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)
View Poll Results: Sanfransico or Chicago
Sanfransico 75 45.45%
Chicago 90 54.55%
Voters: 165. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-27-2009, 02:26 PM
 
2,958 posts, read 5,663,333 times
Reputation: 1408

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago14 View Post
1. Kids from Chicago are toughened up and used to the snowy winters here and spend much of their time building snow forts, sledding, organizing snow fights, building snow men, snow angels. Get them bundled up in some warm clothing and they're happy as ever. And that's what I did when I was a kid More time is spent indoors, but there are tons of ways to have fun outdoors during winter and kids know how to make use of it!
Yeah I don't think snowy winters are a bad thing. Especially not for kids. I hate driving through it though. But as a kid, playing in the snow is fun and I know I always wanted to see it snow in the winter. I wouldn't trade our weather out here for it, but it would be cool to have.

I think most people have the impression that Chicago's winters are much more brutal than they realistically are. It sounds like winters get much worse in places farther north like Green Bay and the like than they do in Chicago. Is that true?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago14 View Post
2. I know our crimerates are higher but it really is very localized. I'm not just saying this to boost Chicago. Our murder rate last year was embarrassingly high but again almost all crime takes place in areas on the west and patches of the south side where there is a high density of low income african americans. It is so second-nature to everyone with a brain in this city to not go in these areas at night that we don't even think about it. Of course the city is so huge and everything fun is not located in these high crime areas so you would need to make a conscious effort to go to go there. Chicago has a lot more low income minorities than San Francisco, and this is the baggage that comes with it.
Yeah one thing I'll say in favor of Chicago here in relation to its crime is that it does not seem to have a lot of it near the Loop. SF's downtown has a way worse problem with crime by comparison, at least as far as I know. And that sucks. It sounds like the crime in Chicago, even though it may rank among our nation's worst, is totally avoidable for the most part. I think its really cool that Chicago's downtown is as clean as I've heard it is. Hopefully one day I'll get to check it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago14 View Post
3. I think an important issue that isn't brought up often is cost of living. Raising a family is expensive, and while neither city is cheap, Chicago is more affordable and is easier on a family's expenses. You can get a home with more space for the children while still paying less than what you would pay in many spots in Sanfran. This is a key factor.
This is a good point too. The COL out here is ridiculous. Salaries do compensate for the most part, but it is way too expensive out here. But at the same time, this is a great place to live and you get what you pay for. Chicago sounds like it can be a great place too, and the COL out there does sound much better. So I guess it really comes down to personal preference and how much one values what is offered out here for the price its offered.

 
Old 06-27-2009, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,522 posts, read 12,284,915 times
Reputation: 3827
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650 View Post
Yeah I don't think snowy winters are a bad thing. Especially not for kids. I hate driving through it though. But as a kid, playing in the snow is fun and I know I always wanted to see it snow in the winter. I wouldn't trade our weather out here for it, but it would be cool to have.

I think most people have the impression that Chicago's winters are much more brutal than they realistically are. It sounds like winters get much worse in places farther north like Green Bay and the like than they do in Chicago. Is that true?
Well, everything is relative of course, but I think our winters are pretty manageable, especially compared to places like Minneapolis. Its the rare winter where snow blankets the ground continuously from December to March. Yes, it does get cold, but those cold spells often are interrupted by stretches of remarkably mild weather even in mid-February.

Quote:
Yeah one thing I'll say in favor of Chicago here in relation to its crime is that it does not seem to have a lot of it near the Loop. SF's downtown has a way worse problem with crime by comparison, at least as far as I know. And that sucks. It sounds like the crime in Chicago, even though it may rank among our nation's worst, is totally avoidable for the most part. I think its really cool that Chicago's downtown is as clean as I've heard it is. Hopefully one day I'll get to check it out.
There are some truly awful neighborhoods in Chicago with sky high crime rates that no one deserves to live in. Luckily, those areas are avoidable for the vast majority of people. Its fairly easy to live your entire life within the confines of the gentrified neighborhoods of Chicago with your only exposure to the bad areas being the 10 o'clock news. Its a sad commentary on our (American) society that we tolerate this discrepancy, but we do.

