News   Aug 02, 2024
Forma's Forest of Rebar Approaches Grade
 2.2K     0 
News   Aug 02, 2024
27-Storey Tower With Above-Grade Parking Proposed in Downtown Burlington
 4.1K     3 
News   Aug 02, 2024
Out of Office Space: How Developers are Responding to Changes in Work Habits
 1.6K     2 

Toronto/Chicago comparisons

I don't understand why people discredit the proximity of Niagara Falls to the city as one of the tourist attractions. Nearly everyone I know who has visited Toronto from overseas has made the journey to the falls. On the other hand, many people I know who visit Chicago never step foot in their aquarium, and many of the other institutions. The one thing in Chicago that nearly every tourist goes to, is Navy Pier (which is down right embarrassing). Anyways, Toronto does have quite a few unique attractions that Chicago doesn't; there's the shoe museum, hockey hall of fame, the islands, and a bunch of others. Yes, many of Chicago's "institutions" are better, but I wouldn't say they quantitatively have more tourist attractions or that that makes them a better tourist destination.
 
DtTO said:
I don't understand why people discredit the proximity of Niagara Falls to the city as one of the tourist attractions. Nearly everyone I know who has visited Toronto from overseas has made the journey to the falls. On the other hand, many people I know who visit Chicago never step foot in their aquarium, and many of the other institutions. The one thing in Chicago that nearly every tourist goes to, is Navy Pier (which is down right embarrassing). Anyways, Toronto does have quite a few unique attractions that Chicago doesn't; there's the shoe museum, hockey hall of fame, the islands, and a bunch of others. Yes, many of Chicago's "institutions" are better, but I wouldn't say they quantitatively have more tourist attractions or that that makes them a better tourist destination.
Click to expand...

NF is much closer to Buffalo NY. And the hockey hall is just that. Great architecture, but it's just hockey. And a Torontonian criticizing someone else s waterfront? The only city with a worse one is NYC. Nice company but still.
 
Last edited:
DtTO said:
I don't understand why people discredit the proximity of Niagara Falls to the city as one of the tourist attractions. Nearly everyone I know who has visited Toronto from overseas has made the journey to the falls. On the other hand, many people I know who visit Chicago never step foot in their aquarium, and many of the other institutions. The one thing in Chicago that nearly every tourist goes to, is Navy Pier (which is down right embarrassing). Anyways, Toronto does have quite a few unique attractions that Chicago doesn't; there's the shoe museum, hockey hall of fame, the islands, and a bunch of others. Yes, many of Chicago's "institutions" are better, but I wouldn't say they quantitatively have more tourist attractions or that that makes them a better tourist destination.
Click to expand...

Toronto certainly beats Chicago in terms of day trips. There's the Escarpment, interesting old 19th century towns, Niagara Falls, theatre at Shaw and Stratford, etc.

Chicago in contrast is mostly surrounded by bland Midwest scenery, with the main interesting places being Madison and Milwaukee (Milwaukee being the same approximate distance as Buffalo-Toronto). Most Chicagoans go to Wisconsin or Michigan for their equivalent of "cottage country."

Buffalo and Detroit are actually better situated in terms of the surrounding areas.
 
^^ The last time I was in Chicago, I drove up to Milwaukee and it was not worth the time. The downtown core was dead as a door nail. Other than a few nice, historic buildings, there was little to see or do. Even during a weekday, the downtown streets were practically empty. Compared to Milwaukee, Hamilton is a hip, thriving metropolis. In fact, there was very little of interest surrounding Chicago. Gary Indiana was scary and depressing. After a drive through there, Jane & Finch seems like Park Avenue.
 
Torontovibe said:
^^ The last time I was in Chicago, I drove up to Milwaukee and it was not worth the time. The downtown core was dead as a door nail. Other than a few nice, historic buildings, there was little to see or do. Even during a weekday, the downtown streets were practically empty. Compared to Milwaukee, Hamilton is a hip, thriving metropolis. In fact, there was very little of interest surrounding Chicago. Gary Indiana was scary and depressing. After a drive through there, Jane & Finch seems like Park Avenue.
Click to expand...

Sadly, a lot of American cores are "dead as a door nail". This was my view from a hotel in downtown Albany, NY on a Monday morning. The receptionist also warned us not to venture out at night, which is not surprising. This is a good reminder why people should appreciate Toronto, despite its shortcomings.

