Obviously it is very difficult to compare a city like Chicago, with one that is a a fraction of its size, Cleveland, but I would like to make some general observations, not an apples-to-apples comparison. :-D

 

I've been to Chicago about half a dozen times now, but until this week did not have the freedom to really explore the entire city at all hours and all times of the week.  I was there Wednesday through Friday night at a seminar downtown off of Wabash which afforded me much downtime to do just this.  Previously, I viewed Chicago as somewhat of an urban lovers wet dream. A sort of urban Shangri-la. Now after this last visit, my opinions of the city changed a lot. 

 

1. Everyone says that downtown Cleveland is a ghost town after business hours.  Well I have to say that outside of certain areas, Chicago could be viewed as much the same.  Michigan Ave's Magnificent Mile, Viagra Triangle areas withstanding, only a short walk would place you in areas that had very little pedestrian traffic and almost vacant bars and restaurants, even on a Friday night!  I went to a pizza/bar joint right next to DePaul's campus and it was practically empty.  The Rascal House on Euclid by CSU on a Friday night would have more people.

 

2. Riding the El around the entire city, I was shocked to see how many empty floors in buildings there are in a city of 3 million.  This isn't as noticeable on street level, but taking the El around the Loop many times over the 3 days, showed that it is a problem just a few floors up, even in the heart of the city.

 

3. Speaking of the El, my next opinion will surely upset many on here, but I believe the El, outside of the obvious benefits that come from a mass transit system, has absolutely zero aesthetic qualities to it and appears very poorly conceived when compared to other inner city transportation systems I've experienced personally including, New York, Boston, Wash. DC, and even Cleveland's. It is loud, ugly, disrupts city sight lines, obscures some great architecture, etc.  I know that going underground is much more expensive, but they could have most certainly in some areas left it at street level, esp. on Wabash which would appear to have enough room.  Plus, there are other streets which also seem to have enough room to keep it at street level and instead imposed one way traffic.  I'm sure a lot of careful planning went into the initial grid system, but the finished product leaves a lot to be desired. I know many will say that the El adds to the city's character, and it does, but it really looks bad in certain places.  Other systems, Cleveland's RTA especially, does a much better job of fitting well within the existing urban fabric.

 

4. Every city has their fair share of transients/bums/homeless, but they were seemingly everywhere in Chicago.  I live in downtown Cleveland and I am usually only approached at certain times and during special events. i.e. East 4th or on Huron after an Indians game, or on East 9th walking to tailgate for a Browns game, etc.  In Chicago I was approached at least 2-3 times a day.  In addition, they were sleeping/loitering at places like the inside of a McDonalds, at El stations, public parks.

 

5. Cost of living examples.  Outside of the Wyndam Hotel and adjacent to a hospital (forget which one), a parking garage was charging $33/hour. $33/an hour!  Downtown retail, while certainly in great abundance, was overpriced versus what I'd pay here in Cleveland.  Food/drink was also exorbitantly priced depending on the area, although cheaper alternatives certainly existed. This all makes me think that I would need to earn maybe as much as 2x more as I do now to maintain same quality of life that I currently possess in Cleveland.

 

6. Again, once off of the beaten path and less tourist-centric areas, the city was dirty.  With an urban area the size of Chicago I understand how difficult it must be to keep everything spic and span, but I saw buildings/public infrastructure consistently tagged with spray paint only a few El stops from Trump Tower/Wrigly Building area.  To me this would be like seeing spray paint on/around Avenue District, CSU Wolstein center area, Stonebridge, etc.  While examples exist I'm sure, they are not pervasive in Cleveland.

 

lastly....

7. Downtown surface parking lots exist even in Chicago!  I saw more than a couple examples. :-o

 

All of this illustrates why I feel I have a much more pleasing urban experience in Cleveland.  I know it sounds cliche b/c it is used so often, but truly Cleveland offers big-city appeal, without many of the big-city problems/issues. And with all of the projects in the works/near completion, ECTP, Avenue District, Flats East Bank, Stonebridge, East 4th, KD Amtrust/Breuer Building, I can envision an even greater downtown in only a few short years time.  Who knows, maybe in a few years Euclid Avenue (Cleveland's Culture Corridor) will take on a new meaning and be talked about in the same breath as Michigan Avenue's Magnificent Mile!  :clap:

:wave:

 

1. Everyone says that downtown Cleveland is a ghost town after business hours.  Well I have to say that outside of certain areas, Chicago could be viewed as much the same.  Michigan Ave's Magnificent Mile, Viagra Triangle areas withstanding, only a short walk would place you in areas that had very little pedestrian traffic and almost vacant bars and restaurants, even on a Friday night!  I went to a pizza/bar joint right next to DePaul's campus and it was practically empty.  The Rascal House on Euclid by CSU on a Friday night would have more people.

 

This is pretty typical for downtown business districts.  The first time I was ever in lower Manhattan, the original downtown, was at 9:00am on a Saturday, and it was deserted.  I walked from the WTC (this was spring of 2000) to the battery, back up to City Hall and across the Brooklyn Bridge, around Brooklyn Heights, and I didn't really start seeing people again until I was back on the main road (Fulton Street) that took me by Prospect Park and back to the Bridge.  But, once again, it was an early Saturday morning.

 

3. Speaking of the El, my next opinion will surely upset many on here, but I believe the El, outside of the obvious benefits that come from a mass transit system, has absolutely zero aesthetic qualities to it and appears very poorly conceived when compared to other inner city transportation systems I've experienced personally including, New York, Boston, Wash. DC, and even Cleveland's. It is loud, ugly, disrupts city sight lines, obscures some great architecture, etc.  I know that going underground is much more expensive, but they could have most certainly in some areas left it at street level, esp. on Wabash which would appear to have enough room.  Plus, there are other streets which also seem to have enough room to keep it at street level and instead imposed one way traffic.  I'm sure a lot of careful planning went into the initial grid system, but the finished product leaves a lot to be desired. I know many will say that the El adds to the city's character, and it does, but it really looks bad in certain places.  Other systems, Cleveland's RTA especially, does a much better job of fitting well within the existing urban fabric.

