bay area vs chicagoland (crime, compare, size, districts)
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.
Diversity of what? Certainly not people because the Bay Area runs circles around Chicago as far as racial and ethnic diversity.
Id rather live in Richmond. It has areas with 2 Million Dollar Homes that are right on the bay, are safe and offer views and weather that your burbs couldnt conjur up in their wildest dream.
Quality over quantity.
There's a reason people are willing to pay through the nose to live in the Bay Area and are not willing to do the same there.
Sorry.
I'm not really sold on the diversity thing still, and the cost of living in California is ridiculous. There is no middle class in San Francisco!
Quote:
Originally Posted by missionhome
I would like to know HOW there is more variety in the Chicago suburbs. I know somebody mentioned it, but it seems like outside of Chicago proper, Chicagoland doesn't have as much going on as the Bay Area. The Bay Area has more diverse geography, better weather, less segregation, walkable suburbs with downtowns, etc.... What does Chicagoland have that makes it better??? Just curious.
Well, I don't know what else to say. Chicagoland indeed has a racial majority, the Bay Area does not. Cook County would only rank 5th in terms of diversity if it were located in the Bay Area, which has 5 of the 20 most diverse counties in the nation-Chicagoland has only Cook County represented in that ranking.
Quote:
and the cost of living in California is ridiculous.
People are willing to pay it.
Quote:
There is no middle class in San Francisco!
Instead we have upwardly mobile overacheivers. That's not a bad trade off as far as Im concerned.
Households Earning $150,000-$199,999 Annually
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 239,273...9.0%
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 198,755...5.6%
Households Earning $200,000+ Annually
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 293,755...11.1%
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 208,028...5.9%
I was born and raised in the suburbs of Chicago. Mother lived in Wheaton, father in Glen Ellyn. Father took a job in California when I was 13 back in 1996 and I went with him, while my brother stayed. I know both places very well.
Naturally when I saw this poll I felt it was a draw. But as I thought this out, it is quite clear, it is not.
First and Foremost lets get a few things straight that some people seem to be cloudy on:
1)The bay area is more diverse than Chicago, but it is very segregated just like Chicago, maybe not as bad, but still very much so. As a black man I can say anyone who thinks otherwise, should probably consult an eye doctor, as well as a mental health doctor.
2) The bay area is a hot bead of wealth, due primarily to venture capitalists in silicon valley, which is really marginalized only by the plethora of money in Manhattan. In 2008 the bay area had nearly 50% of the nations venture capital. That is a pretty amazing feat for a metro area of 7 million scattered all over the place.
3) Both cities are pathetically corrupt, the only difference is Sfers will protest about it where as Chicagoans will just deal with it, either way nothing changes. As a result of political apathy Chicago politicos are a lot more in your face about it, where as in SF politicos are a lot more sleezy and behind the scenes.
That being said, lets get down to more facts:
in terms of weather and topography the bay area with out a doubt trumps chicago. Save the months of summer, on days when it is not humid, the coastal bay easily gives Chicago a run for its money.
And yes, this does factor in to the quality of life. Taking your kid to baseball practice in Feb, watching high schoolers grab their surf boards after school in Pacifica, going wine tasting in Livermore, or tacking your kids horse back riding along the hillside overlooking 280. The bay area is gods country.
Gods country that has gone sour that is. Outside of manhattan you will not see a level of income disparity any where as great in the country. The bay area is simply an area of haves and have nots, with the middle completely destroyed. Only in the bay area can you have places like Palo Alto(brain factory for silicon valley) sitting across the bay from OAKLAND AND Richmond, two of the most dangerous cities in the country. Further more the cost of living is astronomical. The bay area is the only place where I have seen people making 100k+ living in modest town homes because they simply have no option. It was either do that and have good schools, or live in a slum city or an out-skirt exurb. Or rent.
The segregation very pronounced. It is racial and it is economic. Whites and asians in SF. Poor and coloreds in south east SF. Whites and asians in San Mateo and Santa Clara county. With little poverty pockets of browns and blacks(Redwood City, EPA, East San Jo). Lots of asians and indian subcontinent folks in the Tri cities (Fremont, newark, union city) with some lower income mexican areas. East bay, whites in the hills coloreds in the flats, with a few intermingled in places Like Berkeley, San Leandro, etc. A few stand outs like Alameda and the trendy areas around lake merritt. The whole 680 corridor=white and asian until you hit Concord(more browns). South San Jose to morgan hill is white and asian with mexicans in poor areas. All bay area Out skirt towns a lot more diverse.
