One more thing to add to Chicago, pre-Broadway full cast previews. Aida, The Producers, Spamalot and All Shook Up have a previewed here with their full Broadway casts, not just touring companies...

I'm enjoying the debate - To answer TravelDiva and Vittrad's questions I'm still reading and learning and certainly don't think you're all nuts.

I don't think Chicago sells itself well enough to a European (or perhaps worldwide) audience. It's true that we do look at Dallas through rose tinted spectacles because of the enormous popularity of the TV soap in the 1980s and also because Texas has a much stronger identity worldwide than Illinois does.

Yes I am booking to come along to Chicago and looking forward to it.

London, glad you haven't been put off by this lively debate! It's all in good fun. Enjoy your trip as our fair city is lovely that time of year!

Very good, I'm glad you are still coming, you'll be pleasantly surprised (as a lot of people are) I'm sure.

LondonEngland,

I was interested in your comment about the "Rose-Colored" image you in Europe have of Dallas. What I have found is that people in Europe have very little factual, realistic knowledge of the Texas city. On a tour bus in Munich, the tour guide asked everyone to state the size of his/her city. When I answered that the US Census counted over 5 millions in Greater Dallas in 2000, the woman was visibly stunned... the German tourists from Cologne thoutht I was mouthing absurdities...

I think that the same is true of Chicago people. They do not have a lot of hard information about the Texas cities... and also, they do not seem particularly articulate when they try to defend their city against a smaller one. They have an enormous self-image of their city, more a matter of civic pride than statistics.

If you say that Chicago does not project itself well in the rest of the world, I think you can see that in this thread.

Of course I do not contradict the general opinion that Chicago is larger in population and has more to see and do... I'm sure that you will enjoy your holiday there.

Well, being that I've been to several Texas cities, I'm pretty sure that I know the difference in feeling and culture between said cities and my own (please note I am not making a value judgement here least one be tempted to read that into my statement). Something that I would have NEVER gotten simply by reading a guidebook.

But statistics are empty numbers and meaningless without careful interpretation. Anyone can throw raw data about and try to snow casual listeners (believe me, it's done every day) and then say "but they're STATISTICS!" But it's still so much drivel.

For example, growth rates really don't have much to do with a city's worth as a vacation destination. I dare say Paris isn't adding citizens at the rate of, say, Phoenix. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think Paris might have a little bit more to offer. Chicago's slower growth is typical of an older city, and I would argue that managed growth is much preferable to the unchecked sprawl of Houston, Dallas, suburban Phoenix, or, dare I say it, parts of southern California (the Irvine-ization of Orange County is ruining the last of the undeveloped sections).

A lot of people DO travel to Dallas, that is true. A huge number are forced to fly through DFW, for one thing (thanks, American Airlines). Business travel takes a lot of people into town as well. Tourists...? Nowhere near as many as go to Chicago. And with good reason: Much, much, much more to do, and much more a real city, with a vibrant and unbeatable downtown area.

rjw_lgb_ca,

I'll agree with you that growth rates have nothing to do with tourism... I think the thread got sidetracked on the question of prices in Chicago vs Dallas. Someone argued that high Chicago prices were acceptable to people because of the city's greater value, and I argued that, on the contrary, high prices were stunting Chicago's growth, as people fled to more affordable and higher-value cities, both for tourism and residence.

Does Chicago have more tourists than Dallas? I'd assume it does. For one thing, i's better known. For another, there's nowhere else to go in the upper Midwest. And finally, it is larger and has more attractions than Dallas.

Still and all, Dallas does have millions of visitors per year, most of them non-business related, according to our marketing survys. About 60 million fly through the DFW airport, about 13 million visit the city, and about 7 million visit for non-business reasons. That is an enormous number of visitors, important in itself, without regard to Chiicago's numbers. The Dallas area has some pull.

My contention is that the only real differences between Chicago and Dallas are (1) size, and (2) a larger number of attractions in Chicago. Other than that, the cities are similar.

Comparing Dallas to cities like Los Angeles, New York, Washington-Baltimore, Las Vegas, Orlando... the differences are not merely a matter of size but of class. Dallas is a smaller Chicago, but not a smaller LA or New York. Dallas has more or less what Chicago has, except in smaller quantities, but LA and New York and Washington have things that Dallas does not.

For a 3 day visit, Dallas and Chicago will both saturate a visitor with places to go and things to do. If Dallas has 900 nightclubs, and Chicago has 1200, there is little practical advantage for Chicago's larger number. Same with restaurants, concerts, shows, museums, etc. If a visitor were going to spend a month, Chicago's greater numbers become an advantage.

"My contention is that the only real differences between Chicago and Dallas are (1) size, and (2) a larger number of attractions in Chicago. Other than that, the cities are similar."

So, tell me where in Dallas I can see pre-Broadway productions with the full broadway cast (not the touring company)?

Somebody quick! Throw a life preserver into rjw and get him out of that murk!

rj! Save yourself! Save yourself!

