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.
My mother is from Chicago, as is a lot of my family. So through them, and family friends amassed in the area there is definitely a somewhat hard to describe culture of values and rules there that you *definitely* don't find so much in San Francisco. It's not Boston rigid in "tradition" and "this is how things are and you are part of the club or not", but it's family values, gentility, a definite sense of morality (not in the Evangelical or Tea Party frame, but a subtle sect of that that you can still feel in the city) etc etc.
I see what you're saying. It's a very Midwestern thing where you're expected to carry yourself in a certain way. You're expected to be more polite and less "out there." You won't get ostracized for being out there like in some other regions, but there will certainly be a level of silent judgment in some cases.
Chicago I'd say is less judgy in that way in comparison to a lot of the Midwest, but even I can say I had a few "Seriously?" moments when I visited NYC, but I wouldn't say I was completely shellshocked or anything.
Quote:
I can tell you one thing is for sure, there is definitely a reason that SF/Bay Area is a cluster of innovation. In fact, ironically, there are probably more people here from Chicago than from anywhere else, and Chicago is still the #1 or #2 source of domestic migration to the city and to Oakland. However, the city started as a gold rush with NO LAWS whatsoever and to some degrees that has carried over to today.
People here don't have the outward attitude that they must follow a certain set of rules or hold within them a certain set of values. It's all about defining "what works for you". There is a reason that things such as the "sexual revolution" were born in SF, or why things get invented here, or why SF's finance sector is built on taking serious risks (VC), etc etc. It's a city that is literally antagonistic to Chicago, Boston, and most other cities that have refined their working and living cultures over 100-200+ years.
I think this sets the area apart and creates a huge component of its appeal, especially for ambitious young people. It's still seen as a frontier, whereas Chicago is still kind of a family-oriented city (that to me is less so than St. Louis but still exudes a stereotypical Midwestern culture) and Boston is very "New Englandy" and I think we all know what that implies in both good ways and bad.
I could see that to an extent, but I would recommend cutting the city of Chicago itself a little more slack in that regard not only in comparison to its contemporaries in the region but also to its own suburbs.
A lot of the family-friendly crowd moved to the suburbs when things started to get bad decades ago, and the city is now trying to use the return to urbanism to its advantage. This means being attractive to young college grads/Millennials and yuppies who want urban living. In Chicago, a lot of those people have been the children of those who fled to the suburbs and transplants. It's what's catching Chicago in something of a Tale of Two Cities divide though. You have the more blue collar, more family-oriented, and sports bar type crowd clashing in some respects with the white collar, single/no kids, upscale bar/club/lounge crowd. That's not to say that the young don't want families later or that they don't like sports bars, but it's certainly interesting when you see the new places that are opening and what not, in addition to how the nightlife is subtly changing.
I also recently read an article that described Chicago's white collar environment as being more pragmatic in comparison to SF and NYC. They claimed that in NYC and SF, when a new product or piece of technology was being sold, businesses would ask who was using it in order to get a feel of whether they wanted it or not. In Chicago though, they said businesses just wanted to know how much it would cost them upfront and how much it would save them in the long run. I'll see if I can dig up the article later tonight or tomorrow.
On a side note though, it's kinda entertaining how other parts of the Midwest think Chicago is just full of a bunch of douches.
If you had to naively say that there is a definite "niche" of people in SF/Bay Area, what pray tell would you say it is? Both LA and SF are cities where people move to to make their dreams/ideas come true (or at least that's the hope).
I mean, if you're right of center, SF isn't exactly a place you'd move to. Which by all intents and purposes is 50% of America, given voting patterns. That's what I mean by "niche"
Conservatives have a place in places like Chicago, LA, NYC, DC, HOU, ATL, DFW, etc. etc. but in SF, it doesn't seem to be many. While that many be a good thing to a lot of people, effectively shutting out half of the country by definition makes it niche.
I find the Bay Area fascinating though because I get the impression that its one of the more overshadowed places in the country, as if it shuns a whole lot of media attention. I think we all know that its a relatively large city though, but it seems to have a lot of mystery surrounding it given that in the media, NYC, LA, DC, and even MIA are heard of more.
I mean, if you're right of center, SF isn't exactly a place you'd move to. Which by all intents and purposes is 50% of America, given voting patterns. That's what I mean by "niche"
Conservatives have a place in places like Chicago, LA, NYC, DC, HOU, ATL, DFW, etc. etc. but in SF, it doesn't seem to be many. While that many be a good thing to a lot of people, effectively shutting out half of the country by definition makes it niche.
I find the Bay Area fascinating though because I get the impression that its one of the more overshadowed places in the country, as if it shuns a whole lot of media attention. I think we all know that its a relatively large city though, but it seems to have a lot of mystery surrounding it given that in the media, NYC, LA, DC, and even MIA are heard of more.
^^^I think you'd be far more surprised than you think. I grew up in the south in a "red" household, and I feel fine here even though I'm not some extreme leftivist (I just combined lefty and activist and I love it ). My roommate is one of those rare natives (5th gen) and he was raised Republican, his father working for Chevron (a Big Oil company based here). My office is actually pretty split.
What you won't find here are people who are Tea Party types who judge people based on their preconceived notions of morals. Everyone here, no matter their views on economics or gun rights etc, is gay friendly and environmentally minded. So I'd say if you literally hate gay people for whatever reason, then you might not like it here. But open political discourse is a *huge* part of this city.
Someone is introducing legislation to make the city more car friendly at the same time as someone is introducing legislation to ban new buildings on the waterfront unless it's "affordable housing", so you have lots of facets of SF politics. People here care less about Washington politics and more about what impacts them at home, and so for that we get labeled "crazy" and "extremely liberal", but it's not that simple.
And by that token, you called SF more "niche" than the other cities (DC, NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, etc). All of those cities are super "liberal" as well. What makes DC any different from SF and why would a Tea Party rural type want to live there over SF? Politics can't really make a city too niche to dissuade people from moving there. People tend to migrate towards where they'll have a job and feel safe and be able to afford a place.
I love Chicago but it's not that close to L.A.'s league IMO.
Woah, where do you people come from? Feel free to look at any of the world city rankings or studies (GWAC, AT Kearney, etc.). If Chicago is not ahead of LA, it's usually on par or just below.
Woah, where do you people come from? Feel free to look at any of the world city rankings or studies (GWAC, AT Kearney, etc.). If Chicago is not ahead of LA, it's usually on par or just below.
So you look at a rating of banks as the indicator? As redjohn has already stated, the list is laughable at best, Chicago is well below LA and might be losing ground quickly to SF bay area and DMV, if it hasn't already dropped to #4 or #5 already.
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.
