1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

Chicago Vs. NYC

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by oldskool, May 17, 2005.

  1. Mr Checks

    Mr Checks Senior member

    Messages:
    224
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    It all comes down to the students: brilliance in; brilliance out. I love Chicago, was just there on Sunday. One caveat: If anyone from the shoe department at Paul Stuart reads this: I really was there to shop, even though I was wearing jeans and a tee shirt. Your loss. Chicago Lyric every bit as good as the Met. NY Phil concert here in the hinterlands was 'okay'; would have been better if the Lahti Symphony hadn't laid down a Sibelius 2 for the ages right before NYP presented a mannered Dvorak 9. This proves that symphonies are like universities: too many variables to give unqualified recommendations about which is "better." New York Phil kinda, um, well...stinks. koji
    Why is that, by the way? I always assumed money had a lot to do with quality. (And of course a history of good institutional decisons, but money can compensate for bad decisions. Look at the Yankees.) Doesn't the NY Phil have as much money as or more than any other US symphony? New York Phil had its moments under the batons of Rodzinski and Bernstein, for example, but never has been, for one reason or another, a terribly cohesive unit or even an exciting ensemble. Base salary actually here in nyc is lower than some of the other big five (and considerably lower when factoring in cost of living). koji
    I am glad that the esteemed Dr. Koji confirmed what my (less-well-trained) ears heard. It really was a bit of a disappointment, as this is the one and only time I've heard them live. It was the conducting more than the musicians (my belief is that there are many very good orchestras, but very few great conductors).
     
  2. Thracozaag

    Thracozaag Senior member

    Messages:
    3,134
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Location:
    Cygnus X-1
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote (Lord Foppington @ May 19 2005,07:47) Quote (Thracozaag @ May 19 2005,03:44)
    Why is that, by the way? I always assumed money had a lot to do with quality. (And of course a history of good institutional decisons, but money can compensate for bad decisions. Look at the Yankees.) Doesn't the NY Phil have as much money as or more than any other US symphony? New York Phil had its moments under the batons of Rodzinski and Bernstein, for example, but never has been, for one reason or another, a terribly cohesive unit or even an exciting ensemble. Â Base salary actually here in nyc is lower than some of the other big five (and considerably lower when factoring in cost of living). Â koji
    I am glad that the esteemed Dr. Koji confirmed what my (less-well-trained) ears heard. Â It really was a bit of a disappointment, as this is the one and only time I've heard them live. Â It was the conducting more than the musicians (my belief is that there are many very good orchestras, but very few great conductors).
    Very true; three conductors that I can enthusiastically recommend to see and hear are Mariss Jansons, Herbert Bloomstedt and Simon Rattle. koji
     
  3. oldskool

    oldskool Senior member

    Messages:
    183
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Guys guys guys.... woahhhhh..... this has gotten way out of hand. I was referring to the general lack of fashion (despite the polo & paul stuart stores) and you can't beat the women of New York City. That said, educational institutions and symphonies.... are taking it way out of the context of 'style forum' no?

    Chicago is no NYC. And today, very foggy.
     
  4. comrade

    comrade Senior member

    Messages:
    5,875
    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    Menlo Park, CA
    I grew up in New York City, have an Ivy League
    undergraduate degree, received an Masters
    from the U of Chicago and am
    one dissertation short of a Doctorate.
    U of Chicago was more"intellectual" than
    Cornell, at least in the 60s and 70s when
    I attended both.
     
    I lived in Chicago from '71 through '88 when

    I moved to the SF Bay Area. During this time,
    I principally shopped in New York at Chipp,
    Dunhill Tailors, and Paul Stuart. Chicago did not,
    as a rule, offer the selection found in
    Manhattan. Also, as an old
    "Ivy" dresser, Chicago's better men's shops,
    Ultimo, Nieman, or Bowit's (now gone)had
    little appeal.