The fact of the matter is the bay area has a lot of different types of people but they rarely intermingle, albeit more so than Chicagoland. But now where near the level of sacramento, or NYC.
Chicago by and large has crappy weather. I am here right now visiting and it is 30 something maybe colder. I donno but it is terrible and gray and it stinks. From Mid november to about early march you can count on the weather being cold, weather or not is gray is irrelevant to me, when the sun shines it sure is not helping. And yea its flat. Yea there is some crime but it is no where near the worst in the country (Like Oakland or richmond).
In terms of amenities all things urban, I have five words to describe what Chicago does to all three of the bay areas main cities combined (SF, San Jose, Oakland) Blows them outta the water. The only thing the bay area (sf specifically) has is density, and thats it. Bay area transit is laughable. CTA>Muni and metra>BART, CALTRAIN,VTA, ACE, CAPITOL CORRIDOR, COMBINED. Arts, museums, sports, ethnic hoods, architecture, fine dining to hole in the wall joints,the city of Chicago takes that cake no contest.
And chicagoland simply blows the bay area out of the water in terms of cost of living, quality of life (ie crime rates and schools) and housing stock. This is what people mean in Chicago when they say "we have everything AND MORE, when compared to the bay area".
Chicago has BLUE BLOOD neighborhoods. North shore. Nough said. People there who can trace anscestory back to the royal family. Money that is literally in some cases a thousand years old. A few of the Marin old vanguard comes close, but not really. We have new money, plenty of suburban mansion usa suburbs like Los Altos hills.
Chicagoland has a plethora of upper middle class suburbs(with good schools). A plethora of solid baseline middle class suburbs(with good schools). Chicagoland has a plethora of lower middle class suburbs(with good schools). Chicagoland has suburbs where these various levels of middle class intermingle and mix some times going from the former to the latter in less then a suburban block. The bay area has nothing like this. Its either upscale or downscale. With the latter having bad schools and more crime.
Chicago even has lower class suburbs. Chicago land in this sense blows the bay area out of the water. Part of this is due to Chicagolands geographical advantage. Thats right, the fact that chicagoland is flat, has created millions of square miles of flat land, prime for development. Plenty of room to build up AND out. You do not see suburbs squeezed into tiny valleys (like the 680 corridor) or some 60 miles from the central city core (like Tracy, Brentwood, Fairfield, Gilroy). You do not see **** poor transit where the freeway is the only commute option, like you do in California.
Which brings me to my conclusion. As nice as the bay is, and as much as it has going for it, the fact of the matter is the BAY AREA is part of the myopic disfunction that is the state of California. And in that sense, it will never measure up to Chicagoland and other places that still resemble the United States.
The bay area is the only place where I have seen people making 100k+ living in modest town homes because they simply have no option.
You've never been to Manhattan, London, Tokyo or Paris?
All of those places have much higher housing costs than the Bay Area.
Actually in 2007, Greater London and the SF Bay Area had almost identical median home costs(around $800,000 for a house, except London's average unit is much smaller) yet their median income is a bit lower than the Bay's.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is the bay area has a lot of different types of people but they rarely intermingle, albeit more so than Chicagoland. But now where near the level of sacramento, or NYC.
I realize this is point of tremendous pride for Sacramento people, but a closer examination of Census Bureau data for 2008 reveals that The Bay Area has a higher proportion of bi-racial families than NY and Chicago and is very close to Sacramento in this regard. Families of Two-or-More Races, 2008
New York CSA 67,789...0.3% of all Families
San Francisco CSA 38,356...2.2% of all Families
Chicago CSA 21,409...0.9% of all Families
Sacramento CSA 16,106...2.7% of all Families
Furthermore, these families do much better financially in the Bay Area, which is a testament to the region's acceptance.
Median Family Income, Two-or-More Races, 2008
San Francisco CSA $96,253
Chicago $63,245
New York $62,106
Sacramento $59,010
Quote:
And chicagoland simply blows the bay area out of the water in terms of cost of living
Like I said. People are willing to pay the price for places like The Bay Area.
Quote:
quality of life (ie crime rates and schools) and housing stock.
This is what people mean in Chicago when they say "we have everything AND MORE, when compared to the bay area".
