saracen721 - I find it interesting that the first post you have ever posted is to support xbt in this thread and to ask about the flight museum. You wouldn't by any chance be xbt using another name, would you?

You got it BellaireGirl, one and the same!

Hazelmn,

Thanks for clarifying your point. I still disagree with you, though... I maintain that Dallas is comparable to Chicago, althouth the Illinois city would be stronger in many , but not all areas. Comparing Dallas to Chicago is exactly what I am doing here.

So you like Tex-Mex? No... you can get that anywhere in Texas. Or in Ohio, for that matter. What is unique to Dallas is the many REGIONAL VARIETIES of Mexican food. Dallas' Mexico City-style restaurants are what ring my bell... also, Nuevo Leon style, Yucatan, Mayan, things like that, also go down well. Or maybe just going to a Mexican Supermercado at night and eating tacos made of beef tongue.

Barbecue? No, it's better in Memphis. Dallas dining has a more sophisticated palate than barbecue. Which is why restaurants like Il Molino or Nobu expand from New York to Dallas. Or how Dallas can generate chefs like Dean Fearing or Stephen Pyles, or even Avner Samuell.

Of course, Monica is good with her Mexico City cuisine, and I liked it even when she used to be Eduardo...

At this point in its history, Dallas is subordinate to New York and Los Angeles, in terms of influence, stature and cultural influence... it is not subordinate to Chicago in any sense.

To be quite honest, I think land locked in the deep south is quite refreshing during July.

To be quite honest, I think a hot, humid day in Chicago, with the sun dumping millions of gallons of humidity from the lake and into the air, is quite refreshing during July.

Except for the heat deaths from the brick tenements on the South Side.

Since the first post on this particular thread was addressed specifically to me, I will respond to that post -- without regard to having read what is in between it and here.
CAPH52 -- I agree with your characterization of Chicago suburbs as not really small towns. But they are the easiest to get to and they do still have a lot of small-town flavor. If this were the early 80's, I would characterize Morris and Ottawa, Illinois, as REAL small towns -- though their populations were in the thousands. However, even they are pretty much Chicago suburbs now, and they are not so easy to get to using the excellent Chicago land rail and transit system. When I moved to that area in the mid '80s and mentioned to a store clerk in Morris that I had lived in California, his reaction was similar to what I would have expected if I had mentioned living on the moon -- a place so far away (both in distance and culture) that he would never see it.
I do not even know if REAL small towns still exist anywhere. I grew up in a town of less than 200 people in a county of less than 20,000 and at least 70 miles from any real city. But when I go back there now (and it is still about the same size), I see little difference in style of living, culture or attitude from anywhere else in the country. Where are there any REAL small towns in the USA anymore?

b0_jack, to a large degree I agree with you. However, I still hold on to my contention that there's a big difference between suburbs and small, rural towns. The town where I grew up is still so much different than this area. Even tho' the population has swollen to a whopping 4100! And even tho' the majority of people in the area (farmers excluded, of course!)drive into St. Louis to work, about a 45 mile drive, it's still retained a definite small town feel. It's just been in the last five years or so that they got their first traffic light. Now they have two! But, obviously, traffic is non-existant compared to what we see here. There's one "supermarket" in town plus one or two small mom and pops. They have to drive 10 miles for WalMart and 30 plus miles to the nearest mall. I'm not sure whether the small theater in town still operates. If so, it's one screen. The nearest other movie theater is 15 or 20 miles. They may have two or three screens, I'm not sure. While they certainly do have access to all the same chain stores, restaurants, etc., that we do, it's not just a matter of hopping in the car and driving down the street as it is for us. And as for attitude, there's that factor of everybody knowing everybody else that you just don't get in a larger place. My daughter gets such a kick out of the fact that everyone there seems to be "connected". Either they're related by blood or marriage or one person's sister is the other person's sister's best friend, etc. One way or another, they have something in common. And that just leads to a different "feel", the whole small town thing.

