City of Chicago

@exacademic I don’t get Chicago over Boston, ether, though. Insofar as I can tell, Boston/Cambridge (it might as well be one metropolis, as anybody who’s been there knows) offers everything you find in Chicago (except for the food, which is better in Chicago) except it’s all within walking distance of everything else. And it offers the ocean and mountains within driving distance.

New York City, of course, is a different. Manhattan is a bit tougher to traverse on foot–although it can be done–but its cultural smögåsbord makes it worthwhile.

P.S. I think I just put my finger on it. Chicago is not a walking city. It’s more like LA than Boston or NYC or, for that matter, Washington, D.C.

If you’re at Harvard or MIT you can walk anywhere. Or take an easy subway ride and walk anywhere. The journey from Hyde Park to what “foreigners” think of as “Chicago” (e.g., downtown) is…fraught. As a practical matter, Hyde Park would probably define the circumference of my college years. Would that feel claustrophobic? Or would I be holed up in the library anyway so I wouldn’t notice?

I think this is my issue. Chicago doesn’t feel like a “free-range kid” city the way these other places do. It feels like I’d be in a kind of lock-down.

And that’s why I’m incredulous to think that anyone would consider the City of Chicago to be more appealing than the far more pedestrian-friendly Boston or NYC.

What am I missing here? I genuinely want to know.

Hyde Park will not define your experience at UChicago unless you want it to. Or if you plan on majoring in physics or CS. With those majors and maybe a couple others, the quantity of the dialectic may prevent you from spending much time outside of Hyde Park.

Your posts careen from almost funny to complete and utter douchiness and pretension. If your natural state leans more to the former you would probably enjoy the heck out of Chicago and UChicago. If you are more inclined to the latter, Cambridge might be a better fit.

@boringusername your walk across Smoot will take about the same amount of time of jumping into an Uber and heading to Michigan Ave or anywhere downtown.

Chicago is definitely a walking city, but keep in mind the population is four times the size of Boston and city area is five times.

IMHO if you actually gave it a chance and keep an open mind you will come to atleast appreciate it. The school isn’t too shabby either.

The university is magnificent. No quarrel from me there.

@boringusername I suspect with the timing of your post, right after REG decision, that you didn’t get into UChicago, and to make yourself feel better about that you need to deride the institution/city that rejected you. Also, with the general theme of your writing, that you will not get into any of your other colleges that required essays, as you seem to care more about the locale than the college itself which is easily discernible by admission officers. What your doing here is called trolling. It happens on forums when a person is upset about a particular issue. Don’t take it too bad as I have been a troll myself, albeit on other issues. It’s time to move on.

If we break down all the factors in travel experience – any type of travel experience, anywhere, anytime – I imagine there are some that are elastic, like:

  • The person's mood
  • What activities he or she chose
  • Lack of knowledge/not knowing where to go or what to do
  • Where he or she spent time
  • Mode of transportation
  • Food choices
  • The people he or she bumped into
  • Mistakes he or she made, and where he or she placed blame for them

That all of these things are elastic by choice or by chance means that a person could have two entirely different experiences in the same city – and hate one while enjoying the other. Given that making an informed judgment of a city would require multiple such data points, or (better) a prolonged stay through which a multitude of experiences can be… experienced… and judged… I think it’s best to avoid judging a city after just one or two or even three short visits because I don’t think anyone can take in all a city Chicago’s size has to offer, without a considerable amount of time spent there.

I think certainly you can form a gut feeling about a city; just try to remember, you may have just (or the part of the city you were in…) had a bad day, been unlucky, etc.

@CU123 Ok so add to 1) pretentious and 2) douchy I’m now 3) ****.

That is, indeed, a persuasive brief for the City of Chicago.

@prezbucky I was coming down with a cold, come to think of it…

Well there you go. :wink:

I’m very familiar with both Chicago and Boston, and I find Chicago significantly more interesting and appealing. Better food, better music scene, better arts scene, better nightlife, better museums, better downtown and shopping, better waterfront, better architecture. It is less expensive yet it has more character. The weather is only slightly worse than Boston. Now, Cambridge is better than Hyde Park, but Hyde Park is just fine for college.

Boston has one main advantage: it is closer to other things of interest. It’s a long way from Chicago to good skiing or to a quaint beach town or to another great city.

Boston is not NYC, and I’m not sure why the OP keeps saying: “why would anyone choose Chicago over Boston or Manhattan?” I would choose Chicago over Boston easily. Chicago or Manhattan? Different equation entirely.

Trying to stick to the rational issues:

If you go to the University of Chicago, your world will be limited to Hyde Park only if you decide to make it that way. My kids went all over the city when they were in college there – all over the north side, all over the south side, all over the middle. Because of free student admission to the Art Institute and the CTA card I paid for (I think students now have free or discount CTA cards), my son used to go spend an hour at the Art Institute as a study break on a regular basis.

