Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yeah, most people in this thread disagree. chicago is plainly the better city. why even go west of the mississippi if everything urban (this is city data, not country gardening or surfing data) is in the northeast and midwest?
any really, the only reason why sj is even that high is bc of san jose. without the city of san jose, sf would be irrelevant. try fighting it out with other medium sized places like detroit, seattle, or phoenix first.
Great, now we have the opposite extreme. Have you ever even been to San Francisco?
Great, now we have the opposite extreme. Have you ever even been to San Francisco?
yes. it was good, but its just not my kind of city. i like cities with a bit more grit, urbanity, and multiculturalism. those all contribute to my quality of life.
since im all about status, why live in the 2nd or 3rd or 4th city (sf has less people than san diego and san jose) in a state when i can live in #1. chicago is not only #1 in its state but in the midwest. sf isnt even #1 in ca. if i had to live in cali, its all about la.
In the inner core of SF proper, SF can easily compete with Chicago proper, and even surpass Chicago in several categories. In terms of scenery and weather SF is an easy decision, at least if you like mild weather all year, and of course SF is an easy decision if you like a lot of scenery variety.
Frankly I'm surprised Chicago is so ahead, but I guess it shows that city-data has more Chicago homers and it has a lot of SF haters.
For its size, SF packs a lot of punch - and it feels much larger than it really is. Case in point, SF's chinatown is second in my opinion to NYC. To many it is actually ahead of NYC. And certain parts of SF feel more vibrant than Chicago's vibrant parts.
In summary, I'd have to give a very slight edge to Chicago on the overall criteria mentioned, but if you consider the weather and scenery my nod goes to SF easily.
No but maybe u are. California is mad overrated. Accept it. If cali dissapeared we wwould be all better off. The place doesnt offer any cool cities like chicago nyc boston phily or dc.
Oh brother! Kids under 18 should not be allowed on CD!
yes. it was good, but its just not my kind of city. i like cities with a bit more grit, urbanity, and multiculturalism. those all contribute to my quality of life.
I love both SF and Chicago. San Francisco has all of those things by the boatload. Most people who have never visited SF presume it's some sort of natural scenery heavy, pristine, yuppie city.
There may be a lot of money there, but the city is PLENTY gritty. I think the Tenderloin may be one of the coolest "gritty" neighborhoods in the country. I'd say it has everything folks in Boston and New York wax poetic about when they talk about the "combat zones" in Downtown Crossing and Times Square. Lots of character. In the Mission (a huge neighborhood), you get multiculturalism as well grit. Tons of it. San Francisco is one of the densest, most urbane cities in the country too.
I'm not saying it beats Chicago (though I prefer SF, Chicago fit more of the criteria for this thread in my response), but I don't see how someone can say San Francisco lacks in grit, urbanity and multiculturalism. Those three things (with the awesome setting added in) are among the top words I'd use to describe SF.
Oh brother! Kids under 18 should not be allowed on CD!
Agreed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I love both SF and Chicago. San Francisco has all of those things by the boatload. Most people who have never visited SF presume it's some sort of natural scenery heavy, pristine, yuppie city.
There may be a lot of money there, but the city is PLENTY gritty. I think the Tenderloin may be one of the coolest "gritty" neighborhoods in the country. I'd say it has everything folks in Boston and New York wax poetic about when they talk about the "combat zones" in Downtown Crossing and Times Square. Lots of character. In the Mission (a huge neighborhood), you get multiculturalism as well grit. Tons of it. San Francisco is one of the densest, most urbane cities in the country too.
I'm not saying it beats Chicago (though I prefer SF, Chicago fit more of the criteria for this thread in my response), but I don't see how someone can say San Francisco lacks in grit, urbanity and multiculturalism. Those three things (with the awesome setting added in) are among the top words I'd use to describe SF.
Glad to see someone else in this thread know what's up! I don't care if people love it or hate it, but the least they could do is describe it our compare it accurately. I fully agree, especially with the bold.
The biggest issue I have with San Francisco is the shrieking hippy-dippy activists who are always indignant about something or other. Banish them to a leper colony and replace them with a bunch of people from, say, Buffalo or Pittsburgh, and it would probably be the coolest city on Earth.
Access to other cities: Depends on your perspective. O'Hare and Midway airports offer you extensive connections throughout the world. However if you want to drive, you're looking at 8 hours to Indianapolis, 5 hours to St. Louis, 4 hours to Milwaukee, etc. SF is similarly isolated ... it's like 6-7 hours driving to Los Angeles and a whole day's drive to Portland.
You must be the slowest driver in the world. In the 8 hours it takes you to get to Indianapolis, I've already passed it 5-1/2 hours ago and I'm deep into Tennessee. By the time you reach Milwaukee in 4 hours, I'll have reached it 3 hours ago and I'm already past Green Bay and at the Michigan border.
5 hours to St. Louis is pretty realistic, but the way I drive and traffic permitting, I'm already closing in on Jefferson City.
There is nothing to agree or disagree about. These are statements of fact.
The Bay Area has a larger economy.
Period.
another fact; sf msa has a smaller economy than chicago msa. period. see how that works? and if you just leave it to the city of sf vs. city of chicago, no contest.
again, sf is the 4th city in ca after la, sd, and sj by population and economy. just accept it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have you ever even been to San Francisco?
