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.
I'm not even really even sure why or what you are trying to argue. You've never lived in the bay area, I have (6 and a half years) and I'm there all the time. That's fine that you've mentally checked out of Chicago, but that's NOT going to change me from correcting you when you are factually wrong.
- First and foremost Marin and its protected park land is nothing like Cook county and its forest preserves.You could fit all of Cook counties forest preserves into marins park land easily. Marin county itself is sparsely populated with tons of rugged rural terrain. You could leave mill valley and be hiking in the woods with in minutes. Just because people are not farming or their rich, does not change the fact that they live in semi rural areas. There is a huge difference between Marin, which backs up into rural mountain country and is separated from the rest of its metro by water, and Santa Monica or O'hare which is surrounded by a nexus of urban development. Anyone with google maps can see that plain as day.
-Who cares if Des Planes had one farm surrounded by suburbia. Castro Valley in the bay area still has a RODEO and RANCHES, horses and cows. Again this type of thing is common all over bay area suburbs.
- Livermore is not where people go for cheap housing, its right next door to pleasanton and dublin and is part of a nexus of upper middle class suburbia. And sandwhich is not an equivalant to Livermore. Livermore is a six figure family suburb with a nuclear research lab, not like Sandwich. Lake Zurich-Barrington Village would probably be comparable to Livermore, if Fermilab was in Lake Zurich. And even then people live more semi rural. There is cattle grazing, people riding horses around parts of town, ranches, wineries etc.
-San Jose, Palo Alto, Richmond and Milpitas are not urban. San Jose has the same density as Park Ridge dude. Palo Alto is less dense than Schaumburg. And Milpitas? Youre the first person I've heard call Milpitas Urbane. Milpitas is about as dense as Glen Ellyn. Richmond is not even as dense as Des Plaines.
- California's amenities in the suburbs are not poor because people are transient. I'm not sure where that argument comes from. There are plenty of transient places like NOVA or suburban New York where the infrastructure is good. I actually know why the infrastructure is poor in California, but that is more the subject of a political debate and not appropriate for this thread.
-I live in the Sac area because that's where my job is. Am I supposed to not like Chicago because I moved away at 13 or something? Why do you care so much about where I live? This is like the third time you've commented on it....
-I do get a kick out of how you think suburban California is this urbane setting. Boy are you in for a rude awakening. More urbane suburbs are places like Cicero and Evanston, places with tall condos, good public transit, places that feel like an extension of the urbane city. You won't really find that in California. It's pretty much the same suburbia, except the homes are mostly tract homes and they sit on small lots. But its still neighborhood-neighborhood, neighborhood, strip mall, strip mall, strip mall.
Hence why LA has the same density as Maywood, IL.
OK, fine I will admit that I am not THAT familiar with the Bay Area. I've only been there twice, but I did a LOT of research before those trips.
I did even MORE research on the LA area as thats where I'm moving. And I guess what I mean by urbane California suburbs I am thinking Pasadena, Culver City (where I'm going to be living) Santa Monica, South Bay, Long Beach, etc. etc. Even parts of Orange County, although honestly I'm not a huge fan of Orange County, as theres not a whole lot there that can't be found in LA county.
And it just is my personal opinion that tiny lots and a lot more open space feels a bit more urbane than spread out big lots, with less open space, because well . . . thats the way it is in Europe. You basically have duplexes and townhomes, and houses on tiny lots backing up into farms. And I think of Europe as the yardstick. So if two places have the same population density, but one has its whole population concentrated into a smaller area, and the rest of it as open space, then that to me it feels more "urban" thats all.
Unlike many, I don't think of urban in terms of aesthetics necessarily. I think of urban I think of region with a great number of people who live a number of towns and cities very close to one another that get together and create things that have an influence on the rest of the world.
I think of anything that has large office complexes and traffic of any kind where major decisions and innovations occur.
Not "how close does it resemble New York."
Sorry Tex, don't mean to pile on. I do get that you bring a different perspective from the rah, rah Chicago crowd, and I appreciate that.
