bay area vs chicagoland (live, best, state, crime rate)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
No city in Chicagoland has a better art scene, better restaurant scene(not even on the same planet), better urbanity, better natural setting(as if), better weather(not even a question), better diversity, better walkable neighborhoods etc.
I mean really, you guys want to make this about Oakland yet no city in Chicagoland is even worthy of comparing.
At all.
Yea we just have the art institute, known around the world and the bay area has?
you're really gonna act like there are no ghetto activities going on in Chicago?
Never heard of a side show in Chicago, nor have I heard of a mayor in Chicagoland suggesting this type of activity should be legalized. Can we say *ghetto*
I'll roll the dice and attempt to give a balanced opinion that hopefully is fair to both sides.
The Bay Area has many positives over Chicagoland. The most significant advantage it has is its weather. Although I think Chicago has better summers and autumns (I like my leaves to change), the brutal winters (and I mean brutal) sink it way below SF. And the non-existent springs in Chicago also kill it. I also think the scenery of the Bay Area is much better. Who can't beat living in the beautiful hills and having the Redwoods nearby? The Bay Area has many unique suburbs with a much more unique feel to them than Chicagoland, although it has a great deal of ugly subdivisions as well. I also think the Bay Area is much more unique and stands out much more than Chicagoland. It would appeal to first time visitors to America much more!
Chicagoland, in my opinion, beats San Francisco in terms of urban qualities such as transportation, architecture, and culture, particularly in the city of Chicago itself. There is much more overall to do in Chicagoland, as there are hundreds of suburbs to choose from, many with a unique vibe and a lot to offer. And yes, Chicago has much better restaurants (although the Bay Area has better Chinese and Japanese ones). Transportation outside the city through the Metra in my opinion in excellent as it helps you avoid the freeway and save time on your commute and it gets you pretty much everywhere you need to be. And lets not forget the cost of living that makes living in San Francisco seem impossible by comparison!
I guess Chicagoland's biggest negative is its weather, scenery, and depending on the taste, it being all- American metropolitan area. Sure its unique, but not nearly as much as the Bay Area.
So you (18montclair) concede the bay are has no art instutitions worthy of mentioning, I agree. Though stanfrod has a quaint set up. Nice try, but talk to us when you actually know something about the arts. The bay area is nothing in the art world, nor the performing arts. Unless we are talking about that bum that hides out by in n out on fishermans warf in the bushes. LOL@ SF's weak modern art scene.
I think you need to go back to San Francisco and check it out for yourself.
There is a great deal of stuff there worth seeing.
I don't do funky modern art. The scene in sf is like a slightly upscale version of the art scene in berkeley and santa cruz, but still funky dory art at heart for the most part. The art scene in LA blows SF (and sac combined)away by light years. Density does not equate to a vibrant art scene. Unless you consider some cezar chavez mural with graffitti on it as contributing to the scene, but hey that is me
Last edited by LakeShoreSoxGo; 12-01-2009 at 01:25 AM..
you're really gonna act like there are no ghetto activities going on in Chicago?
Oakland has nothing on Chicago when it comes to ghettoness. Its not even close.
Quote:
Never heard of a side show in Chicago, nor have I heard of a mayor in Chicagoland suggesting this type of activity should be legalized
Chicago also doesnt report its number of Violent Crimes like everywhere else does.
Based on what data is available, Chicago is actually a bit more dangerous than Los Angeles-we're talking sheer numbers!
FBI Data from 2008
Homicides
Chicago 510
Los Angeles 384
Robberies
Chicago 16,653
Los Angeles 13,422
Aggravated Assault
Chicago 17,032
Los Angeles 11,798
Property Crimes
Chicago 131,015
Los Angeles 100,821
Burglary
Chicago 26,041
Los Angeles 19,726
Larceny-Theft
Chicago 86,043
Los Angeles 58,472
This level of crime is frightening. Oakland may have lots of crime but nowhere near the numbers Chicago puts up. Not only that but Oakland's dangerous areas really take about 20-30 sq miles. Chicago's appear to take up a much more vast amount of land, over 100 sq miles. Miles and Miles of poverty and crime.
Seems to me that if Chicago reported its number of Violent Crimes, it would probably rank in the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
