<p>Objective or not - for people who love living in a city - many people find NYC a bit too much and let's face it - with cities the size of Boston, you quickly find yourself running out of new places to explore.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you still didnt respond to my question. do you honestly feel that the majority of americans would prefer to live in chicago over LA/SD.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If Chicago was located along the California coast - yes.</p>
<p>Both SD and LA as cities go are somewhat of a jumbled mess (SF is far superior) - and a Chicago in Calif would have that great shoreline/beaches/parks (this time, getting hit by waves from the Pacific Ocean instead of Lake Michigan).</p>
<p>i am asking as the cities are right now. their current location. what do you think the MAJORITY of americans would choose as the more desirable location. Chicago or LA/SD? i know some would choose each city, but i want to know what the majority of americans would choose. I just want one person to answer this question for me honestly. and state their answer.</p>
<p>Obviously the majority of Americans choose not to live in either LA or SD. Nobody is forced to live anywhere except a few criminals and those in the army etc. I have lived in both LA and SD and would prefer many other places over them.</p>
<p>again not what i asked. i asked given the choice between Chicago and SD/LA, where would the majority of people say is the more desirable location. its absolutely amazing how everyone has completely ducked the question. honestly. is it that painful to state? yes obviously the majority of americans do not live in the cities of LA/SD. but again i asked given the choice between Chicago and LA/SD where would the majority of them say is the more desirable place to live. im not sure barrons why you ducked this. but it just backs up my point that no one will answer it but that everyone keeps ducking around the question. please answer my question honestly.</p>
<p>hahahahaha... as if their is no white flight in chicago. san diego doesnt have white flight at all in the city. quite the opposite. and i dont believe you that you feel the majority of americans would choose chicago over la/sd as the more desirable place to live. laughable. you gave reasons why you think that it is. and thats great. but again we are talking about the population as a whole. and i dont think you truly believe what you posted. but again we are all entitled to are own opinions. i just dont believe you are honestly stating yours.</p>
<p>I have had many chances to move back to LA and make more $$$. No thanks. Chicago is still reclaiming neighborhoods that went down 30 years ago. They are building condos so fast near the Loop they are hard to track. Most sell to professionals. LA would kill to have a CBD like Chicago.</p>
<p>"Ethnic change, 1990-2000 (see note). The major ethnic groups experienced geographically distinct changes in their distribution. Hispanic population increased substantially both in the traditionally Hispanic areas of the Southwest and Northwest Sides and in adjoining neighborhoods. Hispanics also moved on a large scale into adjacent Cicero, and into the old central places of Waukegan, Elgin, Aurora, and Joliet, as well as into many other suburbs. There was a decline in Hispanic population only in South Chicago and in some of the gentrifying neighborhoods of the North Side. White population increased substantially in many neighborhoods of the North and Near Northwest Sides, as well as around the Loop. It also increased in the outer suburbs. White population dropped substantially in the traditionally working-class Southwest and Northwest Sides of Chicago. African-American population fell in many (but not all) of the old black neighborhoods of the South and West Sides--and rose on their southern and western peripheries as well as in Rogers Park. Asian/Pacific population rose widely in the northwestern sector of the city and suburbs, as well as on the periphery of Chinatown, declining only in the Albany Park and Rogers Park areas as Hispanics and African-Americans moved in.</p>
<p>Income change, 1989-1999 (see note). The Chicago area, like the United States as a whole, became richer during the 1990s, but the distribution of new wealth was quite unequal. Large parts of the City of Chicago became considerably wealthier. A broad area on the Northwest and North Sides, from the Near West Side to Wicker Park and Uptown, gained more wealth than any other large populated area in the Chicago Region. Numerous mostly African-American neighborhoods on the South Side--e.g., Bronzeville, Oakland, and Woodlawn--also did well. In the suburbs, the pattern was quite complex. The newly urbanizing areas on the periphery of the built-up area did best. The Hispanic areas (in the City as well as in the suburbs) generally did least well. It is not clear whether this was the result of declining real wages, an increase in population larger than the increase in the number of jobs--or just better counting by the Census Bureau. The pattern of redistribution of income during the 1990s was quite different than it was during the 1980s, when the rich generally did well while the poor generally did badly. Many established wealthy areas in the 1990s (e.g., along the North Side Lakefront) barely held their own, while some (but not all) poor neighborhoods became relatively wealthier.</p>
<p>ucchris -
[quote]
i am asking as the cities are right now. their current location. what do you think the MAJORITY of americans would choose as the more desirable location. Chicago or LA/SD? i know some would choose each city, but i want to know what the majority of americans would choose. I just want one person to answer this question for me honestly. and state their answer
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nice to take this discussion from its previous parameters and take it into a rather silly tangent.</p>
<p>
[quote] "If Chicago had been on the West or East coast - it probably would be considered the best city in the US."</p>
<p>I dont know about that. I highly doubt Chicago would be considered more desirable or a better city than San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Seattle. Or on the East Coast better than New York or Boston. Theres no way. I love Chicago and all, but that is not realistic.
<p>Um... it's nice that you guys are discussing the cities, but from visiting both locations I have found both LA and Chicago to be great. I found that I really like both schools, but can someone attest to the overall happiness of the student body? It seems the students at UCLA are generally happier and more enthused about their college.</p>
<p>I can't speak for UCLA, I've never been there. But NU students are very happy and there is a lot of school pride here -- walk around campus for a few minutes and you'll see tons of students wearing NU apparel.</p>
<p>Before I saw you had made your decision, I was going to say go to UCLA because of the costs. Congrats on your acceptances and making a decision.</p>