Detroit gets some love from a travel guru.

**iheartthed** · April-09-13, 08:00 AM

The topic is overrated travel destinations and their alternatives:

#7 Chicago
Spend a little time in the Windy City and you'll come to know a people obsessed with the answer to a question nobody else has ever asked: "Is Chicago a world class city?" As a former local, I can help. The answer is no. Chicago is a handsome, reasonably entertaining provincial capital. This used to be enough for Chicagoans, but then it wasn't, leading to a period of time, beginning around the turn of the new century, during which all manner of foolishness -- from baffling things built by celebrity architects to a slew of obnoxious restaurants -- was unleashed upon the city. Suddenly, everything was pretty much the same, except now it was way more expensive. Yes, the city has some iconic cultural institutions and that beautiful lakefront. But look too far past the glittering Potemkin village at Chicago's center and you'll find yourself near or at the bottom of a sad pile of poor to average.

Instead, try Go to Detroit. It's more honest. Also, there's a great art museum, a proper public market, some of the country's best architecture, the music scene is fun, the food scene is better than it has been in ages and the beer is better and much cheaper. Everything's cheaper. Also: Detroiters are friendly -- Chicagoans are just polite. There's a big difference.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/David%...b_3030348.html

**TexasT** · April-09-13, 08:12 AM

Well, since I recently made that decision, I'd have to agree.

#1 is just funny to me, as a Texan. The "Houston vs. Austin" battle wages hard back home.

**illwill** · April-09-13, 08:30 AM

I have to agree with the author of the article. Chicago is FAR from being a world class city. It's a decent American city and I commend them for building on their strengths at the right times but it certainly has too many issues to be considered a world class city.

I've ALWAYS said S.E. Michiganders are very friendly people, especially compared to Chicagoan's. I see Chicago as a pig with lipstick. Until the pig is replaced with something nicer, Chicago will always be a pig. And many of us can see right through that.

**michimoby** · April-09-13, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Detroiters are friendly

I laughed.

**DetroitPlanner** · April-09-13, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by michimoby

I laughed.

"Hello Friend, please hand over your money else I will be forced to cap your @$$ and I certainly do not want to do that chum!"

**DetroitPlanner** · April-09-13, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by illwill

I see Chicago as a pig with lipstick. Until the pig is replaced with something nicer, Chicago will always be a pig. And many of us can see right through that.

It is after all the hog butcher to the world!

**TexasT** · April-09-13, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by michimoby

I laughed.

I find people friendly here. I don't think Chicago is rude at all, but I moved there comparing that to DC and NYC, so it's skewed. However, even from Chicago, I had to adjust when I moved here to Detroit. People I didn't know saying hi to me on the street, small talk in the elevators, things like that. I have found it way easier to make friends here and I actually know my neighbors. So I'd agree with iheartthed, based on my experience.

**TexasT** · April-09-13, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by illwill

I have to agree with the author of the article. Chicago is FAR from being a world class city. It's a decent American city and I commend them for building on their strengths at the right times but it certainly has too many issues to be considered a world class city.

I've mentioned it on DYes before, but the writer hit the nail on the head with Chicago's inferiority complex to other major cities, especially NYC. Chicago is a great American city and I loved living there, but it's too provincial to be considered "world class."

Him describing Austin as "a legend in its own mind" just made me chuckle. My Austinite friends are seething over this on my Texas-based board, lol.

**Bham1982** · April-09-13, 12:43 PM

I generally agree with his list. Chicago, Vancouver, Austin, SF, and Berlin are all overrated to me. SF I'm iffy on, but if we just look at the city, and not the Bay Area as a whole, I think I agree.

Not sure I always agree with his alternatives, but I think I have the same general city preferences.

**Mikie** · April-09-13, 01:46 PM

Finally a post on here that made me smile

**rb336** · April-09-13, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by TexasT

Him describing Austin as "a legend in its own mind" just made me chuckle. My Austinite friends are seething over this on my Texas-based board, lol.

In my experience, Texans are an odd breed. I enjoy San Antonio and Austin, Galveston has a bunch of lovely buildings when it's not underwater, but I have no use for Dallas or Houston. Combine Texas with equal helpings of Berkeley and Ann Arbor and you've got Austin. I'm still mad that they tore down Armadillo World Headquarters

**iheartthed** · April-09-13, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by TexasT

Chicago is a great American city and I loved living there, but it's too provincial to be considered "world class."