Vittrad,

I saw one at the Majestic Theatre a while back.

I don't like them, however. I prefer to see a show after they work out the kinks, perfect the book, fix the sound, etc.

hehe, okay fair enough, I prefer seeing mine with top notch actors. Spontaneity, good acting, excitement are more important than sterility and predictability.

And where, downtown, can I anchor my boat?

The Trinity River. There are places that will rent you a canoe.

Oh Go, you're so sweet to try and save me! But the specious arguments being thrown about and called "facts backed up by statistics" are so absurd and laughable that they need to be shot down quickly and vigorously!

And who but someone who REALLY hasn't traveled anywhere outside their state (maybe their immediate metro area) would say something as patently ridiculous as this:

"My contention is that the only real differences between Chicago and Dallas are (1) size, and (2) a larger number of attractions in Chicago. Other than that, the cities are similar."

Believe me, you drop me in the middle of downtown Chicago, then in the middle of downtown Dallas-- I'll know the difference. The one where the streets aren't largely deserted, the one where every corner has something great to see and do, the one with that energizing jolt of creative energy and drive and connection and FUN-- that's Chicago.

And where, near downtown Chicago, pray tell, can I hike through an old-growth virgin forest?

There are parts of downtown San Francisco, Washington DC, Chicago, Manhattan, Dallas, etc, where the streets are deserted at night.

There are parts of downtown San Francisco, Washington DC, Chicago, Manhattan, Dallas, etc, where the streets are bright, lively, full of pedestrian traffic.

Old growth forests...? According to this website, you're not likely to find such areas near Chicago OR Dallas:

http://gorp.away.com/gorp/activity/w..._oldgrowth.htm

And I'm still floored by any contention that Chicago and Dallas are even remotely similar. Well, other than American Airlines maintaining each as a hub city. Chicago is a world-class center of finance, international commerce and culture, and has been for many, many generations. It is indeed on a par with New York and Boston and Washington. Comparisons with Los Angeles are futile, as LA is its own odd animal, as important as these world-class cities but in many ways completely unique. Dallas-- well, let's just say it's not playing in the same league as any of these destinations. And it probably doesn't need to.

No,no,no XBT, Not a canoe, but a boat with staterooms, galley,bath, nav room, etc. You know, a place to visit for a weekend and NOT need a hotel?

yeah, but a canoe is better, just like touring companies of broadway productions are better than the principle cast.

......Old growth forests...? According to this website, you're not likely to find such areas near Chicago OR Dallas:.........

Actually, you're mistaken. Dallas has something called the "Old Trinity Forest" a few miles southeast of its downtown. The city is embarking on a multiBillion dollar river project that will, among other things, develop the forest into a major recreational resource.



Chicago is a world-class center of finance, international commerce and culture, and has been for many, many generations. It is indeed on a par with New York and Boston and Washington.

Boston, maybe, but I'd hardly equate Chicago to New York. The big Apple is so far ahead of Chicago culturally and financially, the Illinois city is like a pimple on the butt of Kink Kong.

It does not have the national clout of a city like Washington, nor the cultural reach of a city like Los Angeles. Museums, for example. I wouldn't expect something like the Smithsonian collection of museums in a place like Chicago... or Dallas, for that matter...

Chicago may have economic and financial relationships in other countries, but so does Dallas. Its industries are heavily invested in Europe and Asia, and it is extending its commercial influence heavily into Mexico, Central and South America.

CD, Dallas and Chicago are different in the case of water access. Dallas has a multitude of yachts on its dozen or so inland-sea lakes, and the local people enjoy it immensely. As to which is inherently "better", that's a matter of taste.

"Dallas has a multitude of yachts on its dozen or so inland-sea lakes, and the local people enjoy it immensely."
I think the operative word here is "local". I'm talking "visitor", being able to sail in from another state and enjoy the weekend.

Think of what could be accomplished if all of this energy was put towards the common good?!

This has been going on for days!!

"and also, they do not seem particularly articulate when they try to defend their city against a smaller one. They have an enormous self-image of their city, more a matter of civic pride than statistics." Excuse me, did someone say something about the pot and the kettle? Seems to me the Chicago defenders, many of whom are not residents but former visitors, have done a much better, more logical job of describing Chicago's many attractions than has the one lone Dallas supporter.

CD,

People who visit Chicago or Dallas are going to fly in, drive, Greyhound it, take a train, etc. The number of people who boat in is insignificant. Just as the number of people who visit Dallas on horseback or canoe is insignificant. And meaningless.

Although, it is certainly possible to sail a small yacht up the Trinity River to Dallas.

CAPH52,

This thread is composed of me, a critic of Chicago's hubris, and Chicago lovers and natives who want to express their love of the place. People who are indifferent to the supposed charms of Chicago don't bother with it. And they comprise 99.99999% of the population. Since you're one of the Chicago faithful, your opinion might be construed as self-delusion.