Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Useless facts and $1700 lamps...Gross. , April 5, 2006
I ordered it because they sent me a subscription card for $12...luckily that is all I paid. You might appreciate this magazine if you are in your forties, have 5 children, are a doctor or lawyer, and thrive on statistics. Every issue focuses on comparing us to other cities, primarily New York, and is a general bore. There is nothing one could actually utilize, or would want to, in the entertainment/restaurant section. I've never been so eager for a subscription to end. I can't believe Amazon suggests buying this along with Time Out Chicago, who I've turned to for real information, colorful interviews, and articles that honestly do feel like Chicago does. Yuck...all the focus on rich people makes me want to puke. Why don't they count up some statistics on how many Chicagoans actually fit your sickeningly rich profile? 5 percent? Their March issue explaining that a D-I-N-K couple making a combined $120,000 a year struggles just as much as a single mother making $15,000 based on their choices really tops it off: this magazine is out of touch.
|
|
|
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
This magazine is losing steam - Thanks Tribune. Co., January 31, 2003
I do live in Chicago, so my viewpoint may be different than that of someone who doesn't live here and probably only comes here once a month.I subscribed to this magazine 2 years ago, before the Tribune Co. bought it. It had several great articles each month and was really relevant not only to people living in Chicago, but to those who had just moved here. I still have several of those because they were so good to have. Some of my favorite, and headlining, articles include: Chicago's Best New Restaurants (May 2001), Chicago's Guide to Summer (May 2001), 25 Weekend Getaways (June 2001), Guide to Surviving O'Hare (Feb. 2001) When I resubscribed 6 months ago (post Tribune buy out) I started to notice it was catering to a different set of people. It now at least seems to have a lot less articles and they are a lot more relevant to people who live in the suburbs, or are Chicago old-money. Definitely catering to the 50+ crowd now. From the Jan. 2003 edition: Chicago's top doctors, From the Dec. 2002 edition: The Most expensive things in town, and Look at this month's highlight 'Chicago's Richest people'.. Why do I care? I don't!! I will NOT be renewing my subscription to this formerly good magazine.
|
|
|
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Chicagoan no longer looking to Chicago Magazine, April 6, 2004
By A Customer
Chicago magazine was once a wonderful resource to me as a Chicagoan...but not now. Hip, savy and younger (25-40) is no longer the target audience. For over two years this magazine was my main resource for learning about, events, restaraunts, clubs, openings. Now, this magazine is just a glorified version of the Chicago Tribune...it's owners. both the magazine and the paper will have the same information for "hot new clubs", "great eats", 10 things to do under $40. It's a rip off for those of us that live here and those traveling here. But even worse it tends to focus on the suburbs. If Chicago wasn't a thriving, wonderful city...no one would want to live here.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
