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.
The Sears Tower was the tallest building in the world for almost three decades, that alone makes it more iconic and recognizable than the Transamerica Pyramid. It recieved a level of attention the Transamerica Pyramid never did.
Forgot to weight in, San Francisco has more features well known across the world. It's more iconic, in my opinion. It's probably more well known today, strongly because of it's Pacific Rim DNA (lots of business and social connections to that side of the world, part of the world with a staggering population in raw numbers).
Chicago's the more cultured city in my opinion, in the traditional sense (theater, improv (comedy/tragedy), institutions of culture, musicals, and the play "Chicago" has numerous posterboards in "leisure heavy" areas of Manhattan with a fixture of early 1900's Chicago style). So on.
But SF is more cultured in the other sense. It is the counter-cultural capital of America, and that history is marked in places like Haight-Ashbury (hippie culture), Castro (gay rights), and North Beach (the Beatniks). Historically ethnic neighborhoods like the Mission District with its amazing murals and SF's Chinatown, which is one of a kind in the US, also add a lot of flavor.
SF also has so many iconic structures aside from the ones already mentioned, like its many victorian rowhouses, the Grace Cathedral, the Mision San Francisco De Asis, the Palace of Fine Arts, and - in my opinion - one of the most underrated structures in the country, the Civic Center.
SF also has so many iconic structures aside from the ones already mentioned, like its many victorian rowhouses, the Grace Cathedral, the Mision San Francisco De Asis, the Palace of Fine Arts, and - in my opinion - one of the most underrated structures in the country, the Civic Center.
Aside from Victorian rowhouses, I don't think you're average person is going to recognize any of those things and associate then with SF. Grace Cathedral? Mission Dolores? Why would anyone outside of Northern Ca even know about those places unless they've visited? I hardly call them iconic.
But SF is more cultured in the other sense. It is the counter-cultural capital of America, and that history is marked in places like Haight-Ashbury (hippie culture), Castro (gay rights), and North Beach (the Beatniks). Historically ethnic neighborhoods like the Mission District with its amazing murals and SF's Chinatown, which is one of a kind in the US, also add a lot of flavor.
SF was the counter-cultural capital of America. You can't really maintain that title when you're in a race against Manhattan to see who can price out everyone but the wealthy first.
PS: SF isn't the only one with a gayborhood(s) and ethnic neighborhoods with murals.
I mean, it's just hard to beat out the Golden Gate Bridge, SF Hills, SF historic cable cars, and neighborhoods like The Castro and Haight-Ashbury as far as iconic places are concerned.
I mean, in Chicago, other then the Willis Tower, what is iconic internationally? Chicago has no well known neighborhoods other then Southside Chicago for obvious reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwest1
I mean, it's hard to beat out all of the river drawbridges, the iconic lakefront, the historic Chicago 'L', and neighborhoods like Hyde Park, Lincoln Park, Lakeview and Wicker Park.
the ignorance about Chicago is astounding in this thread. The South Side is not a neighborhood, it is a SIDE of the city, consisting of dozens of neighborhoods. but whatever, nothing to see in Chicago, that's why San Francisco's own, George Lucas, may build his legacy in Chicago....cause we desperately need a tourist attraction.
I think both of you are highly overestimating the neighborhoods that the general public would know in either city to be perfectly honest. SF is going to have the better claim to fame when it comes to neighborhoods, but you'd actually have to have read up on them to know about them. The Haight? You're only going to know about it if you were interested in counter culture in the 60s or actually lived through that era. The average person will have never heard of it. As for the Castro, you either need to be familiar with cities on the West Coast or you need to be gay to have heard of it. I've only heard of both because I took a 60s culture class in college and because I'm gay.
As for Chicago, no one is going to know our neighborhoods. The best bet would be the Loop, but even that would be a stretch. No one outside of the region is going to have heard of Lincoln Park, Lakeview, or Wicker.
PS: The south side isn't a neighborhood.
PPS: No one cares about the bridges on the Chicago River. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John
Forgot to weight in, San Francisco has more features well known across the world. It's more iconic, in my opinion. It's probably more well known today, strongly because of it's Pacific Rim DNA (lots of business and social connections to that side of the world, part of the world with a staggering population in raw numbers).
Chicago's the more cultured city in my opinion, in the traditional sense (theater, improv (comedy/tragedy), institutions of culture, musicals, and the play "Chicago" has numerous posterboards in "leisure heavy" areas of Manhattan with a fixture of early 1900's Chicago style). So on.
I would generally agree with this.
San Francisco pops into everyones head because of the quaint homes, the rolling hills, streetcars, and the Golden Gate Bridge. The city is very picturesque in that way, and it's hard to forget. Chicago's strongest attribute is its skyline on the lake, but I don't think it's on the same level in the public's imagination. In that sense SF is definitely more iconic. Chicago's edge is its cultural institutions.
This honestly should be two different threads IMO.
btw, regarding Chicago's drawbridges, I think they have lost much of their iconic status as the river is less and less a working river. It is quite rare nowadays for tourists (or residents for that matter) to encounter them in use. I remember as a kid in the 70's it seemed like every time my family was downtown, we'd be stopped by a bridge going up. But there was certainly a time when they represented an iconic image of the city as they were constantly in use. And they are definitely an unheralded, unique aspect of Chicago's river/transport systems. You can check out a nice trailer for a film on them here, some nice shots
I think both of you are highly overestimating the neighborhoods that the general public would know in either city to be perfectly honest. SF is going to have the better claim to fame when it comes to neighborhoods, but you'd actually have to have read up on them to know about them. The Haight? You're only going to know about it if you were interested in counter culture in the 60s or actually lived through that era. The average person will have never heard of it. As for the Castro, you either need to be familiar with cities on the West Coast or you need to be gay to have heard of it. I've only heard of both because I took a 60s culture class in college and because I'm gay.
As for Chicago, no one is going to know our neighborhoods. The best bet would be the Loop, but even that would be a stretch. No one outside of the region is going to have heard of Lincoln Park, Lakeview, or Wicker.
PS: The south side isn't a neighborhood.
PPS: No one cares about the bridges on the Chicago River. Sorry.
I would generally agree with this.
San Francisco pops into everyones head because of the quaint homes, the rolling hills, streetcars, and the Golden Gate Bridge. The city is very picturesque in that way, and it's hard to forget. Chicago's strongest attribute is its skyline on the lake, but I don't think it's on the same level in the public's imagination. In that sense SF is definitely more iconic. Chicago's edge is its cultural institutions.
This honestly should be two different threads IMO.
In some sense you are right that people who haven't been there have this almost quaint view of San Francisco, which is why so many people are surprised when they get there and find it to be a very urban, dense, and crowded city that is actually quite dirty and gritty in many parts. Don't get me wrong, it's still an incredibly beautiful place with a lot of whimsical elements, but it's one of the busiest and most bustling cities in the country.
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.
