San Francisco vs. Chicago: Which do you prefer? (Richmond, Pittsburg: neighborhoods, luxury)

[FiletOFish]

I've had such good times in SF that I'm partial but Chicago is tempting me badly...

[checkup]

Chicago is a better city -- better organized, better looking in terms of buildings, better public transit -- and it's also bigger, has more to do, and probably nicer ppl. It's also much cheaper than SF. I'd probably prefer to live there and if it had SF's weather, I'd never go anywhere else in the country

But Chicago's economy isn't doing so great, while SF's economy is red hot. The % of jobs and ppl making over 100k in SF is so much higher than Chicago. I know a ton of ppl who have moved from Chicago to SF recently because of jobs/work; they probably on balance prefer living in Chicago, but SF gives them so much in terms career paths and high-paying jobs

[Devon011]

Originally Posted by checkup

I know a ton of ppl who have moved from Chicago to SF recently because of jobs/work; they probably on balance prefer living in Chicago, but SF gives them so much in terms career paths and high-paying jobs

I know quite a few people from Chicago and NY that did that exactly including myself especially the bold.

[ccm123]

Both are really awesome cities, but San Francisco simply for the climate gets my vote. If Chicago did not have the brutal winter weather, it would be a toss up.

[TioMartin]

Chicago is a really great Midwestern city, and a solid scaled-down version of New York

SF is more a peer of New York than Chicago in terms of global influence, industry importance, sheer cultural diversity, academic institutions, and general scope of tourist activities (SF has superior natural attractions while New York beats culturally)

Regarding cleanliness, true that Chicago loop and miracle mile are much better than SF financial district. However Chicago south side is a vastly worse area than anything you'd see in the SF Bay Area (including the worst ghettos of Oakland)

[steeps]

Originally Posted by TioMartin

Chicago is a really great Midwestern city, and a solid scaled-down version of New York

SF is more a peer of New York than Chicago in terms of global influence, industry importance, sheer cultural diversity, academic institutions, and general scope of tourist activities (SF has superior natural attractions while New York beats culturally)

Regarding cleanliness, true that Chicago loop and miracle mile are much better than SF financial district. However Chicago south side is a vastly worse area than anything you'd see in the SF Bay Area (including the worst ghettos of Oakland)

I think Chicago, the last couple decades, has done a good job demolishing the worst of the notorious Ghettos. Even all the 60s failed High-Rise housing projects are gone. I even tried my darnedest to find them on goggle 360°s? I cannot find the bombed out looking Ghettos of old in Chicago. Many empty lots retuning to prairie again ..... yes? Some boarded up homes with a red X on them.... yes? among decent inhabited homes.

But you still can find it in Camden NJ and East St Louis.

Actually I think Chicago is one of the cleanest cities today. Neighborhoods included. I totally agree too.... downtown Chicago is very clean and clear of debris even at the curb and sidewalks. Unlike NYC. Chicago still impresses me on each yearly visit.

[CBB_bear]

I grew up mostly in Chicago, but was born in SF. I have been to SF many times, and my SO is currently living in the bay area while I finish up grad school in another state. I think this thread has pretty much summed it up, but here are my thoughts:

Chicago:
Pros: Beautiful architecture, the lake is lovely, downtown is cleaner, too cold for homeless people to live year round so there is less panhandling, close in suburbs generally have better schools, much more affordable in general, lots of culture, decent public transit

Cons: Economy/job market is not so great relative to SF, winter is brutal (Chiberia), there are some really awful ghettos on the South side (and no, they haven't been entirely cleaned up--ever heard of "Chiraq"?)--worse than the ghettos in the bay area (however, if you are an upper middle class person, you would have no reason to ever go near them, unless you live in Hyde Park, because the city is very geographically segregated)

SF:
Pros: Also has lovely architecture and it's own great vibe, near a lot of great nature, really great economy/job market, weather is milder, public transit is also decent (although maybe Chicago has an edge on this, especially for commuter trains), no need to wear puffy coats for 4.5 months a year (and no, it's not 3 months of horrible--usually winter lasts from mid November to mid March, with the occasional blizzard as late as April), also tons of culture, although there is still geographical/racial/economic segregation in the bay area, many areas are much more integrated (especially in the East Bay)

