Chicago Vs. NYC

[NewYorkBuck]

Having said that, I'll take San Diego any day.

Weather is amazing. You can keep the 40% overpriced housing though.

 

[LA Guy]

Quote:

Having said that, I'll take San Diego any day.
Weather is amazing. Â You can keep the 40% overpriced housing though.
Dude, you live in NYC right?

 

[NewYorkBuck]

Dude, you live in NYC right?

Yes, but housing is only 30% overpriced here.....

 

[novalis]

Quote:

Dude, you live in NYC right?
Yes, but housing is only 30% overpriced here..... Â

"Overpriced" can take on absolute and relative meanings here. Â One economist has taken P/E ratios and applied them to real estate values (with the "earnings" part equalling annual equivalent rent). Â Using his logic, if home prices are rising much more rapidly than rents, then get ready for a bubble. Â Using his metric, many metropolitan areas look overvalued, with SD looking very pricey recently. Â Here's a recent list of high/low absolute real estate prices.

 

[jasonpraxis]

Wow, I should really log on at work some days. Projects can totally get put on hold for a discussion about my current home (NYC) and my future home (Chicago).

I'm moving to Chicago in August to do my PhD at Northwestern (I declined U of C; I've no interest in spending 9 years working on this degree), having quit my job in interactive advertising at a boutique agency. I certainly don't feel like I'm "stepping down" in terms of location; when I was in Chicago this winter I quite enjoyed it. I won't have much time to peacock about while in grad school, but I wouldn't want to, either: it's not what I'm there for.

Last month's Economist City Guide for Chicago had a bit about dress code which stressed, above all, practicality and common sense. Dressing for the conditions of the day (weather, your meetings, your evening) and not to outshine your colleagues. I don't know about you, but I definitely buy into that.

All in, I don't live where I do because of how people around me dress. I follow my ability, my talent, and my field's opportunities. If I were interested fashion, I'd be on the fora at GQ and People.

 

[Mr Checks]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote (Lord Foppington @ May 19 2005,07:47) Quote (Thracozaag @ May 19 2005,03:44)
Quote:

It all comes down to the students: brilliance in; brilliance out. I love Chicago, was just there on Sunday. One caveat: If anyone from the shoe department at Paul Stuart reads this: I really was there to shop, even though I was wearing jeans and a tee shirt. Your loss. Chicago Lyric every bit as good as the Met. NY Phil concert here in the hinterlands was 'okay'; would have been better if the Lahti Symphony hadn't laid down a Sibelius 2 for the ages right before NYP presented a mannered Dvorak 9. This proves that symphonies are like universities: too many variables to give unqualified recommendations about which is "better." New York Phil kinda, um, well...stinks. koji
Why is that, by the way? I always assumed money had a lot to do with quality. (And of course a history of good institutional decisons, but money can compensate for bad decisions. Look at the Yankees.) Doesn't the NY Phil have as much money as or more than any other US symphony? New York Phil had its moments under the batons of Rodzinski and Bernstein, for example, but never has been, for one reason or another, a terribly cohesive unit or even an exciting ensemble. Base salary actually here in nyc is lower than some of the other big five (and considerably lower when factoring in cost of living). koji
I am glad that the esteemed Dr. Koji confirmed what my (less-well-trained) ears heard. It really was a bit of a disappointment, as this is the one and only time I've heard them live. It was the conducting more than the musicians (my belief is that there are many very good orchestras, but very few great conductors).

 

[Thracozaag]

Quote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote (Lord Foppington @ May 19 2005,07:47) Quote (Thracozaag @ May 19 2005,03:44)

It all comes down to the students: Â brilliance in; brilliance out. I love Chicago, was just there on Sunday. Â One caveat: If anyone from the shoe department at Paul Stuart reads this: I really was there to shop, even though I was wearing jeans and a tee shirt. Â Your loss. Chicago Lyric every bit as good as the Met. Â NY Phil concert here in the hinterlands was 'okay'; would have been better if the Lahti Symphony hadn't laid down a Sibelius 2 for the ages right before NYP presented a mannered Dvorak 9. Â This proves that symphonies are like universities: too many variables to give unqualified recommendations about which is "better." New York Phil kinda, um, well...stinks. koji

