U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-18-2007, 11:01 AM
 
202 posts, read 184,690 times
Reputation: 27

Advertisements

Being reserved/being open is far more indicative of how you are raised than where you live, really. Everything else, is to an extent, a stereotype. I am as reserved as I am whether I'm in Chicago or San Francisco. It's upbringing, not geography.

 
Old 09-18-2007, 11:04 AM
 
374 posts, read 1,719,021 times
Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribbler View Post
Say what? I can see the "I wish I lived in a bigger, more world class city" thing from Mpls or Seattle (both of which I've spent extensive time in). But Chicago? No size envy from Chicagoans. There are only two other cities in the U.S. that are bigger than Chicago, and cities like SF feel small to me after having lived in Chicago.
Well, Chicago feels smaller to me than Boston, Seattle or San Francisco. It's spread out and less densely populated. That to me creates the feel of a big city. You feel, in almost any neighborhood, in San Francisco that you're in a bustling hub of the city. That is certainly not the case in Chicago. Neighborhoods close to the center can and do feel almost suburban. At least to me.
 
Old 09-18-2007, 11:05 AM
 
2,222 posts, read 5,694,091 times
Reputation: 1559
Quote:
Originally Posted by beone View Post
Cities like San Francisco, Seattle and Boston feel bigger to me than Chicago, because Chicago is so spread out and has a much lower population density, or so it seems.
I dont think you can even compare the downtown densities of these cities to Chicago. If you look across the entire metro area it may be greater because yes, Chicago is sprawled...especially the suburbs. However, all you have to do is look at the skylines to realize theres a whole lot more people living on top of each other in Chicago than there is in Boston, or Seattle. And certain neighborhoods are among the densest in the world. For instance, I believe the near north side is around 45,000/sq mile. Manhattan is around 65.

Now yes, SF is very dense..I think 15,834/sq mi. Chicago is 12,470/sq mi. Boston is 12,327/sq mi. Seattle is 6,901/sq mi.
 
Old 09-18-2007, 11:07 AM
 
374 posts, read 1,719,021 times
Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribbler View Post
The context I was thinking of is, as my friend and her husband, Bay area residents, point out, "We HAVE to be conscious that we're always on track for better jobs, better promotions, it's a constant ladder climb," because even at six figures apiece, they can't afford to be home owners in the area where they live. Call me cynical, but it's funny to me that an area with such a mythology for being "so laid back, man," forces one to be shackled to a game of chasing six figure incomes just for something as basic (and affordable,in other areas of the country) as owning a home. That, to me, seems not worthwhile.
I see. Well, first of all, I surprises me that a dual income earning ($200k +) couple couldn't own a home. I know a couple who earn just over $200k together and they have a $1.2 million home in Noe Valley.

To each his own....I'd rather rent the rest of my life here (or in NYC) than live any where else in the United States.
 
Old 09-18-2007, 11:09 AM
 
202 posts, read 184,690 times
Reputation: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by beone View Post
Well, Chicago feels smaller to me than Boston, Seattle or San Francisco. It's spread out and less densely populated. That to me creates the feel of a big city. You feel, in almost any neighborhood, in San Francisco that you're in a bustling hub of the city. That is certainly not the case in Chicago. Neighborhoods close to the center can and do feel almost suburban. At least to me.
Gotta disagree with you, speaking for myself personally...after having been a resident of Chicago, places like Minneapolis/St. Paul, Seattle, SF, Boston, Baltimore, Kansas City, St. Louis, etc. to me feel like cute little "play" cities. NY feels bigger, never been to L.A., but I'm sure it would, too. But it's all just personal perspective,I guess.
 
Old 09-18-2007, 11:13 AM
 
374 posts, read 1,719,021 times
Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by via chicago View Post
I dont think you can even compare the downtown densities of these cities to Chicago. If you look across the entire metro area it may be greater because yes, Chicago is sprawled...especially the suburbs. However, all you have to do is look at the skylines to realize theres a whole lot more people living on top of each other in Chicago than there is in Boston, or Seattle. And certain neighborhoods are among the densest in the world. For instance, I believe the near north side is around 45,000/sq mile. Manhattan is around 65.

