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)
View Poll Results: SF vs Chic
San Francisco 157 41.21%
Chicago 224 58.79%
Voters: 381. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-28-2014, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,791 posts, read 18,886,482 times
Reputation: 6782

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerseusVeil View Post
Let's be real.

I highly doubt his museum is going to take away from what his own company (prior to the sale to Disney anyway) has done to involve itself in that narrative. Not that the museum won't include what happened without him or his company, but a museum entirely on his own dime is surely to focus on what George Lucas and what his own company, ILM, did for the film industry is far more realistic. To pretend otherwise is frankly ridiculous.
I agree, but ILM is much, much, much more than just Star Wars. It's even more reaching than what they've directly done (i.e. Photoshop was invented by two ILM employees).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2014, 12:01 PM
 
388 posts, read 470,908 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Anyway, any predictions on when the Chicago CSA's population will surpass 10,000,000?

2013 Combined Statistical Area(CSA) Population
Chicago-Naperville 9,912,730
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 8,469,854

Numerical Change, 2012-2013
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland +105,295
Chicago-Naperville +21,493

Numerical Change, 2010-2013
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland +316,158
Chicago-Naperville +71,801

Percentage Change, 2012-2013
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland +1.3%
Chicago-Naperville +0.2%

Percentage Change, 2010-2013
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland +3.88%
Chicago-Naperville +0.73%

IMO, I think all it takes is 1 really good economic boom year. I can't really explain why Chicago's growth has slowed down so much(the recession perhaps?) but I do recall that a decade ago(2002-2003), The Bay Area's population growth had slowed to a trickle(much slower than Chicago if I recall correctly) due to the dot com bust, then it began to pick up a little mid decade and then since 2010, it's been actually quite brisk, due to the current economic boom.
Idk probably five years. Looks like SF Bay Area is going to surpass Chicagoland by 2030. Houston, Dallas, DC, Miami, and SF CSAs look to surpass Chicagoland if numerical trends continue, even if they slow down, they have all got a lot more momentum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2014, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Maryland
4,200 posts, read 5,411,497 times
Reputation: 4562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Folks3000 View Post
Idk probably five years. Looks like SF Bay Area is going to surpass Chicagoland by 2030. Houston, Dallas, DC, Miami, and SF CSAs look to surpass Chicagoland if numerical trends continue, even if they slow down, they have all got a lot more momentum.
The only CSAs that are even close to Chicagoland in population are DC/Baltimore and the Bay Area. Chicago growth is such a wildcard--I wouldn't put too much stock in extrapolating trends too far.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2014, 03:02 PM
 
388 posts, read 470,908 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maintainschaos View Post
The only CSAs that are even close to Chicagoland in population are DC/Baltimore and the Bay Area. Chicago growth is such a wildcard--I wouldn't put too much stock in extrapolating trends too far.
Meh, 15 years isn't that bad. Chicagoland has always had kind of a slow but steady growth for the last 50 years, I don't see any reason that would change drastically. DC and SF have been booming (with occasional busts) for a good 20 now, they may slow down but doubtfully to Chi speed. The others I agree are smaller and will no doubt slow down, them passing Chicagoland up is more of a wildcard. Time will tell! They are putting on very high numerical gains, so even if they slow down it will depend on how much they slow down, they have a big cushion so to speak.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 04:19 PM
 
39 posts, read 47,218 times
Reputation: 47
Chicago hands down is a better city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 04:31 PM
 
Location: In the heights
21,871 posts, read 23,412,294 times
Reputation: 11477
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillstuntin2 View Post
Chicago hands down is a better city.
How so?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 06:28 PM
 
39 posts, read 47,218 times
Reputation: 47
The polls dont lie. I went traveling in both cities and based on my experience I appreciated Chicago more. Now dont get me wrong when it comes to scenery SF dominates in that department kinda hard to top the GG Bridge. Chicago definitely has scenery department as well with Lakeshore Drive and its kinda hard to top that stretch as well. But when it comes to urbanity Chicago dominates department. City to City Chicago still dominates. When it comes to Chicago its cleaner, cheaper, more activities and more to explore. Endless amount of neighborhoods that will keep you wondering how amazing Chicago really is. Nevertheless Chicago is Chicago it dominates its entire region.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 07:33 PM
 
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,539 posts, read 2,444,625 times
Reputation: 1483
I think this picture shows downtown Chicago's density second only to Manhattan in scope of its skyscrapers by this picture not showing its downtown parks or Gold Coast residential high rises but awesome.⤵

Last edited by steeps; 12-13-2014 at 11:18 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 07:38 PM
 
1,640 posts, read 2,029,516 times
Reputation: 2538
SF, no comparison.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 07:41 PM
 
427 posts, read 376,270 times
Reputation: 428
San Francisco is hands down better.

More upscale. More liberal. More scenic.

It's sister city is Paris, which says quite a lot.

Chicago is depressing overgrown Midwestern industrial town... I don't like it at all.
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

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