Quote:
This is a good point too. The COL out here is ridiculous. Salaries do compensate for the most part, but it is way too expensive out here. But at the same time, this is a great place to live and you get what you pay for. Chicago sounds like it can be a great place too, and the COL out there does sound much better. So I guess it really comes down to personal preference and how much one values what is offered out here for the price its offered.
A lot of urbanophiles tend to undervalue the importance of COL. But what good is beautiful weather, fine dining, cultural amenities, etc, if you can't afford the rent/mortgage? Obviously there are trade-offs between COL and these amenities, and everyone has their ideas about the relative importance.
 
Old 06-27-2009, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Chicago
94 posts, read 254,361 times
Reputation: 83
jman650, thank you for being civil and open-minded. I have no problem if you prefer the bay area to Chicago- you've got my respect regardless. A California poster that actually manages to debate like a human being. I almost feel spoiled.
 
Old 06-27-2009, 03:34 PM
 
116 posts, read 212,130 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650 View Post
Okay its obvious that you're in favor of taking CA down a notch based on everything you've posted so far, even though you claim to love it. That's fine. But this is a bit of a stretch even for you. Chicago is close to SOME cities, and it is obviously closer geographically to the East Coast than CA, but 12.5 hours to NYC is not exactly next door. Neither is 6 hours to Toronto (which online is actually calculated at 8.5 hours).

If you're going to make the argument of how many cities are closer to both SF and Chicago, then let's look at what is actually close. Typically I would include much of this to be part of SF's make up since its all so local to it, but for this argument they'll need to be listed separately. Within 100 miles of SF you have Oakland, San Jose and Sacramento, as well as the original steroid-free version of Berkeley, Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa to name a few. Within 100 miles of Chi you have Milwaukee and Gary. That is what I would call "close by" since you could drive there and back on a daily basis if you wanted to, and SF is clearly far superior to Chicago here.

Now let's extend it further. 300 miles is good enough to still make it to somewhere and back in a day if you're determined enough I think. Within 300 miles of Chicago you also have Detroit, Cincinnati, Indianapolis and St. Louis. Maybe add a few other cities like Ft. Wayne I guess, but I don't know what else most people would count as worth mention beyond that. Within 300 miles of SF we could include Monterey/Carmel, Chico (which has been known for being the #1 party school in the nation and I would guess it to be Madison on steroids), Tahoe, Reno, Fresno, Bakersfield, Redding....basically the entirety of Northern CA almost all the way up to the Oregon border which also includes Yosemite, Big Sur, the Sierras, Clear Lake, Humboldt and Mendocino Counties, etc., etc. That's a lot of stuff that's literally within reach of SF, and clearly way beyond what is near Chicago.

Now if you want to talk about what can be reached in a day's drive if you want to go on vacation, like the 800 miles you'd need to drive to reach NYC from Chicago, then yes, there is a better variety of large cities that can be reached from Chicago than there is from SF. But I would hardly call that "close by." Within that distance SF can reach Santa Barbara, LA, Long Beach, San Diego, Vegas, Portland, Seattle, Boise and Salt Lake City. Those are not what anyone here would call close by unless they were looking at a map and speaking relatively. But driving to them is a journey, and most people would rather fly a distance that great. There aren't really too many people that would drive to any of these cities from SF and back in the same day, except POSSIBLY Santa Barbara. LA is close to us in a sense, but we aren't exactly neighbors.

I disagree with your last statement too. I think a bigger reason why Chicago grew as big as it did was its isolation from most major cities in this country. That region was separate from so many of our nation's major cities, so Chicago was able to take root and blossom into a metropolis, kind of like how LA was able to. Many people flocked to that one city b/c their options in that area were more limited. That makes more sense to me anyway.
San Francisco is far more isolated than Chicago is. I have to say I'm pretty amazed that there are people out there that believe otherwise.

