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.
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.
Is that right? Because the countless--and I mean countless--well-adjusted Chicago area transplants in the Phoenix are would most certainly disagree.
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.
I see your point there, but have you hung out in the Richmond ever? There's a huge population here and in the Sunset. Besides the SF State and USF students, there's a HUGE population of older Chinese and Russian people. I'd say about half the population is in that category when I walk around here.
Is that right? Because the countless--and I mean countless--well-adjusted Chicago area transplants in the Phoenix are would most certainly disagree.
If you honestly think that people move to Phoenix because of the "wow" factor with the city then you're simply mistaken. They're moving to Phoenix all over because the job market is one of the strongest in the country, hot weather year round, and a lower cost of living. Everybody and their grandparents move to Arizona too when they retire (that or Florida). Even my grandparents left NYC behind to move to Arizona. I guess in your case, they must have just been wow'd with all that Arizona has to offer - not really. They basically were old and wanted to be somewhere hot year round. None of this has to do with "holy **** this city is just an amazing place to live versus a big city that offers a ton" There is a BIG difference. I have spent plenty of time in Phoenix (and Tucson) and I'd only move there if I was offered a great job there. I'd never move there because of the "amazing city."
Also the thing about people from one area moving there - you're going to get that with pretty much every major metro area. The pure fact that there's basically around or over 10 million people in each of the top 3 largest metro areas is going to tell you that you are going to find them in pretty much every other major metro area.
^AZ is not hot year-round. Their winters are actually cooler than SoCal's.
Winters in AZ are still hot compared to winters in Chicago haha. But yeah no one says "Wow Phoenix is SUCH a cool city it's gonna be my life's dream to move there!" It's more like "Oh hey I got a good job offer in Phoenix. I guess I can move there." or "Golly I'm getting old. I should retire and move to Florida or Arizona where I won't have to shovel snow anymore."
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
How the **** are people in San Francisco not enjoying "the city life." That is the whole point of living in The City. If you wanted proximity to nature and hiking trails you could live basically ANYWHERE IN THE SF BAY AREA for a much lower price (well maybe not much lower). In San Francisco you get the big city life and all the natural beauty, something you don't have both of in Chicago, at least not at a comparable scale. Attracting young people? Isn't the news every single week all about the "problem" of all the young tech workers pouring into San Francisco. SF isn't perfect, but the last thing on the list of its problems would certainly be lacking the city life! That sounds pretty silly talking about the center of the 5th largest concentration of people in the nation and the 2nd densest city.
How the **** are people in San Francisco not enjoying "the city life." That is the whole point of living in The City. If you wanted proximity to nature and hiking trails you could live basically ANYWHERE IN THE SF BAY AREA for a much lower price (well maybe not much lower). In San Francisco you get the big city life and all the natural beauty, something you don't have both of in Chicago, at least not at a comparable scale.
That's the key - there's still nature in the Chicago area but there's not big mountains like CA. There's still outdoor things to do in Chicago and also the metro area not far away. Thinking that you can't do any of that is false though. I agree - better in SF for that type of thing but it's not true that you can't do outdoorsy things in Chicago.
How the **** are people in San Francisco not enjoying "the city life." That is the whole point of living in The City. If you wanted proximity to nature and hiking trails you could live basically ANYWHERE IN THE SF BAY AREA for a much lower price (well maybe not much lower). In San Francisco you get the big city life and all the natural beauty, something you don't have both of in Chicago, at least not at a comparable scale.
Thanks for beating me to the punch. I didn't know how to respond to that post, but I knew it whatever I was going to write would be belittling, and possibly grounds for deletion (well maybe not, but you get the point), I knew I would rant, so I let someone else beat me to it.
That's the key - there's still nature in the Chicago area but there's not big mountains like CA. There's still outdoor things to do in Chicago and also the metro area not far away. Thinking that you can't do any of that is false though.
His argument was, San Francisco has nature therefore it lacks a city lifestyle. That is utter bull. I am not disputing Chicago has some nature too, just disputed the earlier argument that having mountains means you aren't living a "city life."
His argument was, San Francisco has nature therefore it lacks a city lifestyle. That is utter bull. I am not disputing Chicago has some nature too, just disputed the earlier argument that having mountains means you aren't living a "city life."
Yeah, that's bull - I agree.
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.
