Chicago vs. San Francisco (Oakland, San Jose: rent , jobs, house)

[beone]

Originally Posted by cw68

Having lived in both cities, they are very different.

Chicago is much more livable. San Francisco is a difficult place in which to live. Not only can you not find a parking space for your car, you can't hail a cab.

Housing prices, and rents, are vastly different. You need more money to live in San Francisco.

The are both very beautiful, but San Francisco is quirky, European and more polished. Chicago is down-to-earth, more diverse in both racial and economic make-up and it's staid.

There are six million things to do in, and around, San Francisco. Your choice are much more limited in Chicago.

Both have great culture and museums, sports and restaurants. Actually, San Francisco gets the nod in the restaurant department and, believe it or not, good food is cheaper. The same meals I love in San Francisco at $15 would be $18 in Chicago.

I think it's easier to be both a young single and a married couple with a child(ren) in Chicago. SF is not child-friendly in the least bit.

Of course politics are much different in both areas. I think San Franciscans are more engaged and in-tune with their representatives. There's a feeling that they really do represent you but in Chicago, the politicians are more removed from the people.

You don't need a car in San Francisco. So, for me and a lot of my friends, parking is not and issue. Of course, Chicago has an awesome public transportation system as well. I think I could definitely live there without a car. But, parking depends upon where you live. It is very difficult where I live (the Castro), but very easy just over the hill (Noe Valley). Likewise, I'm sure it's difficult to find parking in certain areas of Chicago as well. Hailing a cab can be tough here on weekend nights, but I never have a problem at other times.

I think San Francisco would be more fun as a single. There's just so much to do here in terms of bars, great restaurants and fun things to do. Not that there isn't in Chicago, but I seem to have a million more friends here than my friends seem to have in Chicago, and they seem to do the same thing all the time, where as we mix it up all the time. San Francisco was just voted the top city for singles in the US, with NYC and LA rounding out the top 3.

I would definitely NEVER raise a family in San Francisco. There's no space. I see kids playing on the streets and it's sad almost. I loved growing up in the midwest because we had so much space. Plus, I'm glad I got to experience winter as a kid, even though I hate it now.

Both are great cities. I think people out here are easier to meet and befriend. I have been here only two years and I have many many more friends than friends of mine in Chicago who have been there for 10, 7 and 4 years. People seem more approachable here and much more likely to talk to people outside their circle in bars/clubs.

It's just a blast to live in San Francisco.

[beone]

Originally Posted by pwright1

I love both cities. They both have all the big city amenities, culture, shopping, great food and so on. Why do people always think just because their city has more people they think its better? But San Francisco is my first choice with its charm, natural beauty, its hills, weather, ocean, bay, and its compact size. Chicago seems so flat and spread out, plus the oppressive heat and humidity in the summer and we all know about its winters. Chicago is cool but I love San Francisco.

Exactly. Geographic size and population have nothing to do with how great a city is (hello - Houston). I like Chicago and have a blast when I go there (I love the El too), but San Francisco is the most beautiful and charming city in the U.S. - without challenge.

I do wish we had warmer summers though....that's for sure. I miss the warm summer nights of the midwest.

[beone]

Originally Posted by coldwine

No, it isn't. San Francisco (and San Diego especially) are boutique cities. At every corner their citizens want nothing more than to prevent urbanization or population gain. I don't even see how one could possibly argue otherwise.

Obviously you are unware of the massive developments and new highrises being built and planned in San Francisco. Bottom line - you're using the wrong term to illustrate your point, which is valid. I, for one, do not like skyscrapers - I feel the hugely detract from the beauty of a city. San Francisco has no room to expand in any direction but up, unless parkland is over-taken. So, no, I do not want the population to increase here. If San Francisco turned into Manhattan it's essense would be completely lost and it would devastate me.

Saying they are "boutique" implies small, exclusive, maybe special. To say they are like Disneyland couldn't be more incorrect. SF is the 14th largest city in the US, and has everything NYC, LA and Chicago have. It's not in the least bit small. SD is even bigger than SF, but is lacking in a lot of other areas.

[coldwine]

Originally Posted by beone

Obviously you are unware of the massive developments and new highrises being built and planned in San Francisco. Bottom line - you're using the wrong term to illustrate your point, which is valid. I, for one, do not like skyscrapers - I feel the hugely detract from the beauty of a city. San Francisco has no room to expand in any direction but up, unless parkland is over-taken. So, no, I do not want the population to increase here. If San Francisco turned into Manhattan it's essense would be completely lost and it would devastate me.

Saying they are "boutique" implies small, exclusive, maybe special. To say they are like Disneyland couldn't be more incorrect. SF is the 14th largest city in the US, and has everything NYC, LA and Chicago have. It's not in the least bit small. SD is even bigger than SF, but is lacking in a lot of other areas.

... and what I'm saying is that San Francisco is small, exclusive and very heartily attempting to be special.

I'm sorry. San Francisco simply isn't special. It's exclusive to an extreme degree, thus making it a Boutique City and not a true city.

[cw68]

Originally Posted by beone

You don't need a car in San Francisco. So, for me and a lot of my friends, parking is not and issue. Of course, Chicago has an awesome public transportation system as well. I think I could definitely live there without a car. But, parking depends upon where you live. It is very difficult where I live (the Castro), but very easy just over the hill (Noe Valley). Likewise, I'm sure it's difficult to find parking in certain areas of Chicago as well. Hailing a cab can be tough here on weekend nights, but I never have a problem at other times.

I think San Francisco would be more fun as a single. There's just so much to do here in terms of bars, great restaurants and fun things to do. Not that there isn't in Chicago, but I seem to have a million more friends here than my friends seem to have in Chicago, and they seem to do the same thing all the time, where as we mix it up all the time. San Francisco was just voted the top city for singles in the US, with NYC and LA rounding out the top 3.

I would definitely NEVER raise a family in San Francisco. There's no space. I see kids playing on the streets and it's sad almost. I loved growing up in the midwest because we had so much space. Plus, I'm glad I got to experience winter as a kid, even though I hate it now.

Both are great cities. I think people out here are easier to meet and befriend. I have been here only two years and I have many many more friends than friends of mine in Chicago who have been there for 10, 7 and 4 years. People seem more approachable here and much more likely to talk to people outside their circle in bars/clubs.

It's just a blast to live in San Francisco.

You don't need a car in Chicago either, but as a woman, I found it easier to get around Chicago without a car than I did in San Francisco. There was always a cab within hailing distance to get me from point A to point B more safely.

[jimbo13]

hello? this one needs to be revisted. where's beone and that skewed attitude, albeit a nutty one?

[Lookout Kid]

I don't think the guy known as "Beone" has ever been to Chicago outside of the River North/Mag Mile tourist ghetto. He gave himself away when he claimed that the neighborhoods weren't dense and similar to Minneapolis. Chicacgo's neighborhoods are NOTHING like Minneapolis neighborhoods--unless you get quite far from the older 19th century parts of the city.

[Drover]

Not sure it needed to be revisited... I would have been quite content to let keep this thread buried.

[gellio_sf]

Then why did you reply? I agree with other posters - outside downtown, Chicago does not feel as urban as the likes of New York, Boston, Philly, D.C. and San Francisco.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by gellio_sf

Then why did you reply? I agree with other posters - outside downtown, Chicago does not feel as urban as the likes of New York, Boston, Philly, D.C. and San Francisco.

To get under the skin of folks like you I suppose.