Also note: Chicago is a great biking city. It’s all flat, you can bike 12-15 miles with no real trouble. (Well, there’s wind . . . ) Biking up the lake shore into the Loop is super-easy. Neither of my kids biked much when they lived at home, and both became avid bike fans in Chicago. The one who still lives there commutes by bike between Logan Square and Hyde Park – and that’s through a number of neighborhoods often characterized as “bad,” but he has never had any trouble.

For what it’s worth, cities are only mutually exclusive at a particular time. One of my kids always wanted to live in New York, and that’s where she lives. She’s really glad, though, that she spent four years in Chicago, because if she hadn’t she would have thought that she could never be satisfied living anywhere but New York, and she knows that’s not true. Some of her take is that, other than the very high end stuff (Art Institute, Lyric Opera, CSO), Chicago = Brooklyn, and Brooklyn is where she and her friends choose to be. My other kid never wanted to live in New York, and he loves Chicago. But when it looked for a while that his fiancee might have to move to Boston, he was perfectly up for Boston as well.

Some aspects of cultural vibrancy can actually be addressed in more granular form:

History: Obviously, a hands-down win for Boston.

Architecture: Chicago is very architecture-proud, and there’s a lot of great stuff.

Classical Music: Hard to tell. BSO-CSO is basically a draw. Chicago doesn’t have anything quite like NECM. Chicago Lyric Opera is much better than anything Boston offers. Both are on the circuit for every star the world has to offer.

Popular Music: I think this is a big win for Chicago. It has a really vibrant local scene, in part because it’s still possible to live relatively cheaply there. Boston used to be great, but it’s been years since I noticed meaningful artists emerging from there, other than Berklee people who leave and live elsewhere. And the Chicago scene isn’t limited to white people, or to white and black people for that matter. There is a huge Mexican community with its own stars, and that pull in touring groups from the Hispanic world for whom Boston may as well be Outer Mongolia. And when you look at blues and jazz, that’s not a contest.

Theater: I don’t think of Boston as a big theater town. ART has never really been a big deal. They have touring Broadway shows, but it’s hardly a theatrical hotbed. Chicago on the other hand, has theaters everywhere. Steppenwolf and Second City remain major contributors to American theater, but any day of the week there are original productions all over the city.

Food: Chicago all the way. High and low. With one exception – fresh fish and other seafood is hard to come by and expensive. That’s a real plus for Boston.

Visual Art: High end, the Art Institute is a cut above the MFA, but Chicago doesn’t have a Gardner. Both cities have numerous smaller museums of all sorts, including significant contemporary museums. In terms of actual working artists, I think both cities have a lot going on. I am more familiar with Boston artists, and love them, but my strong impression is that young artists can’t afford it anymore. Chicago has lots of young artists, and lots of art buyers, too.

This is really one of the biggest draws to living in Chicago, but it is one that few people know about. Other than New York, Chicago has the best theater scene in the country. Just take a look at all of the current plays and shows in Chicago and nearby suburbs.

http://www.theatreinchicago.com/nowplayingrs.php

@Zinhead Seconding your opinion of theater in Chicago. As a matter of fact, the first production of Hamilton away from Broadway was in Chicago :wink: .

Chicago is a wonderful city but I wouldn’t go to UChicago for that. In fact, I wouldn’t even worry about whether I liked the city or not. I’d go for the school.

I arrived at UChicago for grad school fresh from undergrad. in beautiful No.Cal. (NOT Palo, Alto) and I HATED the city of Chicago. (This was in the mid '80’s and Chicago has grown up a lot since that time). It took me about 4 years to get used to the city - simply put, I needed that time to adjust to the Midwest (I was from the Intermountain Western US and attended college in CA). It was a culture thing.

OP, should you choose UChicago, be patient and give yourself time to adjust. You may never come to like the city. But you will at least have had the experience of spending a significant portion of your life (to date) in another metro area, another community, and even, to a large extent, another culture, than what you are used to (I’m assuming you are from the East Coast). Whether you like it or not is really secondary to whether the experience ends up enriching your life.

Should you choose Chicago, you may just find that the relationships, experiences, and memories are what affect you the most about the place. Not whether “stuffed pizza” is actually pizza or whether the city is easily walkable.

I do think there’s some real value in going to college in a region you don’t already know. I did it (born in the Midwest, relocated to SoCal in my teens, college in New England) and encouraged my kid (born and raised in the MidAtlantic, college in the Midwest) to do the same. She’s really happy she did.

It can be an important part of the learning/growing up/becoming independent process. Doesn’t necessarily mean your regional preferences will change, but helps you understand other values/priorities/ways of life and puts you in a position to make more well-informed decisions later, when higher stakes are involved.

