Hilarious NY Post article

Pretty telling... the women looking for men with money are not looking in Chicago... because there isn't any.

nyc10022, there's plenty of wealth in Chicago; it's just not as concentrated as NYC because they have a lot more desirable neighborhoods than NYC. There's rich men in south loop, west loop, river north, streeterville, lakeshore east, gold coast, lincoln park, lakeview, and a few others.

Difference is that Chicago women are not as shallow and vapid as NYC women, who have bought into the whole Sex and the City culture. Aside from being high maintenance, these women are not even that attractive. The hottest girl at a decent NYC club would just be average at a good Chicago venue.

Wow, so Chicago barely has any wealth, and its spread out?
So there is like one guy making over $100k every 10 miles?

> Difference is that Chicago women are not as shallow and vapid as NYC women

Yes, better to be the porkers who tried being shallow but were unsuccessful because the NYC men didn't want 'em... so they moved back in with their moms in Chicago.

> The hottest girl at a decent NYC club would just be average at a good Chicago venue.

Rufus, those "boys and girls clubs" you keep going to aren't what we mean by "clubs".

Sorry.

who cares....go to match.com please

nyc10022, is that why gold coast is the second wealthiest neighborhood in the United States?

No, its why no chicago neighborhoods even made the top 100, as someone else posted.

Maybe you should find a Detroit board, and try and compare Chicago to them.

i'm a new yorker that spent 5 long years in chicago (grad school). when i first moved there, i had been struggling with how best to describe it. it is so over-rated as a city. after many months of struggling with it, i had the epiphany: it is, essentially, "a small town with tall buildings". miracle mile is, essentially, a glorified mall that is stretched out over a few blocks. i find very few redeeming qualities in chicago. to compare chicago as a "city" to new york is quite silly. i'd meet people all the time that stand around bragging about their wonderful lives in "the city" (ie, chicago). when they ask where i'm from and i mention new york, they usually ask a follow-up question about whether you mean new york city. yes, new york city. manhattan? yes manhattan. then they stfu because they know they're frauds. it's actually kinda entertaining. ... i understand that this all comes off perhaps very immature of me, but i always found it entertaining that it's the loudmouths that talk up their glam lives in the wonderful city of chicago that stfu when they're confronted with this dirty, nasty, inferior city of new york. they never start talking about how chicago is better than new york. i've just never heard that conversation.

no city is "better" than NYC. Believe me I grew up in Paris.
However all this arrogance is annoying.
Not to mention than NYC in the early 80's had nothing to do with now: and it may go back there very quickly as I see it

So??

Gold digging is no worse than dating someone for their looks. I'm a gay guy, but let's just say I wiped my Wall Street ex clean when we broke up.

It felt so good! The car, the condo, ahhhhhh.

> However all this arrogance is annoying.

Not arrogance... just swatting away a fly that keeps coming back...

What is it about NY of the '80's that was so bad that everyone keeps talking about it???

the '80's was the start of NY's renaissance. We had a good mayor who supported the police and fought the rapacious unions. Snowstorms no longer paralyzed the city. Garbage was collected. Crime started dropping. Real estate started going back up. Finances were finally fixed. Mets and Giants, who could put together winning seasons, won their prospective championships. It was a very very good decade for NY.

Now the '70s... that was when things were bad.

paul10003, your made up stories about Chicago people are quite entertaining. In all my visits to Chicago, I have never heard anyone say that NYC is better. The consensus is that NYC is a good city to visit once in a while but that it's too dirty, crowded, and unrefined, to actually live there. Chicago is the ideal city because it has all the big city amenities but is clean, well managed, and livable.

rufus.....but so does Calgary/

rufus, i care not whether you think my description is fiction or not. actually, i'm not really sure if there is a point to this discussion. no one is saying that new york is the center of the universe or anything. and if you don't like dirt, crowds, and edge, then yeah, new york definitely isn't for you. my guess is that there is selection bias in the people that you know and that they too do not like new york for the same reasons that you don't. not a big deal. it's not much different from me thinking that chicago is an overrated small town with tall buildings. (but i'll agree with you that women were more attractive there; though let's not kid ourselves: their just as shallow or whatever.) but really, these arguments have been made a million times before. you either like new york or you don't. you either like chicago or you don't. to each his own.

Chicago is clean, well managed and livable?

LMAO.