 

It is sort of a mystery to me as to why Chicago, probably the flattest city big city in the world, has a major transit system that is almost entirely above ground.  I do know that elevated lines were a lot more popular when the El was built, and that a lot of lines in NYC that had been elevated are now either dismantled or have been put underground.  The last time I was on it was in February 2006, and I was also shocked to find that it wasn't heated.  But aesthetically speaking I have to say that the El has real charm, a lot of which comes from the fact that it is so ugly.  Also, what other major city's transit system gives you a view of their city for the majority of your ride?

 

While the isn't as pretty as the Washington Metro, I have to take issue with the idea that the El is more 'poorly conceived'.  The El at least takes you between places you want to go.  The Metro takes you from someplace you have to go to in order to get on the Metro to another place you have to go from in order to get on the Metro.  It's a happy coincidence if your Metro stop is actually close to where you want to go.

I don't understand why you would have to belittle Chicago in order to make Cleveland seem like a better place to live, or justify your choice for living in Cleveland.  Even with what you said, Chicago is an amazing, amazing city that has clearly made the most of its successes and continues to build on them.  Let's go through your points:

 

1)  I have noticed that parts of downtown Chicago are not as vibrant as say, Michigan Avenue, but as a whole the city is filled with vibrant and exciting neighborhoods, whether it be Downtown, Wrigleyville, Lincoln Park, Wicker Park, etc.  Are there dead spots? sure, but every city has them, and every city has to have them. You can't have a city that is completely an entertainment zone.  Hell even Vegas off the strip is fairly dead...

 

2) I don't know much about vacancy rates in Chicago, so I can't really comment, but there is vacancy in all cities...

 

3) There are certainly problems with all transit systems, including Chicago's.  Is the El loud, unsightly, quirky, and does it obscure some great architecture? Yes.  Has it functioned as a tool for development, proven to be a great transit system, and carried millions of passengers a year? Yes.  There are positives and negatives to every transit systems.  New York's is dirty, Washington's caters to the suburbs and leaves large swaths of the city uncovered, etc.

 

4) Again, it's a city...there will be homeless.  Should we pull up the Cleveland Homeless Thread...

 

5) Big city, lot's of amenities, people want to live there...costs are going to be higher.  If you want to live in the best areas, you just have to know you're going to be paying more. The quality and options of food, housing, and entertainment compensate for the costliness.

 

6) I have always found Chicago to be incredibly clean for a city of its size.  Certainly much cleaner than New York, LA, London, and Rome...

 

7)...every city has surface parking, Chicago has very little.

 

I get what you you were saying and I think it's cool that you are taking the time to appreciate Cleveland for all that it has.  However, I think your argument would be much better if you made a thread saying how Cleveland has equally amazing things about it that stack up well with even Chicago.  How cool would it have been to see a thread about how Cleveland's museums (Art museum, Rock Hall, Contemporary Art, etc.), transit system, arts (Orchestra, opera, art institute, etc.), restaurants, and local culture all compare well with Chicago's.  Certainly Cleveland is a great city that can compete with most cities in the US...no need to bring down other cities to make comparisons.

 

I'm an Ohioan and I love Cleveland. And I lived in Chicago for over 5 years. I'm sorry. There's no comparison when you talk about downtown vitality, neighborhood vitality and public transportation. Chicago has it all over Cleveland -- even though Cleveland has great buildings and some of the world's best bridges, urban vistas and juxtapositions of grit and glitz.

 

Street-level rail on Wabash would be an absolute disaster. The reason Chicago has elevated trains is that 120-130 years ago traffic was impassible on Wabash, State and other streets in the horse-and-buggy days. A rapid transit system has to grade separation or dedicated rights of way. Street cars would work and have worked on downtown Chicago streets, but as a supplement to -- not as a replacement for -- the L and subway. As it is now, auto traffic on Wabash moves slowly and stops every block (or more) for red lights. Add street-level railway and it'd be chaos.

 

I realize that the entire Loop may not be a 24-hour place, but it's far more vibrant than when I lived there 20 years ago. There's so much more housing in the Loop, tied in with the various colleges, and more theaters. Plus the area north of the Loop -- not just Magnificient Mile -- is filled with restaurants, nightclubs and hotels. Maybe the bars around DePaul -- I used to stop on occasion at Pippin's and Streeter's -- were slow. But then the whole old Rush Street scene has slowed as activity has moved south and west.

 

As for the dirty, off-the-beaten path areas, I don't know where you went. You didn't say. But you mostly talked about the areas right around downtown. Did you go to Lincoln Park, Bucktown, Lakeview, Rogers Park? What about South Side neighborhoods, or the Northwest and Southwest side bungalow belts? Chicago has built miles and miles of landscaped medians on thoroughfares in all corners of the city -- raised beds with flowers and trees. I don't know of another city that has put more money and effort into such beautification.

 

I agree that the El takes you where you need to be in a much more direct manner.  I guess by poorly conceived I meant more of the design itself, at the very least the Loop should have been buried, while the various 7 spindles remained above ground. 

Thanks for the observations, F2TC.  Lots to think about there, but I'll certainly chime in my general agreement about "downtown" off-peak activity levels.  Having empty sidewalks in your financial district is not only common, but is pretty much the norm in almost every big city.  Downtown Manhattan (the financial district part) is a ghost town on weekends and evenings.  Same thing for the financial center of Boston.  Even much of Midtown Manhattan is pretty quiet on weekends, except for gawking tourists.  That's why I really wouldn't care if another office building were never built in downtown Cleveland if weren't for the tax dollars they bring to the city- otherwise, IMHO, they only bring crappy architecture and daytim parking demand without much in return.

