C, Northwestern (o.k., in Evanston), Loyola, Depaul, the Art Institute, the Field Museum, and the MCA, plus an excellent symphony and opera, a large and affordable theater community, distinctive neighborhoods with ethnic food, and it is fun to watch the local teams at local bars. But in Los Angeles, you not only have Hollywood, which has its interest, but also LACMA and the Getty, a large theater scene, plenty of ethnic food, the home of the drive in fast food restaurant, a lot of world class cuisine, UCLA, USC, and far, far better looking people who exercise year round.