Chicago or Washington DC
 

Hey guys
In September im planning a trip with Virgin atlantic upper class to either Chicago or Washington as a little treat to myself!! I was wondering which city to go for? here is my dilemma:

Chicago
-Virgin use A340-300 which inflight entertainment system is rubbish (as previously experienced!) as the films are on a loop and thats boring! (watching films-important!!)
-Lots to see and do in Chicago with museums and galleries
-Use SAS lounge at Chicago- Good or not can anyone tell me? :confused:

Washington DC
-Virgin use A340-600 which has a brill avod system so can watch films when I want! (as previously experienced)
-From talking to people they said there isnt alot to do there in terms of attractions (barring the White House & Smithsonian) so not quite sure about it? can anyone help? :confused:
-Use their own Lounge

Thanks

Hi Biggles52,

I'm not sure you will be able to actually visit the White house ( although it is very good to stand outside the fence and see it)

The Smithsonian encompasses a large number of museums ( ie air and space , american history, natural history,american indian) which are very worthwhile.

The Old Post office tower also offers great views of Downtown washington.

The monuments are very impressive too ie Washington,Lincoln,Jefferson, WWII, FDR as well as Arlington Cemetary

Regards

TBS

Let's see, you're interested in Chicago because of its museums and galleries but you're leery of DC because it has museums? Huh? (FYI, DC has art galleries, too - National Gallery of Art and its East Wing, Museum of American Art and Portrait Gallery, the Corcoran and the Phillips to mention the biggies.) And apart from saying that you're interested/not interested in museums, you don't say WHAT you are interested in doing.

If you want the big city experience with lots of skyscrapers, Chicago is your place. (Even better, NYC). DC has tons of museums, not just the Smithsonian ones, which on their own are good at least a week's visit. But it also has shopping, restaurants and nightlife, the National Zoo, scads of monuments, and slightly outside the city venues like Great Falls, Old Town Alexandria, Mount Vernon, Arlington Cemetery, etc.

Don't know if it's relevant, but the countryside around DC is much prettier and more interesting than Chicago.

This is FT, but I probably won't pick a vacation destination based on an airport lounge or what movies are in the IFE. You can always bring a laptop and watch whatever movies you want on it.

In terms of Chicago vs. DC, what are you interested in? I use to live in Chicago and now live in DC. If you can share you interests we can provide some info on what to do, as the previous posters have referenced, we are a bit perplexed by your comment about museums/galleries.

Also, welcome to FT!

Washington DC is an awsome city for a visitor. The majority of the museums are free. The monuments are worth seeing. Lots of tours or just wandering. There are always events being held on the mall. There is public tranport out to surrounding areas.

Do some GOOGLEing and look to see what is heppening in DC during your dates.

http://washington.org/

We did a bike tour and had a lot of fun.

Don't discount DC!

hey guys
thanks for your responses!
What i ment above is that i wasnt aware of the things to do in Washington as Ive only just started researching places! Dont get me wrong I love museums and quite into modern art. Love historic buildings and of course v interested in the nightlife! Im only going to be in the US for 4 nights so looking for somewhere that has alot to offer and a place that wont get boring after the 50th time of visiting it! lol

DC isnt a very fun place for tourist... (I live just outside DC).

I would go to Chicago anytime. I feel that most of the "tourists" (if you ever see them) are fellow Americans... Except for the museums and the historical value, Chicago is thumbs up.

:confused: I wonder why the city gets 15 million visitors a year, then?

Sorry, but this is just nuts. I love Chicago too, but as a past resident of and continued frequent visitor to DC, I can tell you that there are hundreds (if not thousands) of fun things for tourists to do in that city. The restaurant scene is great, many of the museums are free, there are very fine theaters and clubs, you can easily get to tons of outdoor activities like hiking/river sports, etc. You will definitely not run out of things to do.

That said, Chicago is also a great town. I like the working-class nature of this city, particularly the more immigrant-heavy neighborhoods, and the cultural scene is superb. The one thing that bugs me about Chicago is that it is not a great walking town--specifically, it is very spread out and it takes much longer than one would expect to get from point A to point B on foot. Of course, there is good public transit, so it's not such a huge deal.

