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)
 
Old 05-12-2014, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
5,303 posts, read 7,652,925 times
Reputation: 2136

Advertisements

^^New York City and LA are both overhyped too, but SF is just as much, if not more som than either. At least here on this website.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-12-2014, 08:41 PM
 
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
31 posts, read 117,100 times
Reputation: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly View Post
I love living in Chicago. I enjoy visiting San Francisco, but I could not live there full time. It comes down to personal preference. Give both cities a fair chance and visit both (not just touristy areas, remember the neighborhoods). This thread sure has become unhelpful.

OP..what are the top 5 things you are looking for in a city and living environment? What is important to you? What are you interested in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerseusVeil View Post
]Getting back to the the OP's question, would you be making the same amount of money in both cities? What type of neighborhood are you looking for? Is having a car important, or would you prefer to go car free? Are you ok with cold weather? Etc, etc.
(To hopefully answer both of your question's)
I'm looking for somewhere:
- Safe
- Markets/coffee shops/stores within walking distance
- Not too busy but not too quiet (in other words, not "in the middle of it all" but "in the middle of it all"-adjacent)

Those are really my top three wants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,304 posts, read 17,958,898 times
Reputation: 6256
^ You can find that in either city really
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 09:24 PM
 
5,635 posts, read 13,320,252 times
Reputation: 2904
Quote:
Originally Posted by genericusername View Post
(To hopefully answer both of your question's)
I'm looking for somewhere:
- Safe
- Markets/coffee shops/stores within walking distance
- Not too busy but not too quiet (in other words, not "in the middle of it all" but "in the middle of it all"-adjacent)

Those are really my top three wants.
You definitely find all 3. Chicago is a more dangerous city, but that's because the south side and other pockets take up a large part of the city. If you live on the north side you would never even venture to the dangerous parts. SF is safe for the most part, but the Tenderloin is literally right in the middle of the city. Any time you want to go downtown or cross town you will be going through one the most drug infested crime hotspots in the country. As long as you don't get off the bus, you're okay though. But in general, the crime is leaving SF as it gentrifies. There are just pockets of dangerous areas such as the Tenderloin, Western Addition (not all of it), the Fillmore, and certain areas of the Mission.

As long as you live in the right neighborhood, you'll always have markets, coffee shops, and stores within walking distance in either city. As I said earlier though, you'll be paying much less to live in the desirable, walkable parts of Chicago compared to SF. That gives you a better chance to experience all the little places in your neighborhood.

I personally find SF quiet compared to the urban parts of Chicago. And if you do enjoy nightlife, the simple fact that Chicago closes down at 4-5am compared to 1:30-2am in SF makes it a better option. I'm a night owl so I prefer that about Chicago. And I can't comment on this about Chicago because I've never lived there, just visited a few times, but in SF the restaurants generally close early. My neighborhood has almost no food options past 9pm. They're all closed besides Subway. I think Chicago is better for finding late night food.

In no way is SF too quiet though. That's personal preference. Some people find SF too busy and crowded. I think it's too quiet and boring, so to each their own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Chicago (from pittsburgh)
3,678 posts, read 4,357,555 times
Reputation: 2852
Quote:
Originally Posted by genericusername View Post
(To hopefully answer both of your question's)
I'm looking for somewhere:
- Safe
- Markets/coffee shops/stores within walking distance
- Not too busy but not too quiet (in other words, not "in the middle of it all" but "in the middle of it all"-adjacent)

Those are really my top three wants.
Some safe, affordable areas in Chicago that are near busy areas but fairly quiet themselves with PLENTY of shops/cafes/stores in walking distance and with good access to public transit:

Lincoln Square
Edgewater
Bucktown
Ukrainian Village/East Ukrainian Village
Boystown/East Lakeview
Andersonville

These are just a few, there are more depending on how busy you want your surroundings to be. All in all, these neighborhoods will be much more affordable than any desirable neighborhood in San Francisco. A simple online apartment search via craigslist or whatever for each city will show you what you can get for what you pay.

Example:
a very nice one bedroom in an area of Chicago that roughly fits your needs; this unit has free Wifi and garage parking, doorman, gym, etc.
One Bedroom / Edgewater / $1,255 Brand New Renovation!

A somewhat similar area of San Francisco (lots of shops, close to transit, etc). This is a (pretty crappy) studio at $1950.
https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/4433571770.html

Understand that I am NOT knocking SF. I love that city. I'm just trying to get across that people downplaying the high COL there are just plain wrong. It is an absurdly expensive city to live in, especially when it comes to rent. I think Chicago has more of the specific types of neighborhoods you are looking for. Semi-quiet, near transit, near nightlife/shopping/cafes, and pretty affordable. Chicago just has a higher quantity of these neighborhoods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 07:31 PM
 
Location: San Leandro
4,576 posts, read 7,633,104 times
Reputation: 3248
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
You definitely find all 3. Chicago is a more dangerous city, but that's because the south side and other pockets take up a large part of the city. If you live on the north side you would never even venture to the dangerous parts. SF is safe for the most part, but the Tenderloin is literally right in the middle of the city. Any time you want to go downtown or cross town you will be going through one the most drug infested crime hotspots in the country. As long as you don't get off the bus, you're okay though. But in general, the crime is leaving SF as it gentrifies. There are just pockets of dangerous areas such as the Tenderloin, Western Addition (not all of it), the Fillmore, and certain areas of the Mission.