 

The more relevant difference for me between Cleveland and Chicago or other big cities is the gap in neighborhood quality of life elements.  Tremont, Ohio City, Detroit Shoreway and other 'hoods have a lot going for them, but none really has the critical mass yet to provide the sidewalk activity, retail or even day-to-day food amenities that I really like to have in walking distance (or very easy transit distance) and that I suspect one would see in lots of north side Chicago nabes.

 

EDIT:  oops, should have refreshed before posting... all covered by earlier posts.

From the Wikipedia entry on the History of the 'L'(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_El) :

 

The first 'L'—the Chicago and South Side Rapid Transit Railroad—began revenue service on June 6, 1892, when a small steam locomotive pulling four wooden coaches with 30 passengers left the 39th Street station of the and arrived at Congress Street 14 minutes later over tracks still used today by the Green Line.[14] Over the next year service was extended to 63rd Street and Stony Island Avenue, then the entrance to the World's Columbian Exposition in Jackson Park.[15]

 

Later in 1893 trains began running on the Lake Street Elevated Railroad and in 1895 on the Metropolitan West Side Elevated, which had lines to Douglas Park, Garfield Park (since replaced), Humboldt Park (since demolished), and Logan Square. The Metropolitan was the United States' first non-exhibition rapid transit system powered by electric traction motors,[16] a technology whose practicality had been previously demonstrated on the "intramural railway" at the world's fair. Two years later the South Side 'L' introduced multiple-unit control, in which several or all the cars in a train are motorized and under the control of the operator, not just the lead unit. Electrification and MU control remain standard features of most of the world's rapid transit systems.

 

A drawback of early 'L' service was that none of the lines entered the central business district. Instead trains dropped passengers at stub terminals on the periphery due to a state law requiring approval by neighboring property owners for tracks built over public streets, something not easily obtained downtown. This obstacle was overcome by the legendary traction magnate Charles Tyson Yerkes, who went on to play a pivotal role in the development of the London Underground and was immortalized by Theodore Dreiser as the ruthless schemer Frank Cowperwood in The Titan (1914) and other novels. Yerkes, who controlled much of the city's streetcar system, obtained the necessary signatures through cash and guile—at one point he secured a franchise to build a mile-long 'L' over Van Buren Street from Wabash Avenue to Halsted Street, extracting the requisite majority from the pliable owners on the western half of the route, then building tracks chiefly over the eastern half, where property owners had opposed him. The Union Loop opened in 1897, greatly increasing the rapid transit system's convenience but at the cost of noisy, obstructed streets, a fact of life in downtown Chicago to this day. Operation on the Yerkes-owned Northwestern Elevated, which built the North Side 'L' lines, began three years later, essentially completing the elevated infrastructure in the urban core although extensions and branches continued to be constructed in outlying areas through the 1920s.

 

Rarely profitable, the 'L' lines after 1911 came under the control of Samuel Insull, president of the Chicago Edison electric utility (now Commonwealth Edison), whose interest stemmed initially from the fact that the trains were the city's largest consumer of electricity. Insull instituted many improvements, including free transfers and through routing, although he did not formally combine the original firms into the Chicago Rapid Transit Company until 1924. He also bought three other Chicago electrified railroads, the North Shore, Aurora and Elgin, and South Shore interurban lines, and ran the trains of the first two into downtown Chicago via the 'L' tracks. This period of relative prosperity ended when Insull's empire collapsed in 1932, but later in the decade the city with the help of the federal government accumulated sufficient funds to begin construction of two subway lines to supplement and, some hoped, permit eventual replacement of the Loop elevated.

 

So it seems like a big reason the 'L' exists as it it does is because it was built in an hoc manner and by private individuals.  Still seems to have a better layout than a lot of new systems that are funded by the feds.

I don't understand why you would have to belittle Chicago in order to make Cleveland seem like a better place to live, or justify your choice for living in Cleveland.  Even with what you said, Chicago is an amazing, amazing city that has clearly made the most of its successes and continues to build on them.  Let's go through your points:

 

1)  I have noticed that parts of downtown Chicago are not as vibrant as say, Michigan Avenue, but as a whole the city is filled with vibrant and exciting neighborhoods, whether it be Downtown, Wrigleyville, Lincoln Park, Wicker Park, etc.  Are there dead spots? sure, but every city has them, and every city has to have them. You can't have a city that is completely an entertainment zone.  Hell even Vegas off the strip is fairly dead...

 

2) I don't know much about vacancy rates in Chicago, so I can't really comment, but there is vacancy in all cities...

 

3) There are certainly problems with all transit systems, including Chicago's.  Is the El loud, unsightly, quirky, and does it obscure some great architecture? Yes.  Has it functioned as a tool for development, proven to be a great transit system, and carried millions of passengers a year? Yes.  There are positives and negatives to every transit systems.  New York's is dirty, Washington's caters to the suburbs and leaves large swaths of the city uncovered, etc.

 

4) Again, it's a city...there will be homeless.  Should we pull up the Cleveland Homeless Thread...

 

5) Big city, lot's of amenities, people want to live there...costs are going to be higher.  If you want to live in the best areas, you just have to know you're going to be paying more. The quality and options of food, housing, and entertainment compensate for the costliness.

 

6) I have always found Chicago to be incredibly clean for a city of its size.  Certainly much cleaner than New York, LA, London, and Rome...

 

7)...every city has surface parking, Chicago has very little.