Wanted to jump in on this post as soon as I saw the title. Being a Texas native, I need to stand up for my state. Dallas is a great city, and a nice regional destination. I've travelled extensively, and I'd put it in a league with San Diego, Seattle, Atlanta, or Boston as far as attractions.

Chicago it is not, so comparing the two head-to-head is a little crazy. But, I bet it is a warmer place to visit this time of year :)

Have a splendid time in Chicago, but stop by and see Dallas sometime too. You'll enjoy it.

Londonengland's coming in May so it won't matter to him...but it's been pretty frickin' cold the last couple days here in Chicago (I refused to leave the house yesterday). Of course we just had a high of 60 plus degrees last Thursday. So yeah, I wouldn't say weather's a strongpoint of Chicago, but I don't think people in Dallas can say much different on that point.

Hi, Traveldiva,

Today was a bit chilly, high 30s or so, but the last couple of days were beautiful, high 50s, with just wispy clouds, little wind, and a strong sunshine to warm you... the days before were in the 70's... although we had one day that was super high windy...

In my case that was a bit of bad luck. I pitched my tent at the Cedat Hills state park campsite, and expected it to be OK... when I went back the next day, my tent was wrapped around the lantern post, and both fiberglass poles were broken...

This is the first time I have ever heard somebody allege that Chicago is not in the same class as New York or LA. Chicago is absolutely NOT just a regional city.

Second, there is not only a cockpit, but an entire passenger jet hanging in the Museum of Science and industry, open for touring.

As for all the varieties of Mexican restaurants in Dallas, Chicago has the second largest Mexican population in the country after LA. So I think you would be pretty happy with the Mexican food available here. Believe me, there are no shortage of Supermercados where you can enjoy a lengua taco.

Also three out of four of our sports stadiums are new, and the fourth, Wrigley Field, is a national institution.

As for everything in Dallas being newer, doesn't that just prove the point that Chicago is more of a real city, with an incredible variety of neighborhoods and depth of history.

And yes, it's been near zero all weekend, but the sun was out, which made for a beautiful day.

I just thought of a way to end this argument once and for all. Check out how many guide books are available for Chicago versus for Dallas.

For Chicago there is Fodor's, Frommer's, Dummies, Lonely Planet, Eyewitness, Zagat's, Unofficial, and many more.

How many for Dallas. Well, there's City Smart and Zagat's each last published in 2000.

Amazing how much more there is to write about in Chicago when it's only a regional city comparable to Dallas.

Even Houston, San Antonio and Austin have Frommer's guides available.

Please don't encourage xbt. Long after whatever point he/she has was made, xbt will keep arguing the merits of Dallas.

I believe they call it a filibuster technique on Capital Hill. Quantity over quality.

xbt - I was trying to give Dallas some credit with the whole Sammy's/BBQ thing, and you shot me down to make a point of how the BBQ isn't so great, it is the more refined things that Dallas excels at. I'm trying to help your cause, bud, but you aren't letting me!

Hazelmn, I think that Sonny Bryan's barbecue would be a better example of the cusine than Sammy's. No wonder you're so ambivilent.

Flamingo, I don't know where you get your numbers. But I can understand that Chicago may have a large Mexican population... I did notice that the Chicago Tribune has a separate restaurant category for tacos... so...? When do you build a Latino cultural center?

You have a passenger jet in the museum? It would be better if it were sliced into pieces like the Dallas example, so people could observe the innards.

So... your sports stadiums are also new? ... just like the state of the art Dallas ones? ... golly, you guys are really up to date... good for you.

Do you realize that you are now trying to defend your city against a smaller upstart? Actually, it's fitting. Dallas is the lean and hungry competitor that is challenging Chicago... but don't worry... America is big enough for the two of us, or 3 or 4 if you include Houston and Atlanta as potential Chicagos...

