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.
Well, I wouldn't listen to a damn word Steve-o says as he is obviously biased. Just look at half of his postings on here and you will see that they are in defense of Chicago. Honest, if expenses were not an issue, I would easily choose San Francisco. First, San Francisco is a VERY safe city. There are only a few pocket areas (hunters point, tenderloin) that I would be weary of. In terms of friendliness, I would give that to Chicago. Even though Chicago is a bigger city, it often feels like people in SF are just overall more rushed and less apt to talk to strangers. I would easily give the excitement / atmosphere to SF. SF has a limitless amount of things to do. After all, when tourists come to the United States, it is most often NYC or SF that they are coming to visit (Most Visited Tourist Attractions | ForbesTraveler.com (http://www.forbestraveler.com/best-lists/most-visited-tourist-attractions-slide-15.html?partner=playlist&thisSpeed=20000 - broken link)), not Chicago. There is a reason for this. It's not to say Chicago sucks, but San Francisco is just an overall better city. Then take into consideration the weather... Money aside, this is a very easy decision.
You accuse me of defending Chicago, yet here you are defending San Fran. And that makes you different how?
I never said San Fran wasnt safe. Get off your high horse and you know, actually read my post. But if someone is looking for excitement, Chicago has more, it doesnt take a genius to figure that out.
Excuse me? Neighborhood dive? beer? The overwhelming majority of us do not dress in flannel to waddle down to a neighborhood dive. Those are actually more common San Francisco than in Chicago, despite whatever "boutique" feel San Fran struggles so valiantly to place on them.
Flannel? Waddle? in San Francisco? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Chicago and San Francisco have huge arts and yuppie and hipster populations-no doubt about that.
I despise the term "Boutique City".
It was concocted by Joel Kotkin, a faux-urbanist who seeks to delegitimize strong downtowns and vibrant urban cores and then props up places that are auto-centric and sprawled out hellholes.
New York, also according to Joel Kotkin, is a boutique city.
Beverly Hills is a boutique city, Palm Beach is a boutique city, San Francisco is a real city. Let's not get it twisted.
Excuse me? Neighborhood dive? beer? The overwhelming majority of us do not dress in flannel to waddle down to a neighborhood dive. Those are actually more common San Francisco than in Chicago, despite whatever "boutique" feel San Fran struggles so valiantly to place on them.
What's wrong with putting on a flannel shirt and walking down
to the neighboord dive for a beer ?
The city of big shoulders that I grew up in was never so pissy.
Its no secret steveo is , under infromed as well as naive. This is why he keeps analysing cities that he has never lived in. I for one have lived in both cities so be prepared for a break down.
First ill go with what the OP asked.
In terms of Saftey San Fran has chicago beat by a LONG SHOT. There are only 4 neighborhoods where i would be a little unco****table in SF at 4am(Misson bayfair, hp,filmore) Some people like steveo will tell you that chicago is safe, but in reality large swaths of the South side, and virtually all of the west side are in urban decay.Infact chicago's west side has a history of being a dumping ground for immigrants and "undesirables" There are LITERALLY parts of chicago where you will not see a caucasion (for better and for worse) for MILES.
Friendly people. Hmm well this is extremely subjective but ill give a break down of my personal experience. In SF people tend to be more progressive, outwardly polite and politically correct, chicagoans are more blunt and reserved and conformist.
While in SF people may be outwardly open , it can at times be more difficult to forge friendships rather than keep loose aquaintances. In chicago people may not be as outwardly open but once folks realize you have what they deem acceptable friendship critera(money, similar ethnic backrounds, political beliefs, hobbies), you forge lasting loyal friendships. I have friends to this day that fly to california everyyear just to give me a visit. Personally i think both cities are friendly, in different ways.
On excitement I'd say Sf because i love eccentric vibes. Second in population density only to New York City, San Fran definatly has that hustle and bustle feeling almost all the time. Dont get me wrong, unlike new york, san fran actually sleeps. Top that in with the seemingly never ending line of tourists and vegabonds who spent their last savings on a grey hound ticket to SF and you really get a crazy kind of vibe. From tripping on Acid at golden gate park, to getting scared by the black guy who hides in the bush's and waits for tourists to scare on fishermans warf Sf seems to always have somthing going on. Lets not even start on the multitude of counter culture events from indie shows to hippie festivals that seemingly happen every weekend.
Chicago has excitement too, its different and not like Sf. Chicago's strongest attributes in terms of excitement i thought wree the excellent bar scene as well as fiercly loyal sports fans of teams with history. Chicago is exciting but not in an eccentric manner. Furthermore the amount of exciting things you can do is severley limited by chicago's notoriously horrendus weather. There is a direct correlation between what chicagoans value for excitement, and the weather. in many cases there tends to be an emphasis on excitement that can be found "indoors"
As far as steveo goes he would fit in in SF. Hes a nut. Weather or not chicago has "everything sf does in greater quantities" is innaccurate. Does chicago have more bridges? More medical marijuana dispensaries? more hills? a proportionally larger openly gay community?More trollies? Of course not. SF has certain attributes that chicago will never have. AND vise-versa
SF is safer in a better natural location. I think your will find both have people who are firendly. Chicago is obviously much larger. SF has a very high % of trust fund kids your age (highest of any city I've been in). Honestly, I'd pick the city that was closer to your family/friends unless weather is a big issue for you in which case I'd pick SF.
(Misson bayfair, hp,filmore) Some people like steveo will tell you that chicago is safe, but in reality large swaths of the South side, and virtually all of the west side are in urban decay
Dang, another San Franciscan that cant read my post correctly. Keep going guys, youre on a roll!
RE-READ MY POST AND THEN EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOU JUST WROTE THAT?
Id give the slight edge to Chicago. Safety? Slight edge to San Fran. Most areas in Chicago are very safe, especially downtown, near west side and north sides. The south side has horrible areas (and good ones too) as is most of the west side. Friendliness? Chicago. Excitement? Chicago. Its just larger and has everything San Fran does, just in greater quantities.
Okay steveo here is a direct quote. You say most area's in chicago are safe. All the while less than 3 years ago chicago was leading the nation in the murder rate. The fact of the matter is Most of chicago is not 'safe'. You contradict YOURSELF when you say this and than go out to point out the south and west side (2/3 of the city) has iffyareas. Why cant you just be HONEST? More than half of chicago can not be recommended to a young person seeking a safe place to live.
Chicago if anything is more comparable to oakland. In oakland most of the safe area's fall with in the hillside, or down by lake merritt although there are some pockets of decent neighborhoods around the city. in chicago the areas near the loop and the northside are safe and again there are pockets of safe neighborhoods surrounded by decay elsewhere in the city( example: hyde park) much like oakland.
Okay steveo here is a direct quote. You say most area's in chicago are safe. All the while less than 3 years ago chicago was leading the nation in the murder rate. The fact of the matter is Most of chicago is not 'safe'. You contradict YOURSELF when you say this and than go out to point out the south and west side (2/3 of the city) has iffyareas. Why cant you just be HONEST? More than half of chicago can not be recommended to a young person seeking a safe place to live.
I said the south and westsides are dangerous. Whats so hard to understand, amigo? And there are TONS of young professionals moving into the city on a daily basis because most areas are perfectly safe.
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.