However, large office complexes where major decisions and innovations are made is neither necessary nor sufficient for urbanity.
This is a map of Apple headquarters in Cupertino, CA. Regardless of your opinion about Apple, I think everyone will agree many important decisions and innovations were made on this campus. But its not urban. Probably densely suburban. The Apple Company Store, Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA - Google Maps
Location: Cleveland, OH USA / formerly Chicago for 20 years
4,069 posts, read 7,320,406 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by jld13072
East Lakeview IMO is the best neighborhood in Chicago. Stone throw to LSD and Broadway Ave which has everything you're looking for. 2 grocery stores one block from where I lived and a Whole Foods Two blocks.
And now the new Walmart Express grocery store that just opened up at Broadway and Addison a couple weeks ago. Very good deals on popular food items, and it's probably the only Walmart where you'll find Out Magazine in the rack next to the checkout aisles.
When I move, I want to play the angle of a regular midwestern guy when I meet all those cute California hotties. "Urban" as many here define conjures up images of east coast Italian Americans that flirt too aggressively, (like Jersey Shore). Chicks don't like that. I want to be confident that I as the grounded down-to-earth guy coming from the midwest is going to be a breath of fresh air, from the Hollywood wannabe douchebag kind of guys, by making where I'm from seem more earthy and country. Unfortunately, while I grew up fairly far out, it was still very much a suburb, and not a small town. (About 30 miles from the loop). And I see more couples with a city girl and the country guy.
When I move, I want to play the angle of a regular midwestern guy when I meet all those cute California hotties. "Urban" as many here define conjures up images of east coast Italian Americans that flirt too aggressively, (like Jersey Shore). Chicks don't like that. I want to be confident that I as the grounded down-to-earth guy coming from the midwest is going to be a breath of fresh air, from the Hollywood wannabe douchebag kind of guys, by making where I'm from seem more earthy and country. Unfortunately, while I grew up fairly far out, it was still very much a suburb, and not a small town. (About 30 miles from the loop). And I see more couples with a city girl and the country guy.
When I move, I want to play the angle of a regular midwestern guy when I meet all those cute California hotties. "Urban" as many here define conjures up images of east coast Italian Americans that flirt too aggressively, (like Jersey Shore). Chicks don't like that. I want to be confident that I as the grounded down-to-earth guy coming from the midwest is going to be a breath of fresh air, from the Hollywood wannabe douchebag kind of guys, by making where I'm from seem more earthy and country. Unfortunately, while I grew up fairly far out, it was still very much a suburb, and not a small town. (About 30 miles from the loop). And I see more couples with a city girl and the country guy.
OK, thats the reality. There.
I'll be honest Tex. I lived on the west coast for three years. Couldn't wait to get back to Chicago women, probably 20-30% of my desire to return. 20-30% was the miserable weather (I was in Portlandia for employment) and 40-50% was that everyone seemed fake, except for a select few transplants.
I told my buddy that a pretty solid generalization is that everyone in the urban areas are primarily the same person (fake-eco-liberals that believes that shopping at whole foods and becoming vegan is the only way to be at one with nature, and "Western Medicine" is a sham, but Chinese "Medicine" is not...). In the rural areas, you have pretty much all the same redneck. I did get to work with them some, seriously it was a breath of fresh-honest air, but I really had nothing in common with them.
My buddy just came back to visit from SF, where he's been a year, and pretty much said that he was pissed at me for being right, and he's now going to make an effort to return to Chicago.
That said, I don't know what kind of traction you are going to get with the whole "Midwestern chick magnet". I found that west coast women have a very different set of desires than what most Midwestern men are accustomed to, though if you are a fake eco-liberal you should get lots of dates! If you can copy some male actors wardrobe, you'll be golden! I've also discussed with more than a handful of women who were out there and said that they just simply avoided dating men there because they weren't "manly" enough. A guy I work with, from Cali, actually does show up to work dressed totally metrosexual. It's actually a source of comedy for all of his co-workers.
