San Francisco vs. Chicago: Which do you prefer? (Oakland, Napa: fit in, transplants)

[sidburn]

I'm interested in the opinions of people who have lived/traveled to both cities. Which did you like better?

For me, SF wins hands down in the natural beauty and climate department, but Chicago has better food and public transit.

[bmw335xi]

Chicago:

Affordability
Architecture
Cleanliness
Public Transportation

San Francisco:

Weather
Food
Scenery

[Monopolis]

I've lived in both but Chicago for decades and SF for about 2-3 months (I now live in Oakland, work in SF).

San Francisco:
* beautiful
* hilly
* half the city has good public transportation, other half sucks
* drivers more courteous to pedestrians
* slightly less bike friendly
* oddly sketchy downtown areas that just don't make sense but that is reality
* homeless that are pretty far out there sometimes but so far not threatening
* housing is crazy (but SF is tiny -- if you go further out, many options but still fairly expensive)

Chicago:
* flat
* if you're going downtown, great public transportation otherwise kind of sucks (but not as bad as SF)
* much much much bigger
* restaurants spread out over the whole city, more restaurants so more bad ones but also more good ones
* winter
* housing is all over the map with many options
* aggressive drivers
* if bicycling towards downtown or along the way to downtown, great bicycle commuter routes (but same problem as SF with many poorly behaved cyclists and motorists)

To me, comparing SF and Chicago is like comparing apples and oranges. The one thing I would say is that SF is more accessible to outsiders. Chicago is very neighborhood-centric and it can be harder to make friends. But that really depends on the individual circumstances.

[rca215]

I've lived in both and I agree that they're very different. Maybe about as different as you can get in terms of cool cities (by my judgment) in the US.

I prefer San Francisco largely due to the weather, nature, driving proximity to other cool stuff, and some elements of the culture (more socially liberal and almost libertarian in some respects).

But the elements of Chicago that I prefer are the cost, flying proximity to other cool stuff, the drivers, the greater abundance of decent bars/restaurants that don't have ridiculous lines that people in SF seem to have no problem standing in, and the greater pride/connection that people have with the city (probably partly an issue with more young transplants in SF), and the less trendy/fad-oriented social situation (see comment about lines).

I disagree with the prior comment that Chicago is more bike friendly and less accessible to outsiders.

[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.

[18Montclair]

I prefer the Bay Area overall, but I really like Chicago. The only thing I dont like about Chicago is the weather, and even then, it's just the winters that are the dealbreaker for me.

Otherwise, we're talking about 2 global cities with all the commensurate amenities.

[garyjohnyang]

I've sort of lived in both (OK, fine, I lived in the suburbs) but I prefer SF just because of how compact it is as well as the food and scenery. I'm also Asian, so I guess I identify more with the culture in the Bay Area.
I like that Chicago is cheaper and has great architecture, though.

[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.

here's the one thing I would offer (IMHO) that links the two: their center cities (downtown and environs) and more like each other than they are to any other such center centers in the US.

Why? I'll postulate here that when it comes to cities' cores, there US cities stand out like no others in the critical mass, the extensiveness and critical mass (in all endeavors) of their centers, the most Oz like (I'd say Emerald City here, but then I'd have to be thinking of Seattle. ) are NY, Chgo, and SF.

NYC, of course, is in a class by itself, maintains two cores (midtown and downtown) and in many respects, the entire southern 2/3 of Manhattan is a true core.

Chicago and San Francisco each have a single core area. For Chicago, I would include the area from North Avenue (where Lincoln Park ends) south along the lakefront to McCormick Place and going west to around the United Center. For San Francisco, I'd define the core pretty much as everything north of China Basin and east of Van Ness.

I don't think any other cities pack in what you see there in one central core area like Chgo and SF.

Boston might come next, but I don't think it matches the degree of what Chgo and SF have at their core (and besides, Boston is a bit too close to serve as that type of magnet).

I realize that Chicago's core is larger than SF's, but I still find an enormous amount of similarities in the two, more so, as noted, than any place else with Manhattan being a world unto its own.

and I would have to say the ones that come closest to DT Chgo and SF….Boston and Philadelphia are the only ones that really come to mind of that truly strong downtown structure….are not in the same league.

another similarity I made on the other thread I'll make here as well: Chicago and San Francisco differ from all cities outside the northeast corridor. They are the only two cities outside that region that truly came of age in the late 19th century when urbanization in America hit its enormous growth with industrialization and immigration after the Civil War. These two cities alone came into their own during this era and followed the patterns of places like NY, Philly, and Boston more than any place else in the nation. And both transcended their own regions (Chicago for the middle west and San Francisco in the Far west) in doing so. I don't think you could find two cities that could better fit in the type of urbanity you find in the northeast corridor like Chicago and San Francisco could. Certainly major cities whose true emergence was in the 20th century (Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, LA, Seattle, etc.) offer a completely different type of feel than Chi and SF in this regard.

again, merely my opinion on it.

for the record, these are the only two cities i have ever lived in, the ones where i have family, and the two have been intricately and intimately involved in my life from the get go. don't know if that gives me any bias on the issue….just saying for clarification.

[KP007]

As someone who works in SF and has visisted Chicago a few times I can say I prefer CTA to Bart entirely, even with the noisier trains i find it to be a much more enjoyable experience.

BTW I think Zachary's pizza is on par with any pizza you can get in Chicago and I have a native Chicagoan that would agree with me as well! lol

[Fata Morgana]

I'm Chicago born and raised but have lived in SF the past 8 years. I myself prefer Chicago overall. The only downsides to Chicago for me are that it is so flat and that the summers can be brutal (muggy and hot) as I'm not a heat person at all (though I love seasons).

Chicago - much cleaner; nicer, more down to earth people; lower COL; better transportation (SF's is like a 2nd world country's); better pizza and bagels; prettier neighborhoods with tree-lined streets; better housing; not as dense and congested as SF; four seasons.

San Francisco - hilly; nicer parks; closer to other attractions (Yosemite, Napa, Lake Tahoe, etc); greener (as in recycling and composting).