If you are sick of the urban lights map at night you can try this one:

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/ams-usa-population.png (broken link)
 
Old 06-27-2009, 03:41 PM
 
2,958 posts, read 5,663,333 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago14 View Post
jman650, thank you for being civil and open-minded. I have no problem if you prefer the bay area to Chicago- you've got my respect regardless. A California poster that actually manages to debate like a human being. I almost feel spoiled.
No problem, and thanks to you as well!
 
Old 06-27-2009, 04:05 PM
 
2,958 posts, read 5,663,333 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by sukwoo View Post
Its a sad commentary on our (American) society that we tolerate this discrepancy, but we do.
I couldn't agree more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sukwoo View Post
A lot of urbanophiles tend to undervalue the importance of COL. But what good is beautiful weather, fine dining, cultural amenities, etc, if you can't afford the rent/mortgage? Obviously there are trade-offs between COL and these amenities, and everyone has their ideas about the relative importance.
This is very true, and it is a question I have found myself asking on more than one occasion. I have considered moving elsewhere at several points in my life, and still do not rule it out, not only to get a whole new experience but also to be able to live a more comfortable lifestyle. I expect to live elsewhere in the next few years for a change of pace actually. But my heart is here, and there is much I would miss greatly. Whenever I travel I always end up longing for much of what is out here. So I believe in the long run I'd very likely end up back here in CA, but you never know. If I found a place that truly satisfied me enough to replace what I have out here, it just might happen. It saddens me that many of us are being priced out of here. I think a higher COL out here is somewhat justified, but no where near the level it is currently at. Unless you have at least a six-figure income you can't really expect to own a decent house out here anymore. That's just plain insanity.
 
Old 06-27-2009, 04:27 PM
 
2,958 posts, read 5,663,333 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyobubba View Post
San Francisco is far more isolated than Chicago is. I have to say I'm pretty amazed that there are people out there that believe otherwise.

If you are sick of the urban lights map at night you can try this one:
That's actually a really good map for this purpose. And as far as proximity to population centers goes, I agree that SF is more isolated. Its all in what angle you want to look at it though. SF is very close to many cities and many options/things to do, and in that sense I would say less isolated than Chicago. But definitely in terms of proximity to more major cities and much, much more heavily populated sectors of the US, Chicago wins hands down.
 
Old 06-27-2009, 05:04 PM
 
Location: At the center of the universe!
1,179 posts, read 1,755,909 times
Reputation: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickmahorn View Post
That is an awesome picture. It's interesting how there seems to be a straight line down the middle of the country dividing the east and the west. I didn't realize how little there was in the western half of the US.*

*I am not trying to incite a east vs. west flame war. I am speaking merely in terms of urban developments/light pollution. The west has many redeeming qualities and cities. Again, no flame war.
This shows you how important water is. The eastern half which is the green half is where all the people live. Back in the old days they couldn't get water to the desert like they can these days so everybody had to live in the east where the rainfall is a lot higher. Now people can live wherever they want. Phoenix and Vegas have been the fastest growing cities in America the last 10 or 20 years.
 
Old 06-27-2009, 05:20 PM
 
2,958 posts, read 5,663,333 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo2008 View Post
This shows you how important water is. The eastern half which is the green half is where all the people live. Back in the old days they couldn't get water to the desert like they can these days so everybody had to live in the east where the rainfall is a lot higher. Now people can live wherever they want. Phoenix and Vegas have been the fastest growing cities in America the last 10 or 20 years.
That's a very good point. Rep for you!
 
Old 06-27-2009, 05:29 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,690 posts, read 89,178,626 times
Reputation: 29451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo2008 View Post
This shows you how important water is. The eastern half which is the green half is where all the people live. Back in the old days they couldn't get water to the desert like they can these days so everybody had to live in the east where the rainfall is a lot higher. Now people can live wherever they want. Phoenix and Vegas have been the fastest growing cities in America the last 10 or 20 years.
Not to get too off-topic, but we'll see how long that lasts. The upper Midwest could become the Saudi Arabia of water within our lifetimes. There are already legal battles over who has access to Great Lakes water, the boundaries of the basin, etc.
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.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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