10431908385_2d1c957024_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
denfromoakvillemilton said:
Hey Torontovibe, TigerMaster M.R, Junctionist

Where is it easier to make friends? Toronto or Chicago? I say here.
Click to expand...

I haven't spent enough time in Chicago to be able to comment. I've never had any troubles in Toronto. I doubt Chicago is fundamentally different. Socialization is random. You never know who you'll meet. In the end, there are universal social norms that are hardwired into our brains. People respond positively to certain things and negatively to others no matter where you are.
 
salsa said:
Sadly, a lot of American cores are "dead as a door nail". This was my view from a hotel in downtown Albany, NY on a Monday morning. The receptionist also warned us not to venture out at night, which is not surprising. This is a good reminder why people should appreciate Toronto, despite its shortcomings.
Click to expand...

Off-topic, but on the drive through Albany, it's large geographical footprint is really surprising.
 
I would live in Chicago in a heartbeat. Whatever judgments we hurl at Chicago for its livability, I'm sure a Chicagoan could hurl right back at us for something we don't even realize. Cities are different, and they should be judged on different merits. I think about all the cities I love in the world, and I imagine how stupid it would be if I judged them based on things I like about Toronto:

"Yeah, the Chinese food in Barcelona really sucks compared to Chinatown, let alone Markham."

"Berlin has funky nabes, but they don't have immigrant nabes like we do."

"I went to Hong Kong and I couldn't get a decent hipster coffee like I get at Sam James."

"If you drive 2 hours out of London, you don't end up at one of the world's biggest waterfalls like we do."
 
Agreed Hipster... and really you are just pointing out why a thread like this is silly. It leads to comments like this from the Anthony Bourdain thread:

DtTO said:
Toronto is actually a livable city, unlike Chicago, where their "nice" historic apartments on the gold coast and in Streeterville lack bare necessities like A/C and adequate elevator service.
Click to expand...

Like the lack of a/c in gorgeous old apartment buildings is going to make me hate them and love City Place? Don't think so.

No, anybody who loves Toronto and appreciates its attributes doesn't need to defend it through inane comparisons, just as acknowledging that you like and even admire many of the attributes of Chicago doesn't make you a Toronto basher! True urban explorers will find plenty to love about both places.

... and as this is a Toronto-centric forum i feel it'd be far more constructive if a thread like this was reconsidered as something along the lines of, 'Chicago: What can Toronto learn?', looking at the pitfalls to avoid and the successes to strive for. A far healthier debate, if you ask me!
 
Last edited:
Tewder said:
Like the lack of a/c in gorgeous old apartment buildings is going to make me hate them and love City Place? Don't think so.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the part where I mentioned livability? If you'd rather take historic architecture over A/C and decent elevator service, you certainly don't speak for the majority of people. You missed the point entirely of pretty vs. livable, which is what I was pointing out.
 
DtTO said:
Did you even read the part where I mentioned livability? If you'd rather take historic architecture over A/C and decent elevator service, you certainly don't speak for the majority of people. You missed the point entirely of pretty vs. livable, which is what I was pointing out.
Click to expand...

He's talking about "livability", too. Like, operating windows over A/C martyrdom, or not being martyr to sooper-dooper high-tech jillion-storey elevators. Human-scaled stuff--once that's factored in, you've got a pretty sizable sample, to the point where pushing the "majority" argument is like advocating a tyranny of the McMansion-libertarian philistine...
 
adma said:
He's talking about "livability", too. Like, operating windows over A/C martyrdom, or not being martyr to sooper-dooper high-tech jillion-storey elevators. Human-scaled stuff--once that's factored in, you've got a pretty sizable sample, to the point where pushing the "majority" argument is like advocating a tyranny of the McMansion-libertarian philistine...
Click to expand...

Huh? We're not talking about high rise vs. mid rise here. Both areas (City Place Vs. Streeterville/GoldCoast, Chicago) are high-rise. One has A/Cs and proper elevator service, while the other has (arguably) better architecture. My point is that the former does more to increase the quality of life of the residents than the latter.

Where does the high rise vs. mid rise argument come from? I wasn't even talking about that. Are you going to bring up Trump again for the sake of arguing? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top