Chicago is dump and far too dangerous to ever be in the same sentence as "refined" and "well managed". And for the second time, if you don't like New York City, then why do you spend so much time on Curbed and Street Easy?

You are very strange.

paul10003, i'm glad that you agree with me that the women in Chicago are far more attractive than NYC.

and more upscale...

it's a bit more complicated than that. me and some fellow economist friends were talking about this (which is immediate reason to discount it)... we agreed that as far attractiveness goes, distribution is tighter, and shifted to the right in chicago. that is, the average woman in chicago is more attractive than the average woman in new york. but there are not that many "outliers" (knock-out gorgeous) in chicago, while in new york that is more likely. but i digress...

> Chicago is the ideal city because it has all the big city amenities but is clean, well managed, and
> livable.

Isn't this exactly what they say in Kansas City? And St. Louis? And Jacksonville?

Consider this.... why is it they use "livable" about all the places people DON'T want to live...

nyc10022, only an idiot like you would compare Chicago to a city like kansas city or st. louis. the last time i checked, Chicago has more than 3 million people and some of the most luxurious condos in America, not to mention world-class restaurants.

rufus, here's a list for you: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2008/bigcities/

houston, TX comes in at 2.1 million people, and it's known for good food. i submit to you that houston is better than new york -- actually, i would say that given what kind of luxury condo you can buy for your dollar in houston, i would say that houston is better than chicago.

(FYI, the way that you think comparing kansas city to chicago makes 10022 an idiot... that's the way everyone views your comparison of chicago vs new york. listen, you're not gonna convince anyone, so why don't you get the fuck over it?)

if you think "high income levels" is a good proxy, then i submit to you that Mclean (VA), Southland (TX) are better than chicago: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2008/top25s/financial/index.html

this is all my long way of saying: you either "get it" or you don't. if you think chicago is better because of xyz reasons, you've made your point. you ain't convincin' nobody so get off it and STFU.

Cracker Boy, you are absolutely right that Chicago is comparable to Jacksonville.

paul10003, i agree that houston is better than nyc.

LOL @ Chicago....

Puhlease... I have no desire to even visit again... Sorry I had to go there at all EVER.

> nyc10022, only an idiot like you would compare Chicago to a city like kansas city or st. louis.

Hey schmuck... Chicago is closer in size to both of those cities than NYC.
Its idiots like you who try and compare it to NYC.

Chicago is closer to either of those cities than NYC - in terms of size, wealth, crime, culture, etc., ridiculous that you try and claim otherwise.

Chicago is at best int eh third tier of American cities.

nyc10022, Chicago is third tier? the last time i checked, third tier cities don't build multi-million dollar condos or have world-class hotels, restaurants, symphonies, museums, etc.

you seriously need to get your facts straight.

Cracker Boy -- save yourself some embarrassment by proving what you're claiming. Chitroit has no world-class anything. And that's a fact, jack.

alanhart, the peninusla hotel in chicago is ranked as one of the top 5 hotels in the U.S.

Alinea has been ranked as one of the best restaurants in the U.S.

> nyc10022, Chicago is third tier? the last time i checked, third tier cities don't build multi-
> million dollar condos

If they can't sell the condos for multi-millions, they are NOT multi-million dollar condos.

BTW, Philly has multi-million dollar condos... and so does Baltimore. To think, you are ALMOST as good as Baltimore!

BTW, I love it when Rufus comes up with a "Top 5" or a "Top 10" claim... then you search any list and find chicago missing.

BTW, did rufus just give a CHAIN hotel as his "top". Nice!

"BTW, did rufus just give a CHAIN hotel as his "top". Nice!"

Peninsula Hotel? It's probably just an anagram for his key fixation. But http://www.anagramgenius.com/server.html came up with 'Inane helps lout.' -- good enough.

Chicago, Baltimore, Kansas City, Philly, Sarajevo, Athens. World class 3rd tier cities...

nyc10022 -- conceptually correct, but I wouldn't rank them in that order. Chitroit is sort of middling among that pack.

Alinea's health code violations, including a "serious violation": http://files.chicagotribune.com/metro/inspection/place.php?id=38016&eid=1560872

WORLD CLASS!

> nyc10022 -- conceptually correct, but I wouldn't rank them in that order. Chitroit is sort of
> middling among that pack.

Good point... I erred given all the fluff "coverage".

Sorry, Sarajevo, the insult was unintentional.