The number of guidebooks that reference Chicago versus Dallas? I've run across more than the couple you've mentioned, but let's see how quickly that number improves as time goes by, and Dallas gets bigger and more influential.

Chicago as comparable to LA and New York? Sorry, bub, I don't think so. When your city has 25 million people, sets national fashion trends, and dominates the American economy, maybe so, but that's not where it is today. I consider Chicago as a "regional" cener mostly because its influence is basically the upper midwest... your city has, believe me, no realistic impact on the economy and cultural society of Texas.

Flamingo, if you want to believe Chicago is a wonderful place, a superb city, the garden spot of the universe, I have no argument to prove you wrong... knock yourself out with joy. As for me, I prefer the Big D. When Dallas passes Chicago by, I'll wave hello...

I live in Dallas and have absolutely no idea why anyone in their right mind would want to visit as a tourist. Fort Worth? Maybe. Dallas? Absolutely not. It's a giant strip mall full of tired chains. Oh, and concrete freeways.

I don't know what the point is in comparing these everyday, normal amenities has to do with some attempt to compare these two cities. All anyone is doing by doing the checklists, sinde by side, is that nearly EVERY city has these things. It just makes both cities look generic.

Now, I have been to both cities but have no personal attachment to either. Maybe there will come a day when Dallas is a major contender as a tourist draw, but today is not that day. Yes, it has the same sort of prefectly nice things many, many places have. But new and sleek and modern isn't the same kind of draw that historic is. Think about it - new and modern is always surpassed by more new.. and more modern. The next ball park will be newer and more modern and cooler. How do you build a more historic ballpark? You can't, it's unique. Like an attraction, a city has to do more than declare itself the best, it has to earn that reputation over time. It requires the agreement of those it seeks to convince (the tourist market in this case) and does not get to decide this on it's own. Perception <i>does</i> matter.

I'll give you an example. My wife and I were just deciding where to go for a long weekend, and stay in the US, which we rarely do. At first we ruled out NYC, for expense reasons. I have to say, after NYC, the choices we would have made as reasonably average tourists were:

San Francisco, Chicago, Santa Fe, Boston, Miami, N. Carolina, Seattle, New Orleans, D.C., Phoenix area, Los Angeles, Las Vegas.

Dallas never even popped into my head as a possibility, although I've been there a few times. I still can't think of anything I really want to see there, that they don't have anywhere else. Not to say that others won't, but just that I can think of dozens of things I'd like to get back to Chicago to do.

As I said, perception of others matters. They are the tourists, which is nothing like being a resident. When a tourist thinks of Chicago or Dallas, they are very likely to ask themselves this question:

I have always heard of and wanted to see ___________________________ because it's world famous.

Honest, unbiased things I can put in that space for Chicago: Wrigley Field; Frank Lloyd Wright architecture; American Gothic; the biggest AND best collection in the US of impressionist painters; the tallest building in the US; a great inland sea that I can't see across; the EL; more than 12 tall buildings in a cluster constituting a downtown (in fairness, this describes most downtowns).

When I do the same for Dallas, I come up with the Book Depository building and the museum. Everything else I know about Dallas or can every research about Dallas over the last couple of days seems very, very nice. I mean, it really does. But it all seems very &quot;me too&quot;, sat down on the broad flats of Texas. I swear, I don't mean that as an insult, and I'm sure you can tell me a dozen ways that I'm short-sighted, but there it is. One tourist's take on things.

Fort Worth is pretty cool though. I think &quot;ah, the stockyards..&quot; and my city doesn't have anything like that, so it's interesting.

Exactly. I've always heard that between the two, Ft. Worth has a lot more culture and visitor amenities than Dallas. Dallas is really just a business center, like Frankfurt, Germany. How often do you hear of Frankfurt mentioned as a must see destination in Europe. It's supposed to be a perfectly nice city, and there's a few attractions, but it doesn't exactly leap out at you.