Here's a nice laugh for you. You can tell us if it is factual in six months or so!
I'm not positive but yes Tex is wrong on a few things (but not all). I've spent several years in both areas...
The thing most wrong was Marin county... There is nothing like Marin in the Chicago area... nor Sonoma or Napa for that matter. There are serious long swaths of completely rural or national parks.
As for more urbane, that doesn't mean the cities themselves. I'm pretty sure he is talking about the mindset of the people in that regard. Bay Area just has more $$$ in general, and lots of that is in the suburbs. It does have more sophisticated/urbane populous reaching out into the burbs. I *think* that is what he is talking about... the people in the bay area, call them sophisticated, call them urbane, call them pretentious, etc... they are different than the suburban folks of Chicagoland, no doubt IMO.
I can't really comment on the south
Now if he is talking about the layout of the places, then no, outside of SF proper the bay area isn't all that urban.
East Lakeview IMO is the best neighborhood in Chicago.
Agree. East Lakeview is where I used to live. I think it's one of the best urban neighborhoods in the country, period. It's got everything, and the whole area can be navigated on foot or bike.
Also, while it does have a certain gay flavor, it's nowhere near to being a "gay ghetto," nor is it at all hostile to non-gay people. Based on my experience, I would estimate that most people living there are not gay, and come from all different types of backgrounds.
Mind you, I recently visited for the first time in a few years, and it seems to be getting quite posh, visibly more so than when I lived there (late 90s). It used to be substantially cheaper than the neighborhoods directly south, but I don't know if that's still true.
I'm not positive but yes Tex is wrong on a few things (but not all). I've spent several years in both areas...
The thing most wrong was Marin county... There is nothing like Marin in the Chicago area... nor Sonoma or Napa for that matter. There are serious long swaths of completely rural or national parks.
As for more urbane, that doesn't mean the cities themselves. I'm pretty sure he is talking about the mindset of the people in that regard. Bay Area just has more $$$ in general, and lots of that is in the suburbs. It does have more sophisticated/urbane populous reaching out into the burbs. I *think* that is what he is talking about... the people in the bay area, call them sophisticated, call them urbane, call them pretentious, etc... they are different than the suburban folks of Chicagoland, no doubt IMO.
I can't really comment on the south
Now if he is talking about the layout of the places, then no, outside of SF proper the bay area isn't all that urban.
i really like the points you raise.
I'm going to zero in on one thing you said:
" I *think* that is what he is talking about... the people in the bay area, call them sophisticated, call them urbane, call them pretentious, etc... they are different than the suburban folks of Chicagoland, no doubt IMO."
what I find most interesting about that quote is that you could substitute "metropolitan New York" for "Chicagoland" and it would still work.
The Bay Area is different. It is socially aware in ways the midwest is not and in ways that the Mid Atlantic is not. And certainly in ways that SoCal is not.
If the Bay Area is part of a real region, that region extends northward from it to include the coastal areas of northern California, Oregon and Washington. It is pure "Left Coast" and its values differ from other parts of the nation. Portland and Seattle are probably far more "socially aware" than New York. New York is a city about making a buck, always was and always will be. Yes, it attracts bright and sophisticated people and has been a cauldron for social change down through the decades and centuries, but it is driven more by money than anything else. Even in its own general vicinity, Boston and New England are probably more socially aware than New York.
I think if we take what you have said here, what I have said here, and what others have said here, we get a picture of the Bay Area as a totally unique place with which there is no comparison.
A better thread than "Will Chicago feel like a worldly, cosmopolitain city coming from San Francisco?" is one that asks "Will any metropolitan area feel right to me if I move away from San Francisco and the Bay Area?"
As noted, Chicago will not offer than special feel. But neither would New York, Los Angeles, Boston, or Washington, all sophisticated and cosmopolitan cities on their own.
Not better. Not worse. Just not the Bay Area. It's different.
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.