    Unless it has changed I great deal, Chicago is at heart an
    "Archie Bunker" town. I grew up in Queens. I should know.
    Chicagoans tend to celebrate the commonplace, the provincial,
    even the pedestrian, unlike New Yorkers, of many strata,
    who try to be hip and cosmopolitan in their taste and dress,
    despite their  own superficiality. In many ways
    the Bay Area is  like New York, but more narcisistic.
    San Fanciscans, in particular, often exude a
    sense of smugness because they inhabit
    one of the "perfect" places on the planet.

    Comrade
     
  5. Yckmwia

    Yckmwia New Member

    Messages:
    2
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Very true. Good post. Having said that, I'll take San Diego any day. In fact, I do.
    Weatherwise, gotta be the *best* place in the world to live. As a city, I always found SD remarkably boring compared to the major American metropoli: LA, SF, and NYC. I'll give you that the SD marathons (both the SD marathon and the Rock 'n' Roll Marathon are some of the most pleasant to run in the US (the scenery of the Big Sur Marathon takes the cake - too bad you the course is so hard) and that living along the beach in La Jolla would be amazing, but the place is really a retail desert, and culturally, I never found SD particularly interesting either - in La Jolla, at least, it was just boring, rich white folks. In L.A., at least, many of the rich white folks are tacky and interesting.
    Accurate assessment of my hometown, LA Guy. For fine men's clothing S.D. is, indeed, a retail desert, and trust me: living on the beach in La Jolla isn't all it's cracked up to be. Culturally, Gore Vidal said it best years ago when he described S.D as "The Vatican of the John Birch Society." (Christopher Hitchens' assessment is also on the money: "The City of Sinister Charm.") Add to that the most corrupt and incompetent city administration in the country and a truly insane real estate market, and the question arises: why would anyone choose to live here? Answer: the best weather in the world (and San Francisco is only an hour and a half flight away . . . ) Cheers
     
  6. Lord Foppington

    Lord Foppington Active Member

    Messages:
    34
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Very true. I loved living in San Francisco, but got heartily sick of the whole "life's just a little bit better here" attitude.

    New York, where I also loved living, had a version of the same problem. A certain, common type of person had to blurt out, every five minutes or so, "New York is the greatest city in the world." or "New York is the center of the universe." Maybe so, but why ceaselessly reassure us all of that?

    I had a theory it has to do with real estate. How else to cheer yourself up for living in a dingy $2500 walkup studio? Well, I do it because "New York is the bestest bestest megbestest place in the world."
     
  7. bachbeet

    bachbeet Senior member

    Messages:
    1,212
    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    San Diego
    Ycm et al: Keep telling everyone how bad SD is. Maybe then people will stop coming here in droves.
     
  8. arenn1

    arenn1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    76
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    As someone once said, New York is the best city in the world. Chicago is the best city in the world to live in.
     
  9. aybojs

    aybojs Senior member

    Messages:
    957
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    I find it to be very ironic that many residents from both NYC and SF I've met/interacted with tend to boast about the alleged worldliness and open-mindedness that they possess as the result of living in such a big city, and yet there's a clear myopia that prevents them from recognizing or acknowledging the fact that there's a whole world outside of the city that matters just as much or much more than they do. Personally, I have no desire to join the 75% of my undergraduate class moving to NYC after graduation (probably not that much but it seems like it); mostly it's because I dislike crowds and mass transit, but the above attitude is not insigificant in my decision.
     