September should be a very fine time of year to visit either place.

It's completely wrong-headed to suggest that DC "isn't much fun" for tourists. IN DC's defense, here is a recent post lifted from the BA forum by an FTer called T8191, participating in a discussion re: why British people would ever want to holiday in the States:

Says it better than I can. :) Chicago is a great city but I'd vote for DC

Yes, thanks to T8191 for making the case for DC so well. If I could still live there, I would. I was sorry to move away.

I think it's funny that one of the first positive things mentioned was the fact that "only American tourists" visit DC (not quite true--there are a hell of a lot of Indian tourists!!) and you won't find anyone from the UK there. I think all the Brits must be in NY, shopping :p

As a frequent DC/NoVa resident, I am always a little ho-hum about it when I am home. Few people in DC are *from* DC, so the city lacks as much colorful character that develops in cities/areas with more permanent residents (e.g. Phila, Atlanta, Brooklyn, Portland). It's also a 'me' town -- people in DC love to talk about themselves -- and that can get old real fast.

That said, I think it is a GREAT town for tourism! And September is one of the best months to be in DC -- the weather is generally warm, the wretched humidity has cleared along with the Arlington flies/mosquitoes, it's not quite as crowded as in the summer months.

The museums and monuments alone could occupy your time for weeks. The political sights are all interesting. WH and Capitol are nice, but don't miss the Supreme Court and Library of Congress which are particularly interesting architecturally and historically. Nearby Old Town Alexandria, VA is a nice evening out of the big city. There are the Great Falls, the C&O Canal, excellent bike/hike trails for outdoor enthusiasts.

Nightlife abounds. Clubs, bars and restaurants for all types and tastes. DC is also a foodie town -- tons of great restaurants from all over the world (great Ethiopian, Ghanaian food to be found).

There's much more than I have time to spell out here, but please do consider visiting DC, and let me know if you have any questions. (Disclaimer: I've never actually never been to Chicago, so I won't make any comparisons!)

I've lived in Chicago and now live in DC (technically Arlington) so...

I vote for DC. As a tourist, there is a lot more to do and see. If you get sick of museums and monuments (gasp!) there are trails for biking and hiking, beaches, and sports games to fill your time.

Chicago (IME) is a better city for living. Much friendlier, cozier, and cheaper.

What are you interested in seeing and doing? I will try to give you tips for either city.

As someone who's lived in both DC and Chicago, I'd say that either is a fantastic destination for 4 days.

In terms of museums, DC wins hands down...although Chicago's are great, you have many more to choose from in DC.

In terms of shopping, Chicago probably wins by a nose but these days 90% of the stores you'll see in tourist areas are chains, so there isn't a lot of variety from city to city.

If you're physically active, both Chicago and DC have a lot to offer. Chicago is flatter, which might be preferable if you like to bike and run. You can sail in both. Chicago has the lakefront, DC has the C&O canal, and each is awesome for walking, jogging, biking, etc. (To be clear, DC has the Potomac River, too, but the canal is probably a more popular waterfront destination if you're working out. Obviously there are plenty of places in both cities that aren't by the waterfront where you can get a good workout.)

I haven't eaten out in DC much recently, Chicago definitely wins if you're looking for the better-rated restaurants. That said, both offer an eclectic mix of various types of cuisine.

In September you'll find pro football and baseball in both cities.

DC's weather is likely to be warmer than Chicago's in September, though in either you could still get very hot weather, mild or even chilly temps in the early fall. In general, DC has warmer winters than Chicago, but hotter and more humid summers.

Both are very walkable cities if you're focusing on the most commonly visited tourist attractions.

Both have great zoos, though only DC has pandas! (And we'll probably know in the next day or two, but may have a panda baby in September.)

This describes Chicago too.

In the end, I think it will come down to whether the OP wants to see the capital city of the USA or one of its more underrated cities.

Do not make a vacation destination decision on the in-flight entertainment of the airline you're flying. You'll be in the air for 7 hours. You'll be at your destination for 4 days.