 

I get what you you were saying and I think it's cool that you are taking the time to appreciate Cleveland for all that it has.  However, I think your argument would be much better if you made a thread saying how Cleveland has equally amazing things about it that stack up well with even Chicago.  How cool would it have been to see a thread about how Cleveland's museums (Art museum, Rock Hall, Contemporary Art, etc.), transit system, arts (Orchestra, opera, art institute, etc.), restaurants, and local culture all compare well with Chicago's.  Certainly Cleveland is a great city that can compete with most cities in the US...no need to bring down other cities to make comparisons.

 

 

I apologize, my intention was definitely not to demean or belittle Chicago.  I felt that the Chicago strong points were already inherently well-known by most.  As I prefaced my post, there really is no true comparison between the two cities.  Some of what I did like:

 

downtown architecture - blending of new and old

diversity

cultural institutions

entertainment options

ease of transportation - with regard to getting from Point A to Point B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The more relevant difference for me between Cleveland and Chicago or other big cities is the gap in neighborhood quality of life elements.  Tremont, Ohio City, Detroit Shoreway and other 'hoods have a lot going for them, but none really has the critical mass yet to provide the sidewalk activity, retail or even day-to-day food amenities that I really like to have in walking distance (or very easy transit distance) and that I suspect one would see in lots of north side Chicago nabes.

 

Strap, I would take exception on Ohio City. That neighborhood really does come close to having it all, provided you live within walking distance of W. 25th and Lorain. I lived in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, before moving back to Cleveland and found it and the OC comparable in many ways. Just a side comment.

I think Chicago is way too big to be compared to Cleveland. It might be a more accurate analysis to compare respective neighborhoods by level of affluence/poverty or various other forms of diversity whether it be physical/social/historical/ etc. It's like comparing the U.S. economy to Luxemborg's, it just doesn't make sense.

It's funny, isn't it?  People's perceptions?  My sister lived in a not so great area of Chicago for 5 years and I visited her very frequently so I feel I saw the good, bad and ugly of that city pretty thoroughly.  I can say that my opinion is that Chicago is basically EXACTLY like Cleveland would be if we had the same number of people.  Everything in Chicago feels like Cleveland to me only bigger, more expensive (as pay goes up, so does cost of living), etc.  I feel the people are a similar elk, generally speaking, to Clevelanders.  Sports lovers, not very much focus on being fake, not elitists, a wide ethnic mix, etc.  I think the problems they may have in terms of crime or "dirt" or whatever are proportional to Cleveland, just that those things grow in scale as a city's size does.  I never could get why someone would relocate to Chicago from Cleveland since they seem so similar to me, other than the fact that there is MORE of everything there (shops, restaurants, culture) due to their size.  Not better, certainly not worse, but very similar.  I don't get that feeling in other big or mid-sized cities whether it's NY or LA or Phoenix or Madison or Charlotte or anywhere else I've visited.

I think that the post had to do with the fact that so many people paint Chicago to be the epitome of city perfection. The flip side to that adulation is that we paint ourselves as the epitome of decay. In Cleveland, we tend to emphasize our weaknesses and downplay our strengths. When we compare ourselves to other cities, we tend to ignore their weaknesses. Chicago is a valid example because many Clevelanders have relocated to or have spent significant time there.

^I read the post in a similar way.  I didn't read it as a one-to-one comparison of the two cities -- just as recognition that while Chicago is a great city, it does have some chinks in the armor if you look around a little bit.  I've done the same thing in the head in the past when I'm there on various trips.  I don't think there's anything wrong with you pointing out some of the things that go against the "perfection" that you hear in the media, from friends who live there, or in casual visits to the city. 

 

Frankly, the more I travel, the more I've learned that all cities have their quirks and personalities that often don't match the impression that you have of them in your head.

^I have a hotmail account. When I log in, there is a main page with "news". At least once a month, there is a "hot cities for xyz". They always mention the same cities. The Media is very good at promoting certain cities over others. While I will never say that Cleveland is a greater city than Chicago, I'm getting a little sick of the Nashvilles, Austins and Charlottes, etc of the world getting all this great press while many of the cities with great architecture, urban fabric and character are never mentioned. It become ridiculous. If the equivalent of E. 4th were located in Nashville or Charlotte, then you'd hear a lot about it in the "national" internet press. It would be "hot". Perception is everything and nothing.

^Ha!  I get sick of all the crap too.

 

Strap, I would take exception on Ohio City. That neighborhood really does come close to having it all, provided you live within walking distance of W. 25th and Lorain. I lived in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, before moving back to Cleveland and found it and the OC comparable in many ways. Just a side comment.

 

I love the OC, and definitely agree it's the furtherest along of any Cleveland 'hood, but IMHO it's still missing the critical mass of population and depends on "outsiders" for a lot of its action.  These photos were from a warm Sunday late last May at about 4pm...W25th was almost completely deserted...Not a knock, just an observation (and something that I think is different in popular nabes of bigger cities).

 

 

 

 

^If Great Lakes were open on Sundays, then I think West 25th would feel a bit different.

 

I also think that Ohio City is slowly becoming more family-friendly (there are a lot kids being born these days). The mentality of us families is that we don't go out on Sundays to the bars.

unfortunately thats exactly the thing, streetlife even in great cleveland neighborhoods, seems too dependent on one or two key businesses or an event rather than a critical mass of regular businesses & local residents. obviously this was caused via depopulation -- many of us remember it differently (ie., booming downtown shopping traffic back in the day). that ghost town w25h st scenario will change as the city population stabilizes and grows again. the city seems at a crux point in that regard.

 

 

^If anything, the w25th scenario is better than it has been in the past few decades. I think sometimes that we romanticize the past to the point that it we are re-creating it. W.25th in 1988 was a no-mans-land.