  10. Thracozaag

    Thracozaag Senior member

    Messages:
    3,134
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Location:
    Cygnus X-1
    (Lord Foppington @ May 21 2005,11:00) Very true. I loved living in San Francisco, but got heartily sick of the whole "life's just a little bit better here" attitude. New York, where I also loved living, had a version of the same problem. A certain, common type of person had to blurt out, every five minutes or so, "New York is the greatest city in the world." or "New York is the center of the universe." Maybe so, but why ceaselessly reassure us all of that? I had a theory it has to do with real estate. How else to cheer yourself up for living in a dingy $2500 walkup studio? Well, I do it because "New York is the bestest bestest megbestest place in the world."
    I find it to be very ironic that many residents from both NYC and SF I've met/interacted with tend to boast about the alleged worldliness and open-mindedness that they possess as the result of living in such a big city, and yet there's a clear myopia that prevents them from recognizing or acknowledging the fact that there's a whole world outside of the city that matters just as much or much more than they do. Â Personally, I have no desire to join the 75% of my undergraduate class moving to NYC after graduation (probably not that much but it seems like it); mostly it's because I dislike crowds and mass transit, but the above attitude is not insigificant in my decision.
    The provincialism of newyorkers (especially in light of the derision I initially receive when I inform them I'm from Kansas) never fails to amuse/amaze me. [​IMG] koji
     
  11. bachbeet

    bachbeet Senior member

    Messages:
    1,212
    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    San Diego
    aybojs: SF is NOT that big of a city. LA and SD are bigger. I've lived in LA, SF, Chicago, SD (now). I've also lived in San Luis Obispo, Ca (halfway b/w LA and SF; abbreviated SLO). I've been to NYC to visit.

    I don't care for LA. Liked SF. Love SD. Too young to remember Chicago, but don't think I'd like it. Definitely wouldn't trade it for SD. Liked NYC to visit but share your opinion of the crowds, traffic, noise, costs, etc. Yet, if I could afford it, I'd choose SLO. It has culture because of the college and its traffic is almost no concern. Nice people. A lot more smiles than NYC or LA. But, I do not feel more of a desire to go there than if I was living in, say, NYC.
     
  12. esvoboda

    esvoboda Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    70
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Location:
    Virginia
    The perception of San Francisco as a "big city" might come from the fact that the population density of SF itself is second only to NYC in the U.S. SF's population is only about 750,000.

    SF is the second most populous city in the Bay Area. San Jose is its big brother to the south with about 900,000. But it's mostly suburban sprawl. The metro area is over 7 million.

    I think population density has a lot to do with the ability of a city to support various aspects of culture such as world-class restaurants, nightlife, style, etc.
     
  13. bachbeet

    bachbeet Senior member

    Messages:
    1,212
    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    San Diego
    esvoboda: I agree. And, SLO has more restaurants per capita than SF.
     
  14. Manton

    Manton Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    For about 100 years, San Francisco was the most important city in the US west of the Mississippi.  Even though Los Angeles got much bigger, much faster, culturally and business-wise, it was a relative backwater (with the notable exception of the movie industry).  WW2 and the post-war boom changed that.  But slowly.  It still took another 25 years for SF to decline into what it now is: a very pretty, very well-appointed theme park for rich people.

    These days, the concept of a "regional capital" does not make sense like it used to.  It's just too easy to move money, people, goods and information around cheaply and quickly.  SF is lucky that it built up so many institutions and such great housing stock when it could, is so beautiful, and has such nice weather.  Other former regional capitals without those assets have not weathered "globalization" nearly so well.
     
  15. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo Senior member

    Messages:
    682
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    (aybojs @ May 22 2005,08:44)
    New York, where I also loved living, had a version of the same problem. A certain, common type of person had to blurt out, every five minutes or so, "New York is the greatest city in the world." or "New York is the center of the universe." Maybe so, but why ceaselessly reassure us all of that?
    I find it to be very ironic that many residents from both NYC and SF I've met/interacted with tend to boast about the alleged worldliness and open-mindedness that they possess as the result of living in such a big city, and yet there's a clear myopia that prevents them from recognizing or acknowledging the fact that there's a whole world outside of the city that matters just as much or much more than they do.
    The provincialism of newyorkers (especially in light of the derision I initially receive when I inform them I'm from Kansas) never fails to amuse/amaze me. [​IMG]
    As someone who lives in and loves New York, I'm always struck by what I refer to as "New York Hicks". If a person said what New Yorkers say about their city and substituted the word West Virginia and changed the accent, you'd know they were hicks.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by