I've heard a few people [[usually foreigners) refer to Chicago as the most American city they've ever seen. It's probably the big city vision of generic America to non-Americans.

I don't quite put Chicago in that category of "world class" because its cultural offerings to the world have been pretty limited. It's never really set any type of global trend of its own. I know they claim to be the birthplace of the skyscraper, but who really associates skyscrapers to Chicago?

This is where Detroit trumps Chicago, IMO, and punches far above its weight. Detroit has produced quite a few "global movements" that are still closely identified with Detroit. It's hard to think of something from mainstream culture that screams "Chicago". If you could combine Detroit's history with Chicago's urban environment then you'd have something truly resembling a "world class" city.

**401don** · April-09-13, 02:16 PM

I like the comment about the difference between polite and friendly. It's that way here in Toronto [[unlike other parts of Canada). Everyone is quick with a thank you or sorry but don't ever try for a follow-up.

**TexasT** · April-09-13, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

In my experience, Texans are an odd breed. I enjoy San Antonio and Austin, Galveston has a bunch of lovely buildings when it's not underwater, but I have no use for Dallas or Houston. Combine Texas with equal helpings of Berkeley and Ann Arbor and you've got Austin. I'm still mad that they tore down Armadillo World Headquarters

Oh Austin is nowhere as liberal as Ann Arbor or Berkeley. Austin feels liberal because it is in Texas but it's closer to mainstream than outright liberal, although it has its pockets. And it's sprawly, unlike AA, which I find to be somewhat walkable. I like Austin enough and while I'd rate it highly, I do agree that it is overrated.

Houston is a tough one. It's got some great neighborhoods that are very far apart and its dining scene is criminally underrated. It's just so damn spread out that unless you go there knowing someone, you aren't going to enjoy it. Our saying was "Terrible to visit, great to live," although I left, so obviously I disagreed with the "great to live" part.

The "it's more diverse than NYC" line is misleading though. I bet it is, statistically, but the majority of its ethnics come from Mexico and Central America, and are completely unappreciated for their cultural diversity by the rest of Houston; does diversity count when you don't interact with the diverse? It's not like a Mexicantown or Little Italy or Chinatown or other ethnic enclave where you actually get to experience other cultures. Houston's ethnics hide in the shadows...

**Spartan** · April-09-13, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I've heard a few people [[usually foreigners) refer to Chicago as the most American city they've ever seen. It's probably the big city vision of generic America to non-Americans.

I don't quite put Chicago in that category of "world class" because its cultural offerings to the world have been pretty limited. It's never really set any type of global trend of its own. I know they claim to be the birthplace of the skyscraper, but who really associates skyscrapers to Chicago?

This is where Detroit trumps Chicago, IMO, and punches far above its weight. Detroit has produced quite a few "global movements" that are still closely identified with Detroit. It's hard to think of something from mainstream culture that screams "Chicago". If you could combine Detroit's history with Chicago's urban environment then you'd have something truly resembling a "world class" city.

Yeah, for as relatively small as Detroit is at this point, it sure can claim a lot in terms of contribution to the country and world. Chicago, I can't think of anything really, despite being one of the largest cities in the USA. I may just know more about Detroit though.

**michimoby** · April-09-13, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by 401don

I like the comment about the difference between polite and friendly. It's that way here in Toronto [[unlike other parts of Canada). Everyone is quick with a thank you or sorry but don't ever try for a follow-up.

This brings up an important distinction that the original article fails to address: Detroit is a small town, relatively speaking, compared to Chicago. It's natural that the pace of life in the D will be markedly slower.

However, the downside to that is the patriarchy that is encountered by outsiders moving to the city. The disdain that many [[not all) Detroiters have to newcomers is not a secret, and it's important to distinguish the difference between a good travel destination and a good place to live.

Shollin · April-09-13, 04:33 PM

The article blasts Chicago for lack of cultural activities, but does Detroit offer any more? What does Detroit have? The DIA? Lets include Henry Ford into the mix and you have two major cultural attractions. People are talking about Detroit in the past and Detroit did do more to shape the world than Chicago, but now I don't see many advantages. I've heard Chicago refered to as the city that works. I think that is fitting. Chicago is very American because it ranges from white collar executives downtown, to working poor families in the factories and rail yards, to the immigrants from many different countires, and everything in between. Chicago has grit and it has glam. It just seems like all the things mentioned in the article that are done in Detroit could be done in Chicago. Chicago has touristy areas but it also has real areas that don't get explored by outsiders.