Perhaps the biggest difference between Chicago and Cleveland is that Chicago had Montgomery Ward 100 years ago. Ward, more than any one person, is responsible for the fact that Chicago has a mostly unbroken public park along the lake, almost the entire length of the city (except far-south industrial areas). That has kept lakefront neighborhoods vibrant.

 

Chicago, for all its problems, is basically a strong city filled with strong neighborhoods and pockets of decay. Detroit, for example (and I like Detroit), is almost the flip side -- it has pockets of vibrancy in a city that has dire problems. Cleveland is in between. Its percentage of great, fully functional neighborhoods is considerably less than that of Chicago. And it has vast areas of serious disinvestment.

It's all opinion, sure, but Chicago is one of the LAST places I would call "dirty" for a city its size.  It is remarkably clean, even in the "ghetto."  Also:

 

Other systems, Cleveland's RTA especially, does a much better job of fitting well within the existing urban fabric.

 

I totally disagree.  I found Cleveland's RTA (aside from Tower City, Shaker Square, and the obvious Shaker Heights line...and uh...) to not take me where I need to go (for example, the Red Line at the 105th St [?] station is nowhere near University Circle; the Cedar Station you have to hike it from Little Italy, etc).  Chicago's El atleast drops you off at the right location (Belmont, Fullerton, Evanston's stations, etc).

I love Cleveland; it's my born & raised home.  It's greatness comes in the fact it has so many things like mega/international cities like Chicago, Boston and, on some levels, NYC: top rate culture/arts, library, and probably the finest and most diverse suburban network in terms of quality, diversity, architecture, country/city charm, etc, etc.  And our public transit, esp the Rapid, for a city of our size and density, is better than most., and we have some really great walking districts.

 

BUT…

 

I’m a realist as well.  Chicago trumps Cleveland in, for lack of a better term, the pure urban experience.  In this case, sheer size matters: it starts with the neighborhood excitement and trickles into all aspects of city living, from more extensive, much better patronized mass transit to more retail (downtown, especially) to more and better quality restaurants (in general) and the infamous ‘more things to things do.’ 

 

In terms of neighborhoods, Straphanger’s dead on.  Ohio City is certainly one of the best Cleveland has to offer in terms of the urban experience: cool old/historic architecture,  some nice-to-great restaurants (with lots of hip alfresco dining experiences that ripple w/ an inviting urban  context), a diverse/young outgoing populace, superior transit service – as good as you can get in a Chicago and a New York for, obviously, a more limited list of places to go in our smaller city – and yet, you can truly be car-less in OC without much sweat—all this with a nice touch of urban grit (I love that in cities because it shows their not some yuppie manufactured environment designed to ape city life.).   But as Straphanger correctly notes, in Chicago, people live in areas like Ohio City (I’d say Bucktown/Wickertown is one of the closest Cleveland comparison’s to Ohio City), whereas Ohio City must survive, commercially, by attracting people from beyond the area; it simply cannot survive on the much smaller population base… Strap’s photos tell it all – unless you frequent Ohio City during rush hour on a warm summer evening or a ‘hot day’ like a Saturday, when the Market is humming, the neighborhood will seem like a ghost town with largely empty sidewalks and a bunch of homeless guys in Market square.   The area’s still dependant on the West Side market for daytime street activity.  At night, esp on the weekends, the club scene in Ohio City, esp on the weekends, keeps it fairly bustling.  But it can be hit or miss.

 

Either drive, walk (or do Google’s new “Street Views”) of a neighborhood street in Ohio City or Detroit Superior or Shaker Square vs. most anywhere on the North Side of Chicago, where the bulk of Chicago’s masses live.  You can see how the residences, often row or Chicago’s ubiquitous row-like ‘flats’ (usually in brick or stone, but surprisingly often wood-frame, too) tower over Cleveland’s mainly 2 story wood-frame homes set way back from the curb with generous tree-lawns and driveways (Chicago mainly has alleys).  In Chicago, on main streets and residential side streets, buildings crowd the curb and make you feel like you’re in a more exciting urban environment..  Cleveland has its moments – like the commercial OC photos, above, Shaker Square and Larchmere, and especially Little Italy.   But even in most of these areas, whose commercial districts are small by comparison, if you go a block or 2 off the main drag, you’re back to the wood-frame houses – sprinkled with a walk up brick apt (and even a surprising row, now and again, set back from the curb.  Detroit-Superior, for example, is surreal – you can go from brick apartments and Victorians, in one second, to shotguns and open lots, the next.  Sometimes when driving through this area, and others in town, you feel less like your in a city and more like you’re on Tobacco Road… I guess you can say that’s part of Cleveland’s charm, but it doesn’t do much for feelings of urban excitement – in Cleveland, you find excitement in clumps/on islands and at certain times.  In Chicago, it’s 24-hour in most of its popular areas.  Walk 2-3 blocks on Lorain from W. 25th to the east or west, and you find yourself in zones that are dead (people-less) MOST of the time… A visitor once commented on visiting us in the Shaker Square area, ‘I can’t believe how quiet it is here in Cleveland; you don’t even here a dog bark!’  Kinda puts things in perspective; and I consider Shaker Sq one of our LEADING neighborhoods for urban excitement, diversity, convenience, walk-a-bility and architecture.

 

The Rapid vs. the L?  Chicago’s much bigger, so the comparison isn’t easy.  It does appear, because of our Rapid’s big dip on the East Side away from popular destinations (where ECP is supposed to fill the void), the L hits more popular areas of Chicago, although there are wide swaths of bus-only areas of Chicago – like Cleveland, Chicago depends a lot on but-to-rail transfers for people to get downtown/around town.  And, of course, the gigantic Metra commuter rail system is a backstop for many areas,  (city, close-in burbs) where the L doesn’t go.  Btw, I do think, while charming in places like the loop and even with its dominant alley-running els behind the building line, the L is falling behind in terms of providing state-of-the-art, fast mass transit.  Those little old wood stations may be cute and historic, but the suck in terms of being, primarily, ADA-non compliant, lack escalators for the most part, are dank and dingy in many areas and don’t shield folks from the elements too often.  And on older routes like the north side Red and Brown Lines, it stops way too frequently which slows it down and makes cars far more competitive, esp traveling up Lake Shore drive.

