Chicago vs. San Francisco (work, business, bars)

[Lookout Kid]

gellio_sf, notice that all of the cities you mention are on the Eastern Seaboard except for San Francisco. The east coast has always had more compact residential develpment than cities to the west--largely due to their age and the time that their urban cores were developed. San Francisco is a big anomaly in that respect--being a western city and everything. Chicago is more dense than nearly ever other midwestern or western city, however. And parts of residential Chicago are just as dense and urban as anything you'll ever see in SF. But yes, overall the city isn't as "urban", if you are referring to "urban" in the built sense only. In a broader use of the term, Chicago is much more urban than San Francisco culturally and demographically.

[Lookout Kid]

Alright, I had hoped that this thread had died, but now that it's back I have to get this off of my chest. San Francisco is a very very nice place to live, but it's jut not a practical place to raise a family, own a home, and save for retirement--which is to say, it's not financially feasible to live there with long-term goals in mind unless you are very fortunate in your career moves. I've had many many friends who moved out there in their 20s, got great jobs, lived large, and then returned to the midwest or east coast because they couldn't save a dime. At some point this catches up with you, and unless your household is making a half-million a year or more you are going to have to eventually cut your losses and leave. San Franscisco is great in your 20s. And perhaps, if you're lucky, you'll be able to carve out a niche in that awesome Silicon Valley economy and actually make a decent living. But to people I know--many of whom made more than $200,000 a year--the expenses just made any long-term life out there impossible. Also, many midwesterners have trouble breaking into the materialistic "you are what you buy" culture that exists out there with the native populace, though Chicagoans certainly subscribe to this same philosophy more than people from, say, Milwaukee or Minneapolis! The major difference I've noticed between Bay Area residents and Chicagoans is that Chicagoans actually seem to have a bit more of an edge. That's right, people from this "nice" midwestern town are tougher and meaner. San Franciscans come across as soft-spoken and mellow compared to the brash Chicagoans I deal with on a daily basis.

I say this as a person who flies to the Bay Area at least once a month to do business there and who has many friends and relatives there. In fact, my firm is trying to expand an office in the Bay Area, but we are actually having trouble recruiting people to live there because of the high cost of living. Sure salaries are perhaps 15% higher than in Chicago for similar jobs, but that isn't enough to make it worth the move for many. And honestly, you can have almost everything in Chicago that you can have in San Francisco with the exception of four things: (1) Better weather, (2) topography, (3) more colorful surroundings, and (4) better seafood (though the jet has really evened that one out if you're willing to pay for it).

[Avengerfire]

My God , this thread is old.

[gellio_sf]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

gellio_sf, notice that all of the cities you mention are on the Eastern Seaboard except for San Francisco. The east coast has always had more compact residential develpment than cities to the west--largely due to their age and the time that their urban cores were developed. San Francisco is a big anomaly in that respect--being a western city and everything. Chicago is more dense than nearly ever other midwestern or western city, however. And parts of residential Chicago are just as dense and urban as anything you'll ever see in SF. But yes, overall the city isn't as "urban", if you are referring to "urban" in the built sense only. In a broader use of the term, Chicago is much more urban than San Francisco culturally and demographically.

That's your opinion. I do not share it.

[gellio_sf]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Alright, I had hoped that this thread had died, but now that it's back I have to get this off of my chest. San Francisco is a very very nice place to live, but it's jut not a practical place to raise a family, own a home, and save for retirement--which is to say, it's not financially feasible to live there with long-term goals in mind unless you are very fortunate in your career moves. I've had many many friends who moved out there in their 20s, got great jobs, lived large, and then returned to the midwest or east coast because they couldn't save a dime. At some point this catches up with you, and unless your household is making a half-million a year or more you are going to have to eventually cut your losses and leave. San Franscisco is great in your 20s. And perhaps, if you're lucky, you'll be able to carve out a niche in that awesome Silicon Valley economy and actually make a decent living. But to people I know--many of whom made more than $200,000 a year--the expenses just made any long-term life out there impossible. Also, many midwesterners have trouble breaking into the materialistic "you are what you buy" culture that exists out there with the native populace, though Chicagoans certainly subscribe to this same philosophy more than people from, say, Milwaukee or Minneapolis! The major difference I've noticed between Bay Area residents and Chicagoans is that Chicagoans actually seem to have a bit more of an edge. That's right, people from this "nice" midwestern town are tougher and meaner. San Franciscans come across as soft-spoken and mellow compared to the brash Chicagoans I deal with on a daily basis.