Chicago is walkable BTW (as a lifelong non-driver I know whereof I speak). It’s just that Hyde Park isn’t within walking distance of most of the places you’ll want to explore on foot. So you take a bus or train at each end of the day/outing. Not a big deal. FWIW, my daughter has never found the trip downtown via public transit fraught. On night trips, she’s generally been with a friend or in a larger group, but she’s also gone solo on daytime and afternoon to early evening expeditions. It is worth noting that in Chicago generally and Hyde Park specifically, public transit works best if buses (and commuter rail) are in your mix. Subway isn’t always the best option.

As far as driving is concerned, I always loved how easy it was to drive around Chicago vs NYC or LA (and probably at least a few other really large ones). Still think that Chi-Town is the biggest small town I’ve lived in. The neighborhoods contribute to that “down-home” feel, for me anyway. I realize that sounds ridiculous but the size of the city was never an issue (I had a car, however, although I did use Metra and and L for daily commutes to work).

@JBStillFlying clearly you’ve never tried to drive on the Kennedy in rush hour :stuck_out_tongue: it’s terrible

@HydeSnark, I used to drive daily on the Kennedy from HP to Cumberland (right before O’Hare), in rush hour, BEFORE they expanded it. Was still till faster than Metra/Redline L. We’ve been stuck on the K at 4:30 in the morning trying to catch a flight. It’s bad. But it was nothing in those days compared to the BQE (parts of which were under perpetual construction with nary a worker in sight . . . ).

@JHS thanks very helpful

I’m kind of surprised nobody’s asked what I’m so concerned about the city. There’s been all kinds of speculation about my motives for posting here, And a fair degree of ad hominem stuff (I’m “douchy”–very life of the mind, I must say). But no one’s thought to ask, “Why do you think it’s going to matter all that much?”

There’s a reason. I’m interested in arts management. Internships are going to be really important. And the connection that the college I attend has with those institutions is going to be really important.

And before you say, “well then go someplace in NYC” understand that that may be the right call, but UChicago, unfortunately, is not in NYC, so there’s the dilemma.

When it comes to the arts, for theatre, Chicago is as good as it gets outside of NYC and LA.

For everything else, eh…depends.

A lot of what Chicago offfers strikes me as “convention culture”–e.g., stuff with which to distract visiting proctologists when they’re in town for the annual meeting American Colonoscopy Association.

As I’ve said, Boston’s not an option for me: I’ve done Boston. But just in case anybody else stumbles into this thread, for the record:

MUSIC: Chicago has an incredible blues scene and, of course, Lolapalooza. Again, a great place for conventioneers. But, for my purposes, not so much of interest.

Classical music scene in Chicago is kind of dead. CSO is one of the very greatest, of course. But Orchestra Hall just blows. There are no words to describe the cosmic mediocrity of its acoustics. Ravinia is a nice place to have a picnic while someone thumps out Tchaikovsky in the background but, again, cf. the ACA, above.

As for the Chicago Lyric Opera, ok very nice but it’s kind of dinner theatre culture: Puccini’s greatest hits. Not rocking anybody’s world.

It’s a big step down from Boston, which is only rivaled by NYC and, arguably, LA, for the depth and breadth of activity. NYC, for example, three full-time conservatories. Boston has five, (two of them, New England Conservatory, which may right now may have the strongest string faculty of any music school on the planet, and Berkelee, are world-beating). It has the BSO and the Boston Philharmonic and the Handel & Haydn Society and the Boston Baroque and the Boston Camerata and so many musical organizations I lost count…and I actually tried counting. For EDM and other forms of electronic music, Boston is probably unrivaled by anyplace other than LA.) And then there’s Tanglewood, the pre-eminent summer music festival in this hemisphere. No middle-brow opera company, it’s true. But tomorrow’s opera stars (and Broadway stars) can be found honing their craft at NEC and BU. Some of those productions are quite exciting (not always intentionally, but that’s another story.)

ARTS: The Art Institute is great museum but I don’t know how you figure it’s a “cut above” the Museum of Fine Arts: The MFA’s collection is half again as large as the Art Institute’s and of a quality that’s matched only by the truly gigantic Met. And then there’s the MFA’s art school. And the Massachusetts College of Art. And the Gardner. And the Fogg. And the ICA…

MONEY: Art follows money. Always has, always will. And there’s not as much of it in Chicago as there is in some other places. By just about any measure–per capita income, real estate value, percentage with advanced degrees, etc., etc.–Chicago comes up way short next to a place like Boston, where the Boston Sympony has the largest endowment of any orchestra in the world, where Harvard has the largest endowment of any university in the world. Etc., etc.

Anyway, that’s enough of this.

Adios.

@boringusername just so you know, location is not an impediment when it comes to finding arts/creative jobs. I have a few friends who have worked a few summer theatre festivals in New York and the University Theater at Chicago has lots of students who eventually enter the creative professions.