 

Cleveland’s got a ton going for it, and we’re very competitive, often ahead, when you compare us to cities more close to our size and character – St. Louis, Milwaukee, Indy, Cincy, etc… even Detroit, which is twice our size.  But Chicago?... we have neighborhoods and other aspect that seem similar to a mini-Chicago, ie, OC and the Gold Coast, … but overall, not quite.  And that’s not a knock at Cleveland; just shows you how great Chicago is…

 

… now if your balancing the urban headaches of a Chicago vs. Cleveland and you want your big-city experiences in a more bite-sized package?  … that’s another thread, entirely.

 

Other systems, Cleveland's RTA especially, does a much better job of fitting well within the existing urban fabric.

 

I totally disagree.  I found Cleveland's RTA (aside from Tower City, Shaker Square, and the obvious Shaker Heights line...and uh...) to not take me where I need to go (for example, the Red Line at the 105th St [?] station is nowhere near University Circle; the Cedar Station you have to hike it from Little Italy, etc).  Chicago's El at least drops you off at the right location (Belmont, Fullerton, Evanston's stations, etc).

 

Generally, I'd agree.  Because Cleveland is smaller/less dense, we saved money by building more rail along railroad rights of way which, while adding to speed and grade separation, often puts stations further away from people centers and sandwiched btw some industrial plants that are attracted to railroads, w/ their freight sidings, to begin with.  btw, I'd use the U.Circle or E. 120 stops to reach most of University Circle and, particularly (desolate though it seems), E. 120 is steps away from Little Italy's core... RTA even plans to relocate it to Mayfield Rd in a few years, which is right at the crown of Little Italy's main strip...

 

And you certainly can't kick that the Blue/Green Line's Shaker Square station doesn't drop you right into the core of the square; Ohio City's really not bad, either.  And the new Flats East viz the Waterfront Line...?

 

am I the only one who read the opening line of flees initial post?  He said it wasn't supposed to be an apples to apples comparison, just some general observations... I also don't think he was trying to slight Chicago in any way...  I think sometimes as Clevelanders we have a tendancy to romanticize all other cities, and project a negative view of our town because of it. So I think it's fair to point out that even cities as great as Chicago, it's not all roses.  That other cities have lifeless central business districts after the work day ends, that other cities have office vacancies, homeless / panhandlers, etc.  And when you consider that all cities have these issues (not just ours) and you take a look at the things we do have as a city (arts, culture, etc that rival the best), and you pair it with how relatively cheap we have it here... You tend to realize that Cleveland is a pretty great place too...

 

  Or at least that's how I took his post.

 

  Also, I don't think Flee was really trying to compare the RTA to the El from a transportation standpoint.  Clearly the El is far superior... I think he just said that it is loud, ugly, and obscures great architecture... and, well.... ummm... yes it is and it does.  That may be part of it's "charm" but it's also the truth.  And the RTA rapid does merge well within the city's urban fabric.  Way better than Chicago.  It's just that it's more of a commuter park and ride service than a mass transportation option.

It's all opinion, sure, but Chicago is one of the LAST places I would call "dirty" for a city its size.  It is remarkably clean, even in the "ghetto."  Also:

 

Other systems, Cleveland's RTA especially, does a much better job of fitting well within the existing urban fabric.

 

I totally disagree.  I found Cleveland's RTA (aside from Tower City, Shaker Square, and the obvious Shaker Heights line...and uh...) to not take me where I need to go (for example, the Red Line at the 105th St [?] station is nowhere near University Circle; the Cedar Station you have to hike it from Little Italy, etc).  Chicago's El atleast drops you off at the right location (Belmont, Fullerton, Evanston's stations, etc).

 

CDM,

 

The 120th station (which you refer to as the 105 station) is being moved to Mayfield Rd in Little Italy. This has been mentioned frequently in the Cleveland RTA and UC threads.

A couple observations on Chicago - the Northside's success is somewhat vampiric on the rest of the midwest. Spending time in bars in Wrigleyville and elsewhere and you are as likely to find someone from Cleveland or Cincinnati or Minneapolis or St. Louis as you are to find someone actually from Chicago. A lot of the energy that people talk about lacking in the midwest and all those missing YPs are still in the midwest, it just happens to be in Chicago, which of course is good for Chicago but not so much for the rest of the midwest.

 

I have found nothing redeeming about suburban Chicago. If you were dropped in any number of suburbs of Chicago you wouldn't be able to tell which midwestern town you were except except it is flatter than cities in the river valleys versus the Great Lakes. Chicago (like Philly and Cincy and probably Cleveland (don't know) is seeing the neighborhoods that came through the 80s and 90s intact, start to decline. SW Chicago (Midway and further out) is seeing pretty substantial disinvestment.

 

Flee2theCleve, I agree with most of what you've said.  As you pointed out, that's not a knock on Chicago in any way. 

 

Clevelanders, how many times have you had a conversation with an ignorant person who says, "Well, Cleveland's nice, but it's no Chicago"?  Or maybe you've found yourself saying something like that?  The point is that Cleveland does have some negatives, but it also has plenty of positives.  And while Chicago has its positives it also has plenty of negatives (many of them are the same as what Clevelanders lament about while dreaming of being a great city like Chicago).  Cleveland is a great city, and we share the same woes as many other great cities.  People need to get over it and stop whining about how Cleveland should be more like Chicago. 

