And for those who question the credentials of a certain other poster, I haven't seen any evidence that this person has ever stepped foot outside of Texas. Maybe never outside of Dallas (and its clinically dead downtown area). He or she certainly doesn't know anything about Chicago....

Princess Diana often mentioned that her favorite city in the world (outside of London of course)was Chicago.

Although I can think of a few I'd rank higher, there aren't many. Probably the most 'underrated' great city in the world. (I guess the winters don't help!)

Yes agreed, Chicago. Architecture - I read a quote somewhere that said something to the effect: in New York, they built skyscrapers because they needed them. In Chicago, they built them because they could.

Not at all a knock on NY, but so many of Chicago's great buildings are almost presentations to themselves. So much to do there and I can't say I've ever seen the Loop deserted. I'm not from Chicago and I've been to Dallas too, which is ok.

Go see a ballgame in Wrigley Field. Baseball, mpre than most sports, is about traditions. Statistics going back to the beginning of the game are always thrown around. Wrigley is all about that tradition in a way that no modern park can manage. See the Cubs play there.

And cheer for the other guys. (I'm from St. Louis, a team that is a traditional rival. Go Cardinals)

I am overwhelmed with gratitude for all your helpful information. I will certainly look into the architectural boat trip, the Hancock building, the Field Museum and also check the Cubs ticket information for a game against the Mets. Even the gangster tour sounds fun!

From being such a Dallas fan that I'd even planned out a schedule for there, I'm pleased to say that with your help I'm now really getting excited about coming to Chicago.

I'll make sure I do a trip report on my return.

Thanks to you all from across the pond
Andrew

Do consider renting a car for a day. You can either head east to southeast Michigan to enjoy the lake in a different setting or head west to enjoy the beautiful forests, rivers, and rolling hills of northwest Illinois. The midwest is not all flat farmland.

No discussion of the virtues of Chicago is complete without a strong endorsement of the Art Institute, truly one one world's great museums.

And I'm another one that does not live in either, have been to both and I LOVE Chicago. Can't wait to go back.

Just to echo a few earlier responses...if you are interested in achitecture, do try to get to Oak Park. We spent hours there and really enjoyed walking around the neighborhood and visiting houses.

londonengland:

Since you mentioned that you thought you were adding the architectural boat tour to your itinerary, I thought I would provide you a link to a website that can help you pick the right one!

http://www.chicagotraveler.com/boat_tours

or try: http://www.chicagoline.com/

I agree with Flamingomonkey that if you have time, you could check out the beach towns of Southwest Michigan (not Southeast or you'd be in Detroit!)

rjw_lgb_ca
Not to be paranoid, but I think I need to explain my background here...

Yes, I've traveled extensively, through Europe, the United States, and especially on the Pacific coast. I've spent most of my life in the San Francisco Bay Area. And as far as cities go, I'd rank Los Angeles and San Francisco as superior to Chicago or Dallas in terms of visitor appeal.

But... I've never been to Chicago. What I know about the place I've learned from studying travel guides, reading reputable statistics, and studying history.

There are cities I want to visit in the US, and some I want to return to... but I'll have to say that Chicago does not particularly ring my bell. Why? Because, based upon what I've read and researched, it's just a bigger Dallas... larger, quantitatively more restaurants, clubs, theatres, etc, but nothing beyond that, in the sense that Los Angeles and New York are beyond Chicago (and Dallas).

Chicago is a larger metro area than Dallas-Ft Worth, to be sure, and does contain some elements unique to its history and geography. And it has a considerably larger urban core.

So, there's no need for a spitting contest between the two... Dallas is a little bit lower in the food chain than Chicago, although it should surpass Chicago in size and urban facilities in the next 25 years or so, just as LA surpassed Chicago.

My contention is that in spite of Chicago's greater size, and longer urban history, THE DIFFERENCES IN SIZE DON'T MATTER. If only because Dallas can supply the same things Chicago has, more or less, just in smaller quantities.

Here's some numbers. Chicago is the 3rd largest metro in the US. Dallas, as of the 2000 census, was the 5th largest metro, larger than Boston, Seattle, Washington, even San Francisco. Since Dallas adds between 100,000 and 150, 000 people per year, and Philadelphia grows very slowly, Dallas is now the 4th largest metro, just under Chicago.

