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.
I'm not a "he." Of course, Chicago has gangs, so do other cities. No one really talks about the homeless problem in SF on this site (at least that I see). It's pervasive, and once you actually see it in person, when SF comes to mind, that's what comes to mind....I can't "unsee" it. I lived in Chicago for years, and never saw a "gang." I was in SF for a few days...homeless people abound there. "Filthy rich" flies in the face of what I saw, and, tbh, it's like walking by something horrible with your eyes closed...if you don't see it, it doesn't exist. I can't reconcile that with only glowing posts of SF, with houses worth many millions.
We can all be apologists for a city. Because all have flaws and issues. Some more or most unique or noted toward them, and a issue thru most cities. Mentions are one thing. But they can become a thread downfall. Some have one agenda. Some float between cities.
The BIG OUT was this thread included the WHOLE METRO'S. So the suburban mansions in the hills near SF come in. I can mention all the high-end skyscraper-living Chicago keeps putting out. No longer for a couple decades...... is the North Shore where they live. Downtown has most of the new construction for the wealthy to ultra rich to live in the sky-with-view.
Chicago keeps getting high-end top-tier skyscraper living downtown.
This is still high-end IN-CITY living. They are not villas or a chateau on the hillsides it is true.
But they do provide urban living some prefer without commutes even by train to the city.
Chicago has its share of affluent suburbs. But they are not the big marketed part of the metro today. The Core of the city is.
We can all be apologists for a city. Because all have flaws and issues. Some more or most unique or noted toward them, and a issue thru most cities. Mentions are one thing. But they can become a thread downfall. Some have one agenda. Some float between cities.
The BIG OUT was this thread included the WHOLE METRO'S. So the suburban mansions in the hills near SF come in. I can mention all the high-end skyscraper-living Chicago keeps putting out. No longer for a couple decades...... is the North Shore where they live. Downtown has most of the new construction for the wealthy to ultra rich to live in the sky-with-view.
Chicago keeps getting high-end top-tier skyscraper living downtown.
This is still high-end IN-CITY living. They are not villas or a chateau on the hillsides it is true.
But they do provide urban living some prefer without commutes even by train to the city.
Chicago has its share of affluent suburbs. But they are not the big marketed part of the metro today. The Core of the city is.
Thanks for posting this, showing Chicago has its share of luxury. I truly enjoyed seeing the pictures Montclair posted of SF's suburban mansions in I guess Belvedere, Tiburon or somewhere in Marin. I am aware that the tech industry has created super wealthy enclaves like Atherton as well.
As far as suburban goes, Chicago posters could also post architecturally significant mansions in Winnetka and Lake Forest overlooking the lake, or newer mansions in Burr Ridge, Oakbrook or Hinsdale.
Personally, if I had to choose, I would take one of the penthouses in Vista Tower and that house that was posted with the stairs leading down to the beach that needed work for $15M in SF. BOTH. If I had Ken Griffin $$, why not do what he does and buy up everything everywhere?
Both cities face challenges. I personally think SF faces more because of its housing and affordability crisis making companies move out and residents flee with their cash for cheaper locales, and homelessness defining the city on a world wide level. Chicago is also defined by the term "Chiraq", but the reality is that for the most part the violence is limited to small areas, and the rates are declining.
bay area really do have love for that place
nice culture
nice food
nice scenery
nice weather
where as chitown is cold af tbh but then again has the same as the bay area except the weather so
chitown wins this one
Familiar with both. If money was really not an issue, I'd choose SF. Not for the city. But for the nature access.
For city living, I'd choose Chicago.
SF is full of homeless people no matter where you go. It's not so much that they're homeless, but the drug usage and mental instability of a lot of them. I don't want to be walking around having to keep that guard up of some random dude coming at me.
The beaches in the SF area are unusable. They're not enjoyable. It's cold as hell in the summer. Went to a baseball game in July and it was like 40 degrees. So please stop with the whole Chicago winters suck. Cus SF summers suck.
Familiar with both. If money was really not an issue, I'd choose SF. Not for the city. But for the nature access.
For city living, I'd choose Chicago.
SF is full of homeless people no matter where you go. It's not so much that they're homeless, but the drug usage and mental instability of a lot of them. I don't want to be walking around having to keep that guard up of some random dude coming at me.
The beaches in the SF area are unusable. They're not enjoyable. It's cold as hell in the summer. Went to a baseball game in July and it was like 40 degrees. So please stop with the whole Chicago winters suck. Cus SF summers suck.
Haha the Bay Area has unbelievably wonderful summers. 95% of the country is a sweat house by comparison. Imagine sunny blue skies without a lick of stifiling humidity, perfect mid 70s. That's the inner Bay Area in fact that somewhat describes our summers:
Haha the Bay Area has unbelievably wonderful summers. 95% of the country is a sweat house by comparison. Imagine sunny blue skies without a lick of stifiling humidity, perfect mid 70s. That's the inner Bay Area in fact that somewhat describes our summers:
Sure. In the day time. It was in the 90s and 80s when I went last year and I was waiting for the heat while everyone complained how hot it was. It feels much different.
Then went camping at sequoia and our campsite neighbor had small talk and said "Oh it's so humid huh" I was just like :|
But anywho, while it's in the 70s at 1am out east, it is in the 50s in the bay. And I'm a night person.
Sure. In the day time. It was in the 90s and 80s when I went last year and I was waiting for the heat while everyone complained how hot it was. It feels much different.
Then went camping at sequoia and our campsite neighbor had small talk and said "Oh it's so humid huh" I was just like :|
But anywho, while it's in the 70s at 1am out east, it is in the 50s in the bay. And I'm a night person.
Well the cool down at night is something I love about our summers--especially being able to sleep in total comfort, that is priceless to me.
As a LA native working and living in NYC who has visited SF bay area a ton over the years(have also visited Chicago a few times), I prefer the SF Bay Area way over Chicago if I were filthy rich. SF is my second favorite city in the country after NYC.
If I were filthy rich, I would split my time between NYC, Tokyo, SF Bay Area and LA. I don’t think I would live in any cities other than these four.
Familiar with both. If money was really not an issue, I'd choose SF. Not for the city. But for the nature access.
For city living, I'd choose Chicago.
SF is full of homeless people no matter where you go. It's not so much that they're homeless, but the drug usage and mental instability of a lot of them. I don't want to be walking around having to keep that guard up of some random dude coming at me.
The beaches in the SF area are unusable. They're not enjoyable. It's cold as hell in the summer. Went to a baseball game in July and it was like 40 degrees. So please stop with the whole Chicago winters suck. Cus SF summers suck.
No it's not. SF doesn't have no where near the large number of blighted areas such as Chicago. Also, the city doesn't hide its homeless problem which is a blessing and a curse. The Sunset, SeaCliff, Pac Heights, and relatively speaking Ingleside (historically working-class nabe) are all clean. Try to explore outside the tourist areas in SF where a lot of shopping and supportive services are located to get a better feel for the city.
Also, the sunset at Ocean Beach with a nice bonfire going is priceless. I like how SF is situated on both the Bay and an actual ocean. It provides a nice chill coastal feel.
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.
