Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel
^^^ Sigh, whenever I hear about people leaving places like Chicago because of the cold weather (which is probably that way for only a good 1/4 of the calender year) it just breaks my heart because you leave something good, a great place to live, with so much to do, so much culture, so many missed opportunities simply because you were too lazy to put on a sweater. Not that there is anything wrong with any other city and not that Chicago/Chicagoland is losing people (400,000+ people is still a fairly big gain), it's just that the "weather card" is a pretty lame excuse. Why are so many other cities around the world which also have large seasonal temperature variances still thriving and gaining people? Paris, Moscow, London, Beijing, etc, etc, etc...
Somehow, I think (specifically) the weather claim is pretty dubious; I think a lot of it is solely about money and the (supposed) value one gets from newer, developing areas as compared to living in a dense, urban core area; it's still a pervasive myth in this country, coupled with the still-pervasive frontier mentality that a lot of people have as well, yet now it seems that the new American "frontier" is the exurb, which probably accounts for a lot of the Metropolitan growth which is being touted in articles like this.
|
Well, to be honest, and fair... Paris, London and Beijing are not as cold as Chicago. They actually have warm autumns, extended summers and winters that see an end in February... Moscow is obviously the exception
I know it's painful to think, but Chicago simply is too cold. Summer is too short, winter too long, and there's no real spring/autumn. I'm fine with this, because I thrive in cold/dry weather, but I understand why most people say "no thank you" to it.