**rb336** · April-09-13, 05:03 PM

I didn't see anywhere in the article where Landsel blasts Chicago for a lack of cultural activities. What he blasts Chicago for is for thinking it is New York's equal. It isn't even close. New York has more cultural institutions than Chicago, Detroit and LA combined. you can probably include Philly in that sum too. The Field is almost as good as the AMNH. The major art museums in Detroit and Chicago are pretty much the equal of each other, but last I checked, NY has FIVE major art museums. Theatre? Detroit IS Chicago's equal on that point, and both the DSO and CS are world-class orchestras. I prefer either to the NY Phil. For Opera, I will give Chicago the edge over NYC, inspite of the Met, because it has both the Lyric and COT. For dance, Chicago is home to my favorite dance company - Hubbard Street. Chicago is the greatest city in the midwest, but it is no New York, London, Paris or Vienna. It is just trying to price itself as if it was.

Shollin · April-09-13, 05:16 PM

What I don't get is Chicago gets knocked because it isn't New York, but neither is Detroit. Detroit has a large theater district, but what good are they when they're under used? The Fox and the Fisher can put on some good shows, but I don't see much quality stuff aside from the DSO. The Art Institute of Chicago is the second largest art museum in the country behind only New York. I really wouldn't say the DIA is the same. It seems lame not to go to Chicago because they think there New York.

**jaytheory** · April-09-13, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

What I don't get is Chicago gets knocked because it isn't New York, but neither is Detroit. Detroit has a large theater district, but what good are they when they're under used? The Fox and the Fisher can put on some good shows, but I don't see much quality stuff aside from the DSO. The Art Institute of Chicago is the second largest art museum in the country behind only New York. I really wouldn't say the DIA is the same. It seems lame not to go to Chicago because they think there New York.

last time i was in Chicago, I had a architectural tour guide who all but begged for my wife and to move to Chicago.. it was kinda lame

**michimoby** · April-09-13, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

What I don't get is Chicago gets knocked because it isn't New York, but neither is Detroit. Detroit has a large theater district, but what good are they when they're under used? The Fox and the Fisher can put on some good shows, but I don't see much quality stuff aside from the DSO.

It's also a shame that the three major institutions in Detroit - the DSO, DIA, and Opera House - have all recently been within a few shakes of shutting down or scaling back. Such a scenario occurring at MOMA or the Met would be unheard of.

**Bham1982** · April-09-13, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

What I don't get is Chicago gets knocked because it isn't New York, but neither is Detroit.

I get your point, but the fact is that Chicago is, on the whole, much closer to a Detroit or Cleveland than to a NYC or London.

I think his point is "if you want an interesting Midwest city, you can pick the delusional wanna-be with high prices, or the signficantly crappier though completely undiscovered one."

He isn't actually saying that Detroit is equal or better than Chicago. I don't think anyone could make that straight-faced argument. He's saying if you want a world class city, go to one. And there's none in the Midwest.

**Pam** · April-09-13, 06:51 PM

I don't quite put Chicago in that category of "world class" because its cultural offerings to the world have been pretty limited. It's never really set any type of global trend of its own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_blues

**downtownguy** · April-09-13, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by michimoby

The disdain that many [[not all) Detroiters have to newcomers is not a secret, and it's important to distinguish the difference between a good travel destination and a good place to live.

Well, it's a secret to me, and I've lived here my whole life. Do you ever read TexasT's posts? That's just one example, but maybe you could enlighten me to what you mean by this disdain we have to newcomers?

**Gistok** · April-09-13, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by michimoby

It's also a shame that the three major institutions in Detroit - the DSO, DIA, and Opera House - have all recently been within a few shakes of shutting down or scaling back. Such a scenario occurring at MOMA or the Met would be unheard of.

Of course not... New York State Council For The Arts gives out over 2,500 arts related grants each year. Detroit gets virtually nothing from the state anymore.

Plus we're still a 1 horse [[auto industry) town. So our institutions weathered the storm. Only the city funded Science Center went belly up... and is back for the rebound.