FlamingoMonkey,

First of all, I don't really want to dump on your city... it's a good example of what a big town can offer. It is actually a model of where other up-and-coming cities will be developing to. Many people I talk to in Dallas really admire Chicago and enjoy it when they go there.

Aaahhhh tourism in Dallas. The Dallas area gets about 12 to 13 million visitors a year, about 7-8 million for &quot;personal&quot;, not business-related reasons. Tourism, visit people, weekend in a big city, shopping, that sort of thing. It is one of the top 5 cities for restaurants, as defined by the Mobil Travel Guide, one of the top cities in America for attendance at foreign/independent films, contains almost a thousand cabarets, night clubs, etc. It is the number one visitor destination in Texas, a little more popular that the resort cities of San Antonio and Corpus Christi. Next to Houston, people in Dallas eat in restaurants more often than in any other American city. In the 2000 census, it accumulated more people than any other city, except for New York and Los Angeles... people want to live there.

Flamingo, &quot;what you heard&quot; about the distribution of culture in the Metroplex is pretty bizzare, and not particularly real. Fort Worth is just one municipality out of 100 in the Dallas area, and certainly does not have most of the museums, traveling shows and performances, art galleries, cabarets, restaurants, symphomic performances, jazz clubs, art film houses, etc, in the Dallas area. The vast majority of those things are in Dallas county.

For example, Mobil lists 184 restaurants in Dallas with at least one star. It lists 17 in Fort Worth. Incidentally, it lists 219 in Chicago.

Dallas and Collin Counties contain 4 large art film houses with a total of 21 screens. Fort Worth has none at all.

Offhand, I can think of 6 mjor art museums in Dallas-Collin counties, with another 4 or 5 exhibition spaces. Fort Worth has 3 large museums, and one small exhibition space.

The Fort Worth symphony performs one weekend per month, in a hall used by other organizations. The Dallas Symphony plays 52 weeks per year, several performances each week, in its own concert hall.

Fort Worth certainly adds to the allure of the DFW area, but it does not contain most of its cultural life.

Clifton, I can't speak for your tastes in cities, and many people, in my experience, disagree with it... but it seems irrational to me.

What is the difference between the view of Lake Michigan and any other ocean or sea? Why does a view have to be from the tallest building in the world for you to enjoy it? Why do you dismiss the best private collection of sculpture in the world (Nasher museum in Dallas), and value an impressionist collection? Why do you like the cows in Chicago and ignore the Pegasus statues in Dallas?

If you can't appreciate the many things Dallas has put together, the problem is your attitude, not Dallas, or its many attractions. Of course, Dallas does not have a problem with your ambivalence. Why should it care about you? It is a very succesful city, in the people it attracts for short-term visits and as permanent residents.

xbt, there is no doubt that there's much room for a variety of tastes, and certainly no one can prove or disprove that someone's taste is correct or incorrect.

All any of us can do, while chatting here about travel and the reasons behind our choices is to try to explain our own reason behind those choices. What we saw, what we didn't, and how we felt those experiences compared to other places we've actually been. But all of this likely says as much about us, as it does about the places we've been.

I remember being bowled over by a comment someone made once on here that Las Vegas was better than Europe because it had a Paris and a Bellagio and a Venice, but they were all nice, new and clean. And me, I didn't follow that logic either, but if nice, new and clean are the priorities for that person, then how can you argue, right?

Enjoy.

Clifton,

After I sent my last post, I was thinking that I had been unnecessarily sharp with you. On the other hand, I remember once telling a girl I just plain didn't like her, no reason really... she slapped my face. There is really no reason to divulge an uncomplimentary personal taste.

Yes, there is no arguing with taste. But that is one reason why it is immaterial and not worthy of discussion. Now if you had some specific information, or commentary, about either Chicago or Dallas, that would be appropriate to share.