Why is that, by the way? I always assumed money had a lot to do with quality. (And of course a history of good institutional decisons, but money can compensate for bad decisions. Look at the Yankees.) Doesn't the NY Phil have as much money as or more than any other US symphony? New York Phil had its moments under the batons of Rodzinski and Bernstein, for example, but never has been, for one reason or another, a terribly cohesive unit or even an exciting ensemble. Â Base salary actually here in nyc is lower than some of the other big five (and considerably lower when factoring in cost of living). Â koji
I am glad that the esteemed Dr. Koji confirmed what my (less-well-trained) ears heard. Â It really was a bit of a disappointment, as this is the one and only time I've heard them live. Â It was the conducting more than the musicians (my belief is that there are many very good orchestras, but very few great conductors).
Very true; three conductors that I can enthusiastically recommend to see and hear are Mariss Jansons, Herbert Bloomstedt and Simon Rattle. koji

 

[oldskool]

Guys guys guys.... woahhhhh..... this has gotten way out of hand. I was referring to the general lack of fashion (despite the polo & paul stuart stores) and you can't beat the women of New York City. That said, educational institutions and symphonies.... are taking it way out of the context of 'style forum' no?

Chicago is no NYC. And today, very foggy.

 

[comrade]

I grew up in New York City, have an Ivy League
undergraduate degree, received an Masters
from the U of Chicago and am
one dissertation short of a Doctorate.
U of Chicago was more"intellectual" than
Cornell, at least in the 60s and 70s when
I attended both.
 
I lived in Chicago from '71 through '88 when

I moved to the SF Bay Area. During this time,
I principally shopped in New York at Chipp,
Dunhill Tailors, and Paul Stuart. Chicago did not,
as a rule, offer the selection found in
Manhattan. Also, as an old
"Ivy" dresser, Chicago's better men's shops,
Ultimo, Nieman, or Bowit's (now gone)had
little appeal.

Unless it has changed I great deal, Chicago is at heart an
"Archie Bunker" town. I grew up in Queens. I should know.
Chicagoans tend to celebrate the commonplace, the provincial,
even the pedestrian, unlike New Yorkers, of many strata,
who try to be hip and cosmopolitan in their taste and dress,
despite their  own superficiality. In many ways
the Bay Area is  like New York, but more narcisistic.
San Fanciscans, in particular, often exude a
sense of smugness because they inhabit
one of the "perfect" places on the planet.

Comrade

 

[Yckmwia]

Quote:

Very true. Good post. Having said that, I'll take San Diego any day. In fact, I do.
Weatherwise, gotta be the *best* place in the world to live. As a city, I always found SD remarkably boring compared to the major American metropoli: LA, SF, and NYC. I'll give you that the SD marathons (both the SD marathon and the Rock 'n' Roll Marathon are some of the most pleasant to run in the US (the scenery of the Big Sur Marathon takes the cake - too bad you the course is so hard) and that living along the beach in La Jolla would be amazing, but the place is really a retail desert, and culturally, I never found SD particularly interesting either - in La Jolla, at least, it was just boring, rich white folks. In L.A., at least, many of the rich white folks are tacky and interesting.
Accurate assessment of my hometown, LA Guy. For fine men's clothing S.D. is, indeed, a retail desert, and trust me: living on the beach in La Jolla isn't all it's cracked up to be. Culturally, Gore Vidal said it best years ago when he described S.D as "The Vatican of the John Birch Society." (Christopher Hitchens' assessment is also on the money: "The City of Sinister Charm.") Add to that the most corrupt and incompetent city administration in the country and a truly insane real estate market, and the question arises: why would anyone choose to live here? Answer: the best weather in the world (and San Francisco is only an hour and a half flight away . . . ) Cheers

 

[Lord Foppington]

I grew up in New York City, have an Ivy League
undergraduate degree, received an Masters
from the U of Chicago and am
one dissertation short of a Doctorate.
U of Chicago was more"intellectual" than
Cornell, at least in the 60s and 70s when
I attended both.

