The world class architectural richness of Chicago dates from AFTER the fire. There are no ugly buildings which isn’t even true of places like London. The museums, the music, the food, the writers, the miles and miles of beautiful lake front. It’s a world class city that’s actually very clean for a city of that size.
Maybe that's the problem here. Your definition of beauty is vastly different than mine.
There are TONS of ugly buildings in chicago. Most of them downtown in fact are eyesores. Because almost all skyscraper types of buildings are ugly to me. They have come to represent all the festering corruption and crime and filthiness of big cities. They have no 'life' to them.
Now if I remember correctly there is an old water tower somehwere near the waterfront (Big high class shopping area, Michigan Avenue maybe?) that has character. It is a good building. Of course it's dwarfed by all the mostrosities around it.
The museums etc would be far better if they weren't over run by gangbangers and liberals. I love the museum of scinece and industry (just as I love the Smithsonian museums) but it's just not worth running the gauntlet of crime, traffic and liberals to get there.
I've never cared for most of the food from chicago. I've had friends go on and on about it and my normal reaction is 'huh? I thought you said it was good?'
The lake front would be far more beautiful if they removed all the urban blight from it.
Don't feel slighted. Indianapolis is an ugly city. New York is hideous, In fact, I can't think of a single city of greater than 100,000 people or so that is not a hell hole. You put that many liberals together (because liberals naturally tend to congregate into cities) and everything turns to crap.