Is there a substantial difference between the 3rd and 4th largest metro in America? Remember that the level of activity in a metro area is a direct result of its population.

Personally, I think that many people in Chicago are rather smug and arrogant about their city, but I don't want to offend the ones that aren't... so I'll just say that...

...either metro area can provide a visitor with a superb urban experience for restaurants, cafes, theater, shows, sports, culture, whatever. Certainly more than can be absorbed in one visit.

One additional recommendation. Since you will be there for a week, use one day (or at least a half day) to take a train out into the Chicago suburbs. The fares are cheap, the trains reliable, and within about 1 hour you are in "small town" America -- at least the way most of us would like to think of it. I recommend either the Union Pacific to Geneva (Lombard and Wheaton are also good stops) or the Burlington Northern (Naperville or Downers Grove are good stops). I'm sure some of the other routes are also good; but I am not familar with them. The train system schedule is at http://metrarail.com. Chicago-land (as Chicago plus its suburbs are called) has one of the best rail systems in the US; so take advantage of it. Note: the in-city rail and bus system (Chicago Transity Authority) is at http://www.transitchicago.com/. I think you will find some good information for planing purposes at both sites.

Sorry, folks... forgot to provide my reference for the population stats for Chicago and Dallas-Ft Worth metros...

http://www.census.gov/population/www...0/phc-t29.html

XBT, I'm utterly shocked that you would pass judgment on a place without ever being there-you couldn't be farther off base in calling Dallas Chicago only smaller. Dallas has no urban feel to speak off-our family calls it "the big Schaumburg" all malls, cookie cutter houses and non-original restaurants. It's urban sprawl at it's worst-all big and new, no character. If anything, I'd recommend someone going to Ft. Worth which at least has some history behind it to soak in beside being the city where Kennedy was killed and JR lived.

As others mentioned, xbt has a real penchant for Dallas. Not that Dallas isn't a fine city, but heaven forbid you mention visiting elsewhere.

xbt recently posted on another thread comparing Dallas and San Antonio. He stated there that Dallas has more culture than Rome. He then actually admitted to passing judgement on Rome after only seeing the city in a few films.

xbt wrote, "I'd rank Los Angeles and San Francisco as superior to Chicago or Dallas in terms of visitor appeal."

xbt, you owe me a new laptop. I just spewed Fresca all over mine and I'm sure it's ruined.

xbt2316, you call Chicago people "smug and arrogant" and yet you pass judgment on a city that you've never experienced first hand! Now, that's what I call smug and arrogant!

"Personally, I think that many people in Chicago are rather smug and arrogant about their city..."

"I think the Chicago people are very boosterish and competitive with their city, and like to believe it is better than any other..."

xbt, what can I say?

If you want to shamelessly plug Dallas when someone asks specifically about Dallas, that's great. I really do appreciate the information you provided for our recent trip there. But you are bordering on being deceptive when you boost Dallas in favor of other cities that you have not visited. If you're going to do that, at least be up front and say, "I haven't been to Chicago, but..." You just cannot experience a city through a guidebook. Have you noticed that every poster on this thread who has been to Chicago loves it? Don't you think you may be missing something?

xbt -

I knew I'd find you here. Any thread comparing Dallas to any other city and you're all over it like a bad rash.

Again, you admit to making a comparison of Dallas to a city you've never been to - and have the temerity to call the residents of Chicago "smug and arrogant". Pot, meet kettle.

Funny that you claim that city size doesn't matter (and I'm not saying it does). I urge you to go back and read what you said about this in the Dallas vs. San Antonio thread.

Give it up already.

xbt, Lets see, I seem to recall something about something's size mattering ... it was the bigger the better ... lets see, what was it .... oh, yes, it was the brain.

bo jack's post gave me another idea.

Consider taking the train out to Ravinia for a concert. I think they should have something going on in early May. There are trains that go right out there on concert nights.

Ravinia has a wide range of shows. You can get pavillion seats, but I much prefer lawn seats that you can set up a picnic and eat, drink and enjoy. This is NOT like the lawn seats at a typical concert. The lawn is huge (in fact you likely won't be able to see the performer). You can bring in your own food and drink - or buy it there. Lawn seats are very reasonable.