You see, your personal preferences are really not interesting, or valuable to any one else. If you, for example, visited 500 nightclubs in Dallas, and didn't find one you liked, do you honestly believe that everyone else will have the same experience... or that anyone will?

The specific things that you mentioned liking in Chicago... well, they're not likely to interest anyone in California. In San Francisco, they'd probably laugh... don't feel upset, they don't like Dallas either. But the point is, your likes and dislikes are meaningless to others.

I advise people with specific and meaningful bits of info... like what to do on a 12 hour layover in Dallas between Sao Paulo and London.

So you are attracted to the traditions of Wrigley Field, but not the traditions of the Cotton Bowl in Dallas? I think the vast majority of the traveling public are indifferent to the traditions of both of them. Myself included.

Bottom line... nobody is really interested in your tastes and preferences.

As I recall, the orignal thread from which this one was derived was specifically asking for advice on which one of these cities would we recommend. Why would I take offense? I don't live in either of these cities and frankly, both have more to offer than my own hometown, or my adopted hometown. I have no interest in insulting Dallas. It's a perfectly fine town. There's nothing uncomplimentary in this, nor is saying that I enjoyed other places more have anything to do with you.

Every single post on this board is about personal preferences, as are yours. There are posts where the originator knows what they want and just need help in the details. Then there are posts asking for feedback, based on opinion, as the original did. Bottom line: Learn to tell the difference and try not to take things so personally.

Clifton – I’m with you. The bottom line for me, when traveling, is what kind of experience I have when I go somewhere. How much does it stimulate me? Is there something about the place, something unique, that makes me want to go back as soon as I get home.

Xbt is obviously yanking your chain, because to suggest that the majority of the traveling public are “indifferent to the traditions of Wrigley Field” is asinine. Within the past year, I’ve been to ballgames in NYC, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Minneapolis, Anaheim, and Cleveland. I have to say that Wrigley is a unique experience. So is Yankee Stadium. As for the others, they are a dime a dozen. Nice bathrooms at the Ballpark in Arlington, but that is not a reason I’d make a special trip back.

In my experiences, Chicago is about taking the El to Michigan Ave, getting off and going down to the Billy Goat Tavern. Old, dirty, but true Chicago. Have a burger and a beer, and walk the shops until you get to Gino’s Pizza. Sit down and enjoy an authentic Chicago deep-dish, and then make your way to Wrigley. Scalp a ticket for the Cubbies game, enjoy a sunny afternoon with 20,000 others, and be part of the energy. For the nightcap, go to the lakefront and watch the sun bounce off the boats as it sets. That is Chicago.

In my experiences, Dallas is about going to the uptown area and walking the shops near McKinney and Lemmon. Then you go to Sammy’s or Peggy Sue’s and have a great BBQ. Hop in your car and go to the depository. The exhibit changes periodically and is usually very done well. Then you drive to the Nasher museum, enjoy the art, and finish your day with a burger at the Angry Dog.

Both are fun, but Chicago just has much more energy, more life, more of that intangible that makes you want to go back. Xbt will challenge me on this, but Chicago is a world-class city, and Dallas is not. Here are my rankings, based solely on the Hazelmn Experiential Index (HEI) – american cities only

World-Class: NYC, San Fran, Chicago, DC, LA
Very good: Boston, Seattle, San Diego
Worth a trip: Denver, Dallas, Portland, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Atlanta, Charleston, SLC, Philly, Pittsburgh, San Antonio

What baffles me, is why does anyone even care about the opinion someone has of Chicago when that person has never even visited the city? Claiming to have an opinion about visiting a place you've only read about is moronic. You might be able to gage whether or not you'd like to visit, but unless you experience the place firsthand you can't credibly debate those who have.

I've never been to New York City. Want to know what I think about it? Of course not!!