As long as you live in the right neighborhood, you'll always have markets, coffee shops, and stores within walking distance in either city. As I said earlier though, you'll be paying much less to live in the desirable, walkable parts of Chicago compared to SF. That gives you a better chance to experience all the little places in your neighborhood.

I personally find SF quiet compared to the urban parts of Chicago. And if you do enjoy nightlife, the simple fact that Chicago closes down at 4-5am compared to 1:30-2am in SF makes it a better option. I'm a night owl so I prefer that about Chicago. And I can't comment on this about Chicago because I've never lived there, just visited a few times, but in SF the restaurants generally close early. My neighborhood has almost no food options past 9pm. They're all closed besides Subway. I think Chicago is better for finding late night food.

In no way is SF too quiet though. That's personal preference. Some people find SF too busy and crowded. I think it's too quiet and boring, so to each their own.
The median age of SF residents is much older. Its kind of a nimby, fuddy duddy old crowd. Chicago is younger and more blue collar. A lot more angst and people trying to let loose. Sf is more of a sleepy starter city, for folks that want the urbanity with out the big city vibe going on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 10:02 PM
 
5,635 posts, read 13,320,252 times
Reputation: 2904
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal Dude View Post
The median age of SF residents is much older. Its kind of a nimby, fuddy duddy old crowd. Chicago is younger and more blue collar. A lot more angst and people trying to let loose. Sf is more of a sleepy starter city, for folks that want the urbanity with out the big city vibe going on.
32.9 in Chicago compared to 38.5 in SF. Never realized that actually. I just assumed because of my neighborhood I had a skewed outlook. A lot of SF that I know is immigrant families and I see Chinese grandmas everywhere I go. The buses I take are usually at least 1/3 Chinese grandmas and grandpas lol.

It definitely is more for a different vibe. People in SF are big on nature and the proximity to hiking and all that. They prefer that over the city life, they just live here to be in an urban city where their carbon footprint isn't as high. That's not everyone obviously, but a lot of what I've noticed. Chicago seems to be actually a big urban city built for and attracting young people who enjoy the perks of city living like late nightlife, walkability, restaurants open till early morning, and a car-free lifestyle. I get asked so many dates to go hiking. I'm not naturey in the least bit, but the majority of people here are very into nature. Or Chinese/Russian grandparents
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 12:53 AM
 
1,640 posts, read 1,912,356 times
Reputation: 2487
Chicago is pancake-flat, tornado-prone, bitterly cold, and humid as all Hell. It's been hemorrhaging residents for years and is, arguably, the most dangerous major city in the entire country. IMO, it really fails to stack up to SF in many departments.

As the age-old adage goes, Chicago is great place to be from, and I'm sure countless Chicago area transplants in both LA and SF would agree. As someone who grew up in Southern California, I'm sure you're well aware of the fact that every other person you meet in SoCal is either from Chicago or, if they're not, their parents are. Ditto Bay Area. I mean, I'm sure you've had to at least wonder, at some point or another, why so many people from the Chicago area are now living on the West Coast...

I've been to Chicago more times than I care to count, and although it's a fine city, there's no real wow-factor like there is with Western cities such as LA, SF, San Diego, Seattle, Denver, Phoenix. It's always just kinda been a place for conferences, summits, layovers, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 01:10 AM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,304 posts, read 17,958,898 times
Reputation: 6256
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8to32characters View Post
Chicago is pancake-flat, tornado-prone, bitterly cold, and humid as all Hell. It's been hemorrhaging residents for years and is, arguably, the most dangerous major city in the entire country. IMO, it really fails to stack up to SF in many departments.
LOL - there's been like 2 touchdowns in the city ever. The most notable one was in 1967 and the other was in 1976 near O'Hare which is hardly the city. You have no idea what you're talking about if you think the city is prone to tornados. Now, if you were talking about 40 miles west of the city right on the edge of the metro area you'd have a better point, but it pretty much completely dissipates well before it ever comes to the city which is no different than any other city that has tornados in the area. Tornados are more prone to happen in country areas and smaller towns with not a lot surrounding them.

Anybody who knows the city knows that the violent crime is (luckily) mainly centered away from all of the good areas and the good areas are safe. They also know a lot of the real bad stuff is gang versus gang or trade related (or both).

Quote:
I've been to Chicago more times than I care to count, and although it's a fine city, there's no real wow-factor like there is with Western cities such as LA, SF, San Diego, Seattle, Denver, Phoenix. It's always just kinda been a place for conferences, summits, layovers, etc.
You seriously think Chicago is less "wow" than Seattle, Denver, and Phoenix? That is insane. SF I can see and LA to an extent, and San Diego to a small extent, but ****ing Phoenix? You lost all credibility with that statement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 01:17 AM
 
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 4,096,597 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal Dude View Post
The median age of SF residents is much older. Its kind of a nimby, fuddy duddy old crowd. Chicago is younger and more blue collar. A lot more angst and people trying to let loose. Sf is more of a sleepy starter city, for folks that want the urbanity with out the big city vibe going on.
Why would anyone with a modicum of intelligence use MEDIAN AGE to make a point about a city that has virtually no children? Answer: he wouldn't.

When you cut off the low end almost completely, as SF has (for good or bad/right or wrong) has done, it will skew the median age older. Does that translate into an older populace? Not necessarily. All it does is invalidate "median age" as a useful measure for SF.

I would challenge you to find more than 5 local residnts of SF on an hour-long walk, who are over 32 or so. Think of it this way: if you had 10 people in SF and 9 of them were 22 and one of them was 66, the median would be 44.

That wouldn't represent reality or fiction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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