Cons: The cost of living is insane, serious homeless problem, more desirable parts of the city are really filthy and smell like urine, there are fewer bedroom communities with good schools

[steeps]

Originally Posted by CBB_bear

I grew up mostly in Chicago, but was born in SF. I have been to SF many times, and my SO is currently living in the bay area while I finish up grad school in another state. I think this thread has pretty much summed it up, but here are my thoughts:

Chicago:
Pros: Beautiful architecture, the lake is lovely, downtown is cleaner, too cold for homeless people to live year round so there is less panhandling, close in suburbs generally have better schools, much more affordable in general, lots of culture, decent public transit

Cons: Economy/job market is not so great relative to SF, winter is brutal (Chiberia), there are some really awful ghettos on the South side (and no, they haven't been entirely cleaned up--ever heard of "Chiraq"?)--worse than the ghettos in the bay area (however, if you are an upper middle class person, you would have no reason to ever go near them, unless you live in Hyde Park, because the city is very geographically segregated)

SF:
Pros: Also has lovely architecture and it's own great vibe, near a lot of great nature, really great economy/job market, weather is milder, public transit is also decent (although maybe Chicago has an edge on this, especially for commuter trains), no need to wear puffy coats for 4.5 months a year (and no, it's not 3 months of horrible--usually winter lasts from mid November to mid March, with the occasional blizzard as late as April), also tons of culture, although there is still geographical/racial/economic segregation in the bay area, many areas are much more integrated (especially in the East Bay)

Cons: The cost of living is insane, serious homeless problem, more desirable parts of the city are really filthy and smell like urine, there are fewer bedroom communities with good schools

You say Chiraq, I say Chicago | andyousaychicity Rappers are making money sensationalizing the term "CHIRAQ "My comment was on most areas of the Notorious Bad neighborhoods. Do not look that bad at all today. City maintains most streets. I find it difficult to find the bombed out looking areas on even the western edge? As in past decades. Especially the 70s 80s. Gentrification continues to spread from downtown outward. The housing "Projects" are all gone.

Only one time, when I lived in Chicago in the 80s. Did I see those Night vs Day LOOKING areas Crossing from Cicero to Western Chicago. Then it did look that bad.

You see this when you cross into Chicago from Cicero and Oak Park older suburbs.... areas with houses interspersed with empty lots, where houses once were.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8797...1MTITGnWaQ!2e0

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8559...OaIfBoPNew!2e0

vibrant looking old neighborhoods then....

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8381...BVZsGEJSMQ!2e0

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8343..._2wF2TgTXg!2e0

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8434...U2wN8m8e7g!2e0

ABOVE ARE CHICAGO OLD WORKING CLASS NEIGHBORHOODS BELOW PHILLY'S. HOW THEY CHOSE DIFFERENT STREET LAYOUT AND HOUSING STYLES .ONE SINGLES ONE TIGHT ROWS.

This is North Philly old working class neighborhood

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9879...og!2e0!5m1!1e1

South Philly

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9295...Hw!2e0!5m1!1e1

[UKWildcat1981]

Originally Posted by ServoMiff

People are a lot nicer in Chicago. I never lived there, but I spent a lot of time there. The only reason I live in SF instead is because of the weather. I cannot handle snow and ice. The scenery is a big bonus, but Chicago is a great city with friendly people, a great live music scene and fantastic Polish food and pizza - all things I highly value. You can also get by with a car a lot easier there. You kinda need to though, because it's so much more spread out than SF.

I didn't think the people in Chicago were that friendly, they reminded me people in Kentucky polite but standoffish and not that outgoing, friendliest places I ever been to are mostly in the South thou Atlanta, Nashville, Dallas, Austin and San Diego surprisingly.

[Beardown91737]

Originally Posted by edsg25

I was the OP on a rather goofy thread about Chgo & SF here recently. one thing i did say in it was this: I find San Francisco and Chicago actually have a lot in common.

That and both both cities needed large sections rebuilt... Chicago in the 1870s and SF in the 1900s.

I would add Chicago's museums. SF... closer to Southern California.