Now yes, SF is very dense..I think 15,834/sq mi. Chicago is 12,470/sq mi. Boston is 12,327/sq mi. Seattle is 6,901/sq mi.
I think comparing downtowns is useless. I think the feel of living in a city is stronger in San Francisco, Boston and Seattle compared with Chicago. That's my opinion. Yours may differ and you're entitled to your opinion, but it's wrong. Just kidding. Really, things mean different things to different people and no one is right or wrong about things like the feeling of city living. To me, I really never got that in Chicago. But, like I said above, I love the town and always have a blast when I'm there....but I never got a sense of being in a very exciting place like I have in Seattle, Boston, SF, NYC, and DC.
 
Old 09-18-2007, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Chicago
38,691 posts, read 86,783,990 times
Reputation: 29355
Quote:
Originally Posted by beone View Post
Well, Chicago feels smaller to me than Boston, Seattle or San Francisco. It's spread out and less densely populated.
The reason why Chicago feels "spread out" is because it's just so much vastly larger than these cities, not because it's necessarily less dense. In two of the three comparisons you give of "less spread-out" cities, Chicago is actually MORE dense. Chicago and Boston's density is nearly identical, with Chicago being slightly more dense. As for Seattle, Boston and Chicago are almost three times as dense (and San Fran is three times as dense), so it's hard to imagine where you get the impression that Seattle fits in with this gang. Chicago is not as dense as San Fran, but at 12,500/sq.mi versus 15,000/sq.mi, I don't know that it makes that much difference. I certainly don't get how Chicago "feels" smaller than these cities when it's obviously very, very much bigger than they are.
 
Old 09-18-2007, 11:16 AM
 
374 posts, read 1,719,021 times
Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribbler View Post
Gotta disagree with you, speaking for myself personally...after having been a resident of Chicago, places like Minneapolis/St. Paul, Seattle, SF, Boston, Baltimore, Kansas City, St. Louis, etc. to me feel like cute little "play" cities. NY feels bigger, never been to L.A., but I'm sure it would, too. But it's all just personal perspective,I guess.
It is personal perspective. Ok, here's my perspective - as someone who lived 7 years in the Twin Cities (MPLS/St. Paul), Chicago feels like a bigger MPLS/St. Paul to me. It has a bigger downtown, but the neighborhoods have the same feel as the Twin Cities. The city feel is also the same - midwestern I guess is how I would have to describe it. In other words, not unique/almost boring in appearance. Cities like SF, Boston, NYC and D.C. - they feel unique to me and have much more interesting architecture in the neighborhoods (i.e. not downtown).
 
Old 09-18-2007, 11:24 AM
 
202 posts, read 184,690 times
Reputation: 27
You appear to have a fair amount of anti-midwestern bias, which is fine, to each, his or her own. But that doesn't make SF a bigger city than Chicago or anything (and, in the opinions of many, necessarily with any more or less appeal). I do have to disagree with you, though, on the architecture thing...Chicago's stake in world-class architecture (come on, it's the birthplace of the modern skyscraper) is pretty indisputable.
 
Old 09-18-2007, 11:27 AM
 
3,567 posts, read 7,513,390 times
Reputation: 2854
Quote:
Originally Posted by beone View Post
Well, Chicago feels smaller to me than Boston, Seattle or San Francisco. It's spread out and less densely populated. That to me creates the feel of a big city. You feel, in almost any neighborhood, in San Francisco that you're in a bustling hub of the city. That is certainly not the case in Chicago. Neighborhoods close to the center can and do feel almost suburban. At least to me.
Chicago has the second most densely populated downtown with permanent residents in the country.

Compare that to San Francisco, where the "downtown" area is like something you'd find in an outer reach of Chicago, and the difference is startling. San Fran does not feel "bustling", it's too small in every way. I'm not even sure how you can say that the areas in Chicago are suburban, especially as San Francisco is nothing but suburbs. Skyscrapers to tiny three story buildings? Right
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top