As a sailor, pulling into Chicago harbour, calling for a water taxi and going ashore is wonderful. Once back on your boat just sitting with a nightcap on deck while the whole city is lighted before you just can't be beat. And the next morning, coffee on deck while the city comes to life is just plain inspiring! We spent a weekend in Dallas and had a nice time but have no desire to go back. On the other hand we spend a couple weekends a year in Chicago and never tire of it!

CD, Chicago apparently has some specific experiences that are meaningful to you. And both Chicago and Dallas have a very different set of experiences... others are likely do have a different set of favorite experiences, however.

Hazelmn, You need to go to California and listen to their opinion of the Cubs and Wrigley Field... if you don't mind a lot of blank stares and hoots of derision. The Chicago evening you described is no different than you could get anywhere else... just substitute some names with somee different ones, and you're talking about Baltimore, Denver, San Francisco, or yes, Dallas. It's not inconceivable that an individual can fall in love with a city, which seems to be your current situation. By the way, your favorite jaunt thru uptown Dallas is pretty tepid to me, too, assuming you could walk from the West Village in Uptown to Peggy Sue in Snyder Plaza. I have a different set of favorite experiences.

People throw out that expression... &quot;World-Class&quot;. It's so much nonsense, there's no such thing as &quot;world-class&quot;. But let me suggest that more people around the world have heard of Dallas than have heard of Chicago.

Snowrooster, how would I develop an opinion about the Chicago restaurant scene? By flying there and walking up and down every road in the city?

No... I base my judgments on data and evidence, both of which are available in stupendous quantities. True, I wouldn't know if I liked the place unless I visited, but that's not as important as knowledge and judgment.

To everyone... you are just a handful of respondents out of the hundreds of thousands who read this forum. You should not imagine that the views you have expressed are representative of the traveling public... you are just a few people who happen to like Chicago and want to defend against big, bad XBT.

But let me suggest that more people around the world have heard of Dallas than have heard of Chicago.

Hehehe, that is a very interesting assertion there.

I refuse to comment too much on the this thread other than I find it quite an amusing read (being a life long Chicagoan I'm sure my opinions would be taken with more than a grain of salt anyway ;)

I'm sure the London traveler at this point has probably re-booked his trip by now to Brazil or Canada being thoroughly conviced at this point that all us Yanks are completely mad.

Vittrad, I haven't seen your name before... welcome to the discussion. are you ready for an education???

Two reasons I can think of why Dallas is more widely known in the world than Chicago...

First, the Dallas Cowboys overstocked on souvenir jerseys during the 80's and dumped them in various third world countries. You go to a village in the middle of nowhere and a couple of people are wearing something that says &quot;Dallas&quot;.

Another... in every tiny hamlet in much of the third world, there is a TV show from the 1980's still running, engripping the peasants with tales of every base human behavior, from the diabolical JR. Do you know that overseas visitors to Dallas still tour the Ewing ranchhouse?

I suppose that a third reason, if we needed one, is the still gripping saga of &quot;Who Killed JFK&quot;. It's a mystery to us all... not who did it, but why the event still remains a draw, after all these years.

I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. From the 2000 Census, Chicago (Cook County) has only the third largest Mexican population in the country, only slightly behind Harris County and is tied for the third largest Hispanic population overall.

&quot;There were 4.2 million Hispanics in Los Angeles County, California, 1.3 million in Miami-Dade County, Florida, 1.1 million in Harris County, Texas, and 1.1 million in Cook County, Illinois.&quot;

&quot;Hispanic origin groups were concentrated in different counties. The largest Mexican populations lived in counties that had large Hispanic populations, including Los Angeles County, California (3.0 million), Harris County, Texas (815,000), and Cook County, Illinois (786,000). &quot;

Also, I really think there are few people still interested in Dallas the tv show. And I see more people in third world countries with Bulls jersey's than for any other team, for any sport. While JFK still interests people, I doubt it generates much enthusiasm for the city of Dallas.