I'd like to read this thread as it develops.  I've never spent much time in Cleveland but would like to learn more about it before I visit.

Perhaps the biggest difference between Chicago and Cleveland is that Chicago had Montgomery Ward 100 years ago. Ward, more than any one person, is responsible for the fact that Chicago has a mostly unbroken public park along the lake, almost the entire length of the city (except far-south industrial areas). That has kept lakefront neighborhoods vibrant.

 

Chicago, for all its problems, is basically a strong city filled with strong neighborhoods and pockets of decay. Detroit, for example (and I like Detroit), is almost the flip side -- it has pockets of vibrancy in a city that has dire problems. Cleveland is in between. Its percentage of great, fully functional neighborhoods is considerably less than that of Chicago. And it has vast areas of serious disinvestment.

 

The biggest difference between Chicago and every other Midwestern town is that Chicago is the the only one that is essentially, geographically unassailable.  It is the essential east/west node in the U.S. because it lies at the point where the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence System and the Mississippi/Missouri System come closest together.  Chicago, New York and Los Angeles/San Diego (yes, I realize this is a very large area) are, given the political boundaries of the United States, the three most important geographical trade and 'choke' points.  One could make a decent case to include New Orleans as well, but Houston has well cannibalized New Orleans trade ever since the Galveston hurricane at the turn of the 20th century.  New Orleans will always be a big port for grains and raw materials though, since Houston can't steal the Mississippi.

 

Also, I don't think Flee was really trying to compare the RTA to the El from a transportation standpoint.  Clearly the El is far superior... I think he just said that it is loud, ugly, and obscures great architecture... and, well.... ummm... yes it is and it does.  That may be part of it's "charm" but it's also the truth.  And the RTA rapid does merge well within the city's urban fabric.  Way better than Chicago.  It's just that it's more of a commuter park and ride service than a mass transportation option.

 

I don't see how the 'L' obscures great architecture.  The places that I recall the 'L' obscuring architecture by running on top of public streets is almost entirely within the Loop, and typically those buildings are so tall that they aren't really obscured.  As I said: What other major city's transit system allows you to view the city for almost the entirety of the ride?  I don't have the computer skills to include this picture in the text of this post, but here's a perfect example of how the 'L' gives you a view of architecture that you simply can't get on the NYC Subway, the Underground, or the average Metro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CTA_waiting_on_the_platform.jpg

 

 

1.  Agree, but move westward where all the clubs and bars are and there is lot of people.

 

2. Somewhat agree.  I'm not entirely convinced.  I ride the El fairly often at night at least once a month and a lot of these upper floors (even in smaller and older buildings) are lit and filled with desks and cubicles.  If you are talking specifically about the loop, you are probably correct.

 

3.  Agree for the most part.  It's all about people's personal likes and dislikes here.  (I love it)

 

4. Agree

 

5.  I disagree with your statement #5.  You cannot begin to make assesments of price of living based off parking.  I know you don't mean it in that way, but park and rides at El line stations run $1 or $2 per day, if not free on weekends.  Of course you pay outrageous prices for parking downtown, although somewhat average for most major American cities (that includes Detroit).  It's a business to catch people who don't realize free parking awaits them on side streets just a few blocks from their hotel

 

6.  Hmmmm disagree.  I hear most people complain it's too clean.  Not sure what parts you visited, but I've always been impressed with how relatively well neighborhood are kept, especially if you compare it to a lot of other major industrial cities.

 

7.  Of course Chicago has surface lots, but far less than everyone else.  Everyone does

 

 

With that asside, your last statement struck me as highly preferential.  Your list doesn't at all support your point since it doesn't exactly relate to what is really an urban experience.

not being from the midwest originally, my perception is people from Cleveland DO have a chip on their shoulder about Chicago-as if it is the end all be all of cities. Similar to what someone else said, it is very similar in many ways to Cleveland (x 7..or what whatever the case is). Don't get me wrong I like Chicago a lot -I am here right now, but outside of the size and the amenities that come with it, it is not that much "better" or different than Cleveland. If I were given a choice of similarly sized older cities to live, Chicago would not top the list.  I actually like the look of the El train. As far as cleanliness, I think Chi is in almost all areas, much cleaner than Cleveland and that is one area where I wish we could follow suit.

 

It sounds like you were staying north of the loop. I once stayed inside the loop and it was dirty, dreary, and dead after dark.

 

As far as OC being dead on Sunday...everywhere is dead in Cleveland on Sunday. I am not sure what that is all about. I hate it when I hear that from out of town guests.

Cleveland has a strong religious and patriotic influence. As such, on Sunday's and patriotic-type holidays (July 4th, Memorial Day, Veteran's Day, etc.) restaurants and a lot of retail close and entertainment districts seem dead...

 

I've said, I wish the West Side Market should be open at least 6 days a week to help pump daytime life into OC.  Somebody mentioned, I think, this is an old City/union issue.  I really wish it could be fixed -- ours is the only big city farmer-type market that has such quirky days/hours and it really hurts OC.

 

^If anything, the w25th scenario is better than it has been in the past few decades. I think sometimes that we romanticize the past to the point that it we are re-creating it. W.25th in 1988 was a no-mans-land.

 

i know what you mean, there is a lot more going on along the w25th strip now. however, let's also don't romanticize the romaniticizing either -- those were recent pics and equally empty of people. it's because there arent as many people around in the city overall anymore more than the gentificiation of the businesses. getting back another 100k would/will do wonders for everyday city streetlife.

Cleveland has a strong religious and patriotic influence. As such, on Sunday's and patriotic-type holidays (July 4th, Memorial Day, Veteran's Day, etc.) restaurants and a lot of retail close and entertainment districts seem dead...

