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... "World-Class". It's so much nonsense, there's no such thing as "world-class". 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 "Dallas".

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 "Who Killed JFK". 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.

"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."

"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). "

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 "it" 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, "the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on." 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 "Detroit or Dallas"

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 "... can't think of a single category where the quality of life in Dallas would beat Chicago." 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 "So far, you haven't been able to convince ONE poster here that Dallas would be a better place to visit than Chicago...". 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 "You admit that you have never been to chicago so your point is moot, you are NOT QUALIFIED to offer an opinion!".

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 "enlightened" 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.