You obviously don't need to walk every street or eat at every restaurant to get a feel for a city. However there is a reason it is called first-hand knowledge . . .

I'm refering to reports from third world countries I see on the news. I haven't actually been to a third world country yet, not even Texas.

I apologize, that last line was uncalled for.

I've never been to any third world countries either. I have however been to small towns in Brazil and Russia and everyone seemed to know exactly where I was from ;)

Oh... and yeah, you did see me, made a comment or two on the first thread and had intended to stay off this one, but it has just gotten so absurd I just had to jump into the fray again for amusements sake.

I live in Europe. The show ER, which is set in Chicago, is FAR more widely seen these days than Dallas. We can get it on British, French, Belgian, Dutch and German stations--in prime time. I caught an episode tonight. Can't remember the last time an episode of Dallas was on. Talk about living in the past!
And, yes, you will see more people in Bulls t-shirts, etc., than in Dallas Cowboys stuff. Actually, what you see most of are NY Yankees caps, probably because they're seen on so many music videos.

Xbt2316 seems extraordinarily obsessed with size. Hmmm.

I can't think of a single category where the quality of life in Dallas would beat Chicago. Or the quality of its tourist attractions. A fine private sculpture museum is hardly the thing to draw someone to fly thousands of miles from Europe--there are a few nice bits of sculpture scattered about Europe, you know.

I would give Chicago the nod even on weather. First of all, there are people who LIKE four seasons. Who like snow.
Moreover, Chicago simply has the &quot;it&quot; factor that Dallas can only long to achieve. The vibe in Chicago wins hands down over the vibe in Dalls. Xbt2316, your die-hard boosterism is admirable, but it still flies in the face of reality.

Between the two cities, Chicago is the big, cool alpha dog, while Dallas is the yapping upstart, hoping that if he makes enough noise, the tourist pack will overlook his secondary status. As the poet wrote, &quot;the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.&quot; In this case, it moves straight to Chicago!

My other post from today, the Top 3 US Cities as a Visitor, has had good response. Lots of people mentioning Chicago. Not a one mentioning Dallas. Hmmmm. maybe we are a good representation of the people who come to this board.

Maybe the better discussion is &quot;Detroit or Dallas&quot;

Hazelmn, your thread on top 3 cities is interesting, but flawed... its a list of stereotypes... no one offers any reasons, no rationale for what they claim... be that as it may, I have always agreed that Chicago has more visitor appeal than Dallas, due to its size... my personal list of top 3 cities would be New York, San Francisco and Washington/Baltimore. Chicago and Dallas are not in the top 3.

Dallas more widely known in the third world than Chicago? I think that issue drew blood. Although wherever I've been in the world, everyone has heard of Dallas.

Btike, you said you &quot;... can't think of a single category where the quality of life in Dallas would beat Chicago.&quot; Actually, I can.

The cost of living vs wages is better in Dallas, and people in Dallas spend more money on restaurants, eat out more often in Dallas than Chicago, thus creating a better, cheaper, less competitive restaurant scene.

Housing is far cheaper, and more plentiful in Dallas than in Chicago, especially compared to average wages. This means that a visitor can expect better hotel space for the money in Dallas than in Chicago.

The sports facilities in Dallas are better and newer than Chicago's. The American Airlines Center, for example, is the most expensive stadium in the United States, and the new $600 million Cowboys stadium will also be the best of its kind. The Dr Pepper Ballpark in Frisco is a newer state of the art minor league ballpark, surpassing anything in Chicago. The new Dallas soccer field... likewise.

The Dallas art film houses are new, state-of-the-art, contain more screens and more variety of films, than the obsolescent Chicago houses built in the 1950s and 1970s.

The physical infrastructure of Uptown Dallas, its urban core, is far better than Chicago's inner city... the buildings are newer, better, cleaner.

Dallas had a 29% growth rate in the 2000 census, compared to Chicago's 11%. That is a direct reflection on the perceived desirability and value of Dallas compared to Chicago.