Actually its the other way around. Only thing is to be in the Bay Area, just being a slacker won't put food on the table and it wont put a BMW in your garage.
People here are more willing to go after the Beemer and not just settle for getting by. Your really hardpressed to find a more competitive and PRODUCTIVE place in the world.
This is evidenced in the region's Gross Product, which is nearly tied with Chicagoland, despite having 2.3 Million less people. 4. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA $526.895 Billion
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA $508.418 Billion
Per Capita Gross Product, 2008
San Francisco $69,134
Chicago $53,814
Furthermore, people are undeterred by home prices because they want to be in the Bay Area. This is something people from less competitive places will not grasp. People from NY or LA otoh, will understand.
Millon Dollar Homes, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 291,155
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 63,048
Homes Valued between $500,000-$999,999, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 779,175
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 265,641
Quote:
Chicago has BLUE BLOOD neighborhoods. North shore. Nough said. People there who can trace anscestory back to the royal family.
Blue Bloods usually do suburbia only when they are off the social scene or when they get really old. Otherwise, suburbia is where they summer or keep their horses.
Its in the big city neighborhoods where they primarily live. Pacific Heights is probably the highest concentration of Blue Bloods outside of Manhattan.
Next.
Quote:
Chicagoland has a plethora of upper middle class suburbs(with good schools). A plethora of solid baseline middle class suburbs(with good schools). Chicagoland has a plethora of lower middle class suburbs(with good schools).
Yet all these 'good schools' you speak doesnt equate to higher educational attainment. At all.
Remember, Chicago has 2 million more people.
And yet...
Adults Age 25+ with a Bachelor Degree or Higher, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 2,069,982...41.2%
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 2,060,962...32.5%
Welllll, since youre into stereotyping all of Chicagoland, Id be real careful because San Fran is easily stereotyped, too!
Two thumbs down on your useless post!
Stereotype away, who the hell cares? My points still stand.
The bitter, cold reality has you on the wrong side of this discussion, and floundering with the inferior position. Chicagoland is the "new Mississippi" or haven't you noticed?
"Arts, museums, sports, ethnic hoods, architecture, fine dining to hole in the wall joints,the city of Chicago takes that cake no contest."
Museums and ethnic hoods, yes. The other categories, its not so clear. I think SF is superior to Chicago in terms of hole in the wall restaurants and fine dining. (Ive now spent a lot of time in both). The standards in SF are amazing, whether its a little Korean BBQ dive, a mexican taqueria, a 3-star michelin seafood restaurant, or a Chinese place where nothing is in English. Chicago has outstanding Pizza and Hot Dogs, as well as some very good steakhouses and nice restuarants--but its not in the same league.
Architecture, most would have to give it to Chicago, but SF does have some excellent Victorian houses, and some very structurally scenic neighborhoods. It has a lot of older, "antqiue looking" building which I think are pretty amazing in their own right.
Arts, again, is a toss-up. Both cities have very vibrant and strong art scenes.
As for Sports, the Bay Area has 6 teams (2 NFL, 2 MLB, 1 NBA, 1 NHL), while Chicago only has 5. Of course Chicago fans are much more rabid, which does make the Chicago sports scene one of the most fun in the country.
Gary is a sh## hole, but even there, there's redeeming qualities
Gary, while Im sure has its pleasant aspects, really is not comparable to Oakland as Oakland has a sizable population of highly educated, affluent and very sophisticated people.
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 901x600 and weights 147KB.
http://www.edab.org/images/living/fullsize/OaklandDowntownHillsClose.jpg (broken link)
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 901x600 and weights 178KB.
http://www.edab.org/images/living/fullsize/OaklandHillsHwy24SFGoldenGate.jpg (broken link) City-Data Forum - Reply to Topic
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 901x600 and weights 175KB.
http://www.edab.org/images/living/fullsize/OaklandPort&SF.jpg (broken link)
Oakland is also a hotbed of Art-and its always edgy. An emerging Arts District is taking shape in an area of Downtown that only a decade ago was dilapidated.
No discussion about Art in Oakland is complete these days without talking about The Crucible. A Fire and Industrial Arts School located in West Oakland. So Cool.
Oakland is also a bonafide foodie destination.
Commis is a Michelin-star rated restaurant. In Oakland.
Actually the Bay Area has a number of michelin-star rated restaurants outside of SF. I wonder how many Chicagoland has outside of Chicago proper?
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.
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 901x600 and weights 147KB.