I say this as a person who flies to the Bay Area at least once a month to do business there and who has many friends and relatives there. In fact, my firm is trying to expand an office in the Bay Area, but we are actually having trouble recruiting people to live there because of the high cost of living. Sure salaries are perhaps 15% higher than in Chicago for similar jobs, but that isn't enough to make it worth the move for many. And honestly, you can have almost everything in Chicago that you can have in San Francisco with the exception of four things: (1) Better weather, (2) topography, (3) more colorful surroundings, and (4) better seafood (though the jet has really evened that one out if you're willing to pay for it).

I can't argue with most of your points. However, saying people out here have a "you are what you buy" mentality is generalizing. In fact, I think it's way off the mark. I have never met anyone here who has looked down on someone else based on material possessions. Furthermore, people here are pretty tight-lipped about what they make. I have spent some time with some pretty wealthly people out here - people whom you wouldn't know were wealthy upon first meeting. They are as laid back and nice as everyone else. Of course, every where has their "high and mighty" people who do look down and do have the "you are what you buy" mentality, and that includes San Francisco and Chicago.

People out here are more mellow and laid back because we pay a high price to live here, and to us it is worth it. Yes, to some it is not, and that's their choice. People have different priorities and loves in life. I love San Francisco. Right now, I'd rather rent here for the rest of my life than own else where. That may change in the future, who knows. All that matters is that I live in the place I love most. If you can say that, you are fortunate where ever you live.

I think you'll find mean people any where. Run into me on MUNI Metro or BART and you will think I'm mean even though I consider myself a really nice guy. Run into me on the sidewalk walking to work, and you'll think I'm mean. Likewise, I know some very nice people in Chicago. I always have a good time when I visit.

[bclark3434]

tis one is very simple. i lived in chicago for 33 years and been flyin down for my job, to Bay area 20 times a year for the last 18 years(from oregon)

Both cities: diverse, beautiful sky line and many historical land marks.

Chicagos bad: more racist, bad weather, crime and traffic!
Chicagos good: Better food and sports

San francisco bad: financially bad to live there, parking meter people and too many homeless on the streets downtown bothering ya.

San francisco good: people are friendly, 3 other cities around it (Oakland, San Jose, Sacramento) wishermans warf... which i enjoy more than Navy pier.

[skeeter85]

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.

100% incorrect. How do you possibly compare San Francisco to San Diego? Have you spent ANY time in either city? I don't think they could be any more different. As mentioned previously on numerous occasions, San Francisco is quite a bit denser than Chicago - I don't understand the boutique city reference at all.

Anyways, back to the topic. I've spent a lot of time in both places...

San Francisco +'s:

-Much better weather
-Amazingly beautiful natural scenery
-Great Edwardian/Victorian architecture
-Vicinity to other exciting places (Tahoe, Napa, Yosemite, California Coast, Redwood Forests, etc)
-More politically active and involved people - as mentioned earlier, a lot of people in Chicago seem to only be interested in sports, beer, etc.
-Overall, in my opinion, more interesting people

Chicago +'s:

-Affordable
-Loop is more attractive and exciting than SF Financial District
-Fewer bums
-Better public transit
-Brownstones!
-Better career growth in areas outside of Tech

Diversity, food, shopping are about equal in my opinion.


Both cities are incredible - SF, Chicago, and NY are by far the three most world-class cities in the country. I can't believe people are mentioning LA in the same light as SF or Chicago. I tend to think that SF is a better place to live if you're young or extremely wealthy, while Chicago is a more realistic place to settle, raise a family, etc.

[movingsomewhere]

I like the final quote.

Originally Posted by LancasterNative

Chicago is a city where people live and work; they go elsewhere to play.

San Francisco is a city where people come to play; they live and work elsewhere.

That, and of course the standard Midwestern conservatism vs. West Coast fruitiness!

[movingsomewhere]

San Franciscans come across as soft-spoken and mellow compared to the brash Chicagoans I deal with on a daily basis.

Could this be because SF is the gay capital of the nation, if not the world?

[aragx6]

What does soft-spoken and mellow have to do with being gay???????