So what if housing is cheaper? Actually, that tells you housing is more desirable in Chicago, since people are willing to pay more to live there. By your standards, because housing is cheaper in Detroit than in Paris (France, not Texas), then Detroit is a better city to live in or for tourists to visit than Paris.

As for people in Dallas eating out more, perhaps they just don't know how to cook. Anyway, that factoid is useless--droves of people eating at McDonald's or TGIF, well that's eating out, but it doesn't mean a town has a better restaurant scene. Tells you nothing about the quality of restaurants.
You seem to think new is always better than old and that size is all that counts. Is that a typical Dallas mentality?
Maybe Dallas is slightly cleaner (I didn't think so), but it's also blander.
So far, you haven't been able to convince ONE poster here that Dallas would be a better place to visit than Chicago. Everyone else has figured out that in terms of proving the superiority of Dallas over Chicago as a tourist destination, you're all hat and no cattle. But keep trying. Your futile huffing and puffing is vastly entertaining.

Have to chime in here on xbt2316. You admit that you have never been to chicago so your point is moot, you are NOT QUALIFIED to offer an opinion! As a visitor only to both cities there is no comparison. You could not pay me to take a vacation in Dallas, whereas I cannot wait to get back to Chicago. Chicago is a world class city whereas Dallas is not. It appears from the responses in this thread that you are the only person alive that thinks the way you do, perhaps a reality check is in order.

Yuma, AZ, grew at nearly 50% from 1990-2000. Must be a better place to live and work than Dallas.

BTilke,

Chicago's high cost, low value, of housing is stunting its growth. People really don't want to pay more to live there, they're forced to, or they leave. That's why the city only grew 11% by 2000, whereas Dallas grew by 31%. Dallas is so cheap because it builds infinitely more center-city housing than Chicago, and the Illinois city has too many people competing for a limited supply. This artificially inflates prices in Chicago, distorting its economy. What this means to the visitor is that Dallas hotels are cheaper, amenity by amenity, than the Chicago counterpart. A 3 star Dallas hotel is cheaper than a Chicago 3 star, a 4 star, etc.

Dallas' restaurant scene is close in value to Chicago's. My favorite statistic is the Mobil star system. They apply uniform national standards to rate restaurants in each city, so it's a fair test. Mobil lists 184 restaurants in Dallas with at least one star. It lists 17 in Fort Worth, for a total of 204. It lists 219 in Chicago.

You said &quot;So far, you haven't been able to convince ONE poster here that Dallas would be a better place to visit than Chicago...&quot;. BTilke, you don't read my posts. I agree that Chicago is larger, and has more to do. My real contention is that the difference is smaller than many people realize, or in many cases doesn't matter. Dallas has so many things to do, that a limited time in either city would be very active and interesting.

Gmoney,

you wrote &quot;You admit that you have never been to chicago so your point is moot, you are NOT QUALIFIED to offer an opinion!&quot;.

Yes, I can develop an opinion just by reading, researching, discussing specifics with people on threads like this. Something like that is what I do for a living. What I have read so far is that Chicago is larger, has more to do, but is not up to the appeal of a Las Vegas, a Los Angeles, Washington-Baltimore, a San Francisco, a New York, or several of the European and Asian cities I've visited. It is essentially an overgrown, slow growth version of Dallas.

Sorry you don't like the idea of visiting Dallas, but millions of people do visit Dallas, so I think the city can get along without you. You may choose to believe that Chicago-loving-Dallas-hating people likke yourself are somehow more &quot;enlightened&quot; than the millions of people who visit the Texas city.

Correction... 184 restaurants in Dallas plus 17 in Fort Worth come up to 201, not 204.

Hazelman, Chicago should be growing faster than 11%, if it's as wonderful as you say. Its slow growth, in comparison to sunbelt cities like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, indicates there is something wrong with the place.