Chicago vs. San Francisco? (Lincoln, Oakland: condo, townhome, safe area)

[Cyclone20]

24 year old single male with a degree in civil eng. I have job offers in both cities, I'd be making about 90k in SF and 82k in Chicago. and I know they are both quite different in the categories of Cost of Living, weather, people, crime, etc. but for people who know a lot about these cities or have been to/ lived in them could you tell me why you think one of them is better than the other.

[nightlysparrow]

Chicago may have a lot more opportunity for civil engineers, because there is a lot more building and repairing going on. SF has very little construction, and CA as a whole has very restrictive codes. You'd need to brush up on earthquake retrofitting!
Also, Chicago has more colleges, if you want to pursue an advanced degree.

[Nafster]

I have never lived in San Francisco.

I have visited several times since I'm so "close" - sometimes staying there for a couple weeks at a time.

I have lived in Chicago. Without a doubt, even with an 8K difference, your money will take you much farther in Chicago. Period. San Francisco is so outrageously overpriced it made even New York (which I also used to live in) seem relatively affordable and doable in comparison. And it's not just the city. It's nearly the entire Bay Area that bleeds expensiveness. If you want hills, mountains, and easy access to nature - San Fran has it all. The surrounding areas are gorgeous and have so much variety. Weather - come on! San Francisco easily. Even though it has it's share of crappy days, Chicago winters and crappy springs easily sink it.

Crime, San Francisco. People - Chicago by far. Much friendlier. Better nightlife? OMG - Chicago. By far. That city is a blast at night and come summer - the city comes alive. I've never had so much fun living in any city from June - August as I did in Chicago. So many things to do at almost all hours of the night. San Francisco is fun, yes - but I found it much more fun during the day than at night and it certainly didn't seem as vibrant at night as Chicago. During the day - it compares. In terms of mass transit, San Fran is extremely expensive for the BART but it gets you generally where you need to go. I found it more useful and efficient in Chicago though - as it's very extensive there (covers almost ANYWHERE in the city you'd need to go that's not dangerous).

Chicago is a much bigger city that just feels more urban and busier to me. Both cities have great restaurants and a yuppie scene. San Fran seemed to have more of an artsy, unique feel. I liked the architecture much more in Chicago, and Chicago utilizes it's waterfront for beaches much better. Otherwise, The Bay is just amazing and is much prettier than Lake Michigan.

The work culture in both cities is more "work to live" and not "live to work" like New York. I was absolutely floored in San Francisco how many young people in their mid to late 20s just seemed to not work. On a Monday afternoon the restaurants, shops, theaters, etc. are packed with young people that aren't tourists. I thought that was interesting - but a lot of them likely work odd end jobs or for start ups where the hours are more flexible. Chicago doesn't seem to have as big of a grasp on that field.

Both cities would work. But you need to consider what's more important to you. Do you want to be in a city with beautiful natural surroundings that is incredibly quirky, unique, but ridiculously expensive where you might occasionally have to seriously cut back on expenses to make rent? Even those I know in tech have to make some concessions, but they make it work and they like it.

In Chicago, me nor anyone I knew really had to make concessions as long as we were gainfully employed. It's not cheap compared to many other US cities but compared to San Fran it is.

Make a pros and cons list and give it a serious thought. You can't go wrong either way.

[chet everett]

The kind of organization that the OP has an offer from is almost certainly FAR MORE IMPORTANT than either the compensation or location.

A firm with true GLOBAL reach like Bechtel in San Francisco is a far better place to build one's career than pretty much organization in Chicago -- Engineering Services - Bechtel

Even if one had an offer from a firm like Skidmore Ownings and Merrill in Chicago the degree to which that would allow one to get experience around the globe is much more limited -- firms in Chicago may have satellites in other cities / countries but that cannot compare to being a "hub" like SF that dominates the whole Pacific Rim including other hot West Coast cities in the US and Canada. as well the enormous expanse that stretches into Asia, the booming island economies, India and Australia.

The nonsense uttered upthread about "Chicago having more repair projects" is among the most ignorant things I've seen on the boards in a long time -- there is a building boom in San Francisco the likes of which no other US city has experienced: Tech money drives San Francisco building boom, pushes others out - CNET

For anyone as young as the OP at 24 to take a pass on SF would be among the most dunderheaded moves possible, even if they have to endure a more constrained choice of housing the long term benefits from being involved with Bay area high tech firms ought to be ENORMOUS even for folks that work on mundane aspects of the boom!

[Cyclone20]

Because of the through the roof costs of living and other things in SF, would 90k be enough for me to be comfortable? I'd like to buy a 2-3 bedroom home and I'd want to be in a safe area.

[Cyclone20]

I will also say that while I'd love to work for the best company possible, location and living expenses are still a top priority to me. Especially as a young worker who has room to grow at any company in terms of salary and job positioning.

[chet everett]

You will NOT be able to buy a home in either Chicago or San Francisco on your stated salary in any area that would make sense for a 24 yr old and frankly it would be a mistake to even consider that in your decision. At your stage of your career owning a home would very likely be a HINDERANCE to your professional development -- it is foolish to have anything that ties you down or even consumes too much of your time for upkeep. You should be eagerly ASKING for things like EXTENDED TRAVEL opportunities that will only make you MORE VALUABLE in the long run to your current employer or competitors. If you own a home you would need to arrange for someone to look after things in your absence, that will not be a long term boost to your potential for advancement.

[Cyclone20]

I guess I left out that I'd obviously not buy right away when I moved to either of these places, which you've stated above would be a horrible decision and I'm very aware of that.

[Cyclone20]

Based on my own opinion and others opinions, along with research I'm leaning towards Chicago. I've been to Chicago many times and my favorite neighborhoods are Lincoln Park, River North, Gold Coast, and Near North. Which one of these is considered the better of the 4? I'm open for other suggestions as well.

[chet everett]

There are places across the bay in Oakland that you could afford, but given the relative undesirability of those spots it almost certainly makes much more sense to WAIT and see how quickly your skills, responsibilities and compensation grow in SF. The same. of course would be true in Chicago but the very different likely trajectory of each city has a HUGE influence on why should almost certainly choose SF at this point.

The continued fiscal crisis will almost certainly cause property values in Chicago to be stagnant or fall. In contrast the robust economy of SF shows little signs of slowing.

If you get sizeable boosts in compensation in SF to help address the COL you very likely will be in much better shape to buy in a few years. That likely will widen the gap in compensation even if you were to do a superb job in Chicago.

The thing too is that IF after spending a few years in SF it should be relatively easy to say to a recruiter with openings in Chicago "hey things are just way too expensive out here, find me a position in Chicago or NY or frankly ANY OTHER CITY that is suitable for my experience". Odds are firms would GLADLY help you with a package for relocation that makes it easy to get a nice condo or perhaps even townhome in a desirable part of pretty much ANY other US city!

This is kind of no-brainer, the higher your compensation early in your career the easier it will be to keep options open!


The various kinds of neighborhoods in SF that would compare favorably to those you've experienced in Chicago are easy enough to figure out and with a salary of $90k as a single 24 yr old you will have the opportunity to explore many options.