 

I've said, I wish the West Side Market should be open at least 6 days a week to help pump daytime life into OC.  Somebody mentioned, I think, this is an old City/union issue.  I really wish it could be fixed -- ours is the only big city farmer-type market that has such quirky days/hours and it really hurts OC.

 

 

Chicago has the same ethnic and religious heritage as Cleveland, and the same patirotism on national holidays. But the neighborhoods and their shops and restaurants and parks are buzzing on Sundays and holidays.

^ sure, but only because they have a lot more people to buzz them.

 

i do wish the wsm was open more often, it would definately bump up street presence, but i suppose its quirks are part of its charm too. i wouldn't want to mess too much with something that works so well as it is. i wish they advertised it better, the general public tends to know pike place (d@#n those yuppie fish tossers!) & a few other markets, but don't know about the wsm.

 

To follow on LK, if you want to know why Chicago became what it did William Cronon's Nature's Metropolis is probably your best shot. The key take-away is that Chicago won the battle for NYC capital after the Civil War. It was competing mostly with Cincy and St. Louis at that point. Cleveland was built with a lot of NYC capital as well, but Chicago was already booming as Cleveland rose. Toledo actually had moments where it could have made a run, but it never quite got there.

 

Aesthetically (and weather-wise) I'll take the Ohio Valley over the Great Lakes.

It's all opinion, sure, but Chicago is one of the LAST places I would call "dirty" for a city its size.  It is remarkably clean, even in the "ghetto."  Also:

 

Other systems, Cleveland's RTA especially, does a much better job of fitting well within the existing urban fabric.

 

I totally disagree.  I found Cleveland's RTA (aside from Tower City, Shaker Square, and the obvious Shaker Heights line...and uh...) to not take me where I need to go (for example, the Red Line at the 105th St [?] station is nowhere near University Circle; the Cedar Station you have to hike it from Little Italy, etc).  Chicago's El atleast drops you off at the right location (Belmont, Fullerton, Evanston's stations, etc).

 

CDM,

 

The 120th station (which you refer to as the 105 station) is being moved to Mayfield Rd in Little Italy. This has been mentioned frequently in the Cleveland RTA and UC threads.

 

Well, that's good.  I don't read the Cleveland RTA/UC threads but I'm glad they are doing that.

As far as OC being dead on Sunday...everywhere is dead in Cleveland on Sunday. I am not sure what that is all about. I hate it when I hear that from out of town guests.

 

That's so true. Any other day, there are always at least a few people out on W. 25th, even on non-market days. Clevelanders love their day of rest.

That's why I love the City Xpressionz festival - it puts the Open Air/Market Square vendors out on West 25th and basically the whole area from Jay to Lorain is hopping.

It might be worth mentioning that the Chicago political machine is far more in control of their city than our ineffectual politicians are of ours.  Hell, they probably have more control of the state of Illinois than Cleveland's "leaders" have of Cleveland.

 

They are also way more authoritarian.  As the Meigs Field incident proves, when Daley wants to do something he doesn't even let federal law stop him.

 

This may make the city  seem "better" to visitors.  Giuliani's election had that effect in NYC

It's absolutely worth mentioning. Cleveland had an shady Napoleon authoritarian mayor in Mike White - the general public saw things getting built, but they didn't see that he left City Hall an absolute mess and it's a mess that's still being cleaned up. But hey, we gots some stadiums!!! :roll:

we have "authority" (is that a euphemism for corrupt and power hungry?) without the competency

One thing about being a Clevelander is knowing its rhythm which is why warm Saturday mornings/early afternoons are prime time for Ohio City; bringing visitors there absolutely blows them away; usually there's a dropped jaw: '... I had no idea...' phrase viz Cleveland mentioned.  As one who travels extensively in this country, I can think of few hoods that can top its mix of things creating urban interesting-ness/greatness (shops, architecture, foot-traffic, compact-ness, high-density living, etc)... and accessible by rapid rail transit, too… With hoods like OC, who needs frigigin’ Chicago, anyway? (some tongue ‘n cheek, of course .. but not totally!)

 

The summer fairs are great; they helped get OC on its feet, activity-wise (besides the long standing WSM tradition)… nowadays, even when the fairs aren’t going, Saturdays in OC are always hopping and the RTA Red Line stop mirrors an L or subway station.

 

Every city has problems?? Speak for yourself.  Here in Canton, OH i would say we have reached our zenith.  The average salary is 250,000 yearly with a yearly cost of living of $10.00.  Every single house has been "Perma-painted" and looks perfect.  We have such critical mass that we started stacking every single shop and take out, Mcdonalds is on the 1120th floor, but the elevator reaches the speed of sound and never ever breaks down.  This year we finished coating everything in a clear teflon shield so now when it rains (we control when that happens) all of the dirt just runs west to Massillon.  Our population also quad-triples monthly, but somehow commute times and congestion are never affected.  I'm sorry for those of you in Chicago and Cleveland....it must be tough?  Canton will just have to remain the sweet and the rest, the sour.

I wanted to add, if any one here would like the details of the "perma-paint" technique let me know. I will have the Mayor mind-link the information to you. We run mind-link version 3, let us know if we need to send an antique frequency.

 

Watch your step everyone. Careful you don't step in the bullshit.

 

(Actually, a very funny first message mkeller234!)

^ from a guy who used to pick on us for the use of an emoticon now and then you sure have become forum king of the silly emoticons kjp!  :wink:

 

*** puts blackberry back in pocket on northbound canton station platform as monorail for akron approaches ***  :laugh:

 

Really? I picked on people for using funny emoticons? Sounds like misplaced jealously on my part since I use them all the time now. <---Group Hug

 

And what monorail for Akron?

 

Hey, is this thread done? Are we all out of Cleveland-Chicago comparison???

... both begin w/ the letter "C".

They're both on Great Lakes...

they both are worse than Stryker.