I lived in Chicago from '71 through '88 when

I moved to the SF Bay Area. During this time,
I principally shopped in New York at Chipp,
Dunhill Tailors, and Paul Stuart. Chicago did not,
as a rule, offer the selection found in
Manhattan. Also, as an old
"Ivy" dresser, Chicago's better men's shops,
Ultimo, Nieman, or Bowit's (now gone)had
little appeal.

Unless it has changed I great deal, Chicago is at heart an
"Archie Bunker" town. I grew up in Queens. I should know.
Chicagoans tend to celebrate the commonplace, the provincial,
even the pedestrian, unlike New Yorkers, of many strata,
who try to be hip and cosmopolitan in their taste and dress,
despite their own superficiality. In many ways
the Bay Area is like New York, but more narcisistic.
San Fanciscans, in particular, often exude a
sense of smugness because they inhabit
one of the "perfect" places on the planet.

Comrade

Very true. I loved living in San Francisco, but got heartily sick of the whole "life's just a little bit better here" attitude.

New York, where I also loved living, had a version of the same problem. A certain, common type of person had to blurt out, every five minutes or so, "New York is the greatest city in the world." or "New York is the center of the universe." Maybe so, but why ceaselessly reassure us all of that?

I had a theory it has to do with real estate. How else to cheer yourself up for living in a dingy $2500 walkup studio? Well, I do it because "New York is the bestest bestest megbestest place in the world."

 

[bachbeet]

Ycm et al: Keep telling everyone how bad SD is. Maybe then people will stop coming here in droves.

 

[arenn1]

As someone once said, New York is the best city in the world. Chicago is the best city in the world to live in.

 

[aybojs]

Very true. I loved living in San Francisco, but got heartily sick of the whole "life's just a little bit better here" attitude.

New York, where I also loved living, had a version of the same problem. A certain, common type of person had to blurt out, every five minutes or so, "New York is the greatest city in the world." or "New York is the center of the universe." Maybe so, but why ceaselessly reassure us all of that?

I had a theory it has to do with real estate. How else to cheer yourself up for living in a dingy $2500 walkup studio? Well, I do it because "New York is the bestest bestest megbestest place in the world."

I find it to be very ironic that many residents from both NYC and SF I've met/interacted with tend to boast about the alleged worldliness and open-mindedness that they possess as the result of living in such a big city, and yet there's a clear myopia that prevents them from recognizing or acknowledging the fact that there's a whole world outside of the city that matters just as much or much more than they do. Personally, I have no desire to join the 75% of my undergraduate class moving to NYC after graduation (probably not that much but it seems like it); mostly it's because I dislike crowds and mass transit, but the above attitude is not insigificant in my decision.

 

[Thracozaag]

Quote:

(Lord Foppington @ May 21 2005,11:00) Very true. I loved living in San Francisco, but got heartily sick of the whole "life's just a little bit better here" attitude. New York, where I also loved living, had a version of the same problem. A certain, common type of person had to blurt out, every five minutes or so, "New York is the greatest city in the world." or "New York is the center of the universe." Maybe so, but why ceaselessly reassure us all of that? I had a theory it has to do with real estate. How else to cheer yourself up for living in a dingy $2500 walkup studio? Well, I do it because "New York is the bestest bestest megbestest place in the world."
I find it to be very ironic that many residents from both NYC and SF I've met/interacted with tend to boast about the alleged worldliness and open-mindedness that they possess as the result of living in such a big city, and yet there's a clear myopia that prevents them from recognizing or acknowledging the fact that there's a whole world outside of the city that matters just as much or much more than they do. Â Personally, I have no desire to join the 75% of my undergraduate class moving to NYC after graduation (probably not that much but it seems like it); mostly it's because I dislike crowds and mass transit, but the above attitude is not insigificant in my decision.
The provincialism of newyorkers (especially in light of the derision I initially receive when I inform them I'm from Kansas) never fails to amuse/amaze me.

koji