Stylish creative family moving from Beverly Hills to Chicago (college, live in)

[Vicman]

The good public zoned high school I know of in Chicago is Lincoln Park HS in the Lincoln Park neighborhood.

The good public elementary schools I know of are Ogden and Abraham Lincoln.

Houston ISD and Spring Branch ISD (in Houston) have some good public schools too (in Houston ISD, generally Bellaire HS and Lamar HS feeder schools, while in SBISD Memorial HS and Stratford HS) - Obviously the Houston suburbs have high-rated schools too.

[cdrobert]

Originally Posted by Drover

Urban decay was rampant everywhere in the 80s, not just L.A. And at the time, it had already been going on for 20 years and there didn't seem to be any end in sight. The difference is most cities have rebounded since then. (I suppose L.A. probably has too to some extent). You don't see thread after thread of people saying "Indy is going to hell, I'm getting outta here" or "Seattle is going to hell, I'm getting outta here" or "(insert city here) is going to hell, I'm getting outta here." The only city forum where this seems to be the theme of most of the threads is the L.A. forum.

Thats because people realized in the megalopolis of souther california, that SAN DIEGO offered safer, more affordable and less polluted life. Think of San Diego back in the 1980's. San diego? Right? Wasn't hardly a blip on the radar if it wasnt for all the naval bases(ronald reagan was a huge military spender). Now look at San Diego, constatly being rated as the safest and or nicest city with a population of over 1 million(and this city is right next to MEXICO!!) I visit san diego these days frequently at it really impresses me, its southern california's version of the San Fran Bay area.

[domergurl]

And don't forget the Magnet schools, Whitney Young, Lane Tech, etc.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by cdrobert

Thats because people realized in the megalopolis of souther california, that SAN DIEGO offered safer, more affordable and less polluted life. Think of San Diego back in the 1980's. San diego? Right? Wasn't hardly a blip on the radar if it wasnt for all the naval bases(ronald reagan was a huge military spender). Now look at San Diego, constatly being rated as the safest and or nicest city with a population of over 1 million(and this city is right next to MEXICO!!) I visit san diego these days frequently at it really impresses me, its southern california's version of the San Fran Bay area.

"Wasn't hardly a blip"? Huh? By 1980, San Diego was already the 8th largest city in the U.S. (it is now 6th), its population close to a million, before Reagan ever stepped foot in the White House. There was much more to San Diego in the 80s than naval bases. San Diego has had 500,000 people or more since the late 50s. Its upward population trend has been going on for 90 years; it didn't just all of a sudden start happening recently.

[cdrobert]

Actually san diego is still the 8th.And it wasnt back in 1980. Pheonix is the 6th now and its population is actually over 1.2 million. I dont know where you are getting your facts but, San diego in 1980 had a population of 875,000 in 1980, now that number is 1.2 +. So from 1980-2000 san diego increased in population by over 30%. I call that a pretty significant change from being a naval city to the 8th largest with suburbs going way east into the destert.San Diego hasnt seen that type of growth SINCEe the 1950's when the population almost doubled.

[gigi927]

parklife...

I was born and raised in Chicago, lived there til I was 28, and then moved to San Francisco where I lived for 7 years.

If I really had to choose, I'd pick San Francisco. Here's my breakdown:

Pros of SF:
* better dining than Chicago. Chicago is really very right up there in dining and you will get much more ethnic variety IMO in Chicago, but nothing beats SF in terms of overall excellence except NY. Especially if you are a fan of CA cuisine.

* a more active, athletic city. People generally are just in better shape.

* SF is more ethnically integrated than Chicago. Chicago is just as diverse, but the neighborhoods are still pockety and separate than SF. I guess this could be a pro or con depending on what you like

* more cool destinations are within striking distance. Quick flights to Vancouver, Pac Northwest, LA, Vegas, Mexico. Chicago's a bit farther from everything.

Pros of Chicago:

* personally, I think the cultural opportunities in Chicago are superior to most cities. SF has great culture but it pales in comparison to the theaters, museums, etc. in Chicago. Sounds like this is important to you.

* lower cost of living than SF

Good luck with your search...I think most of us are envious of the choices and opportunities you have available to you!

[Drover]

Originally Posted by cdrobert

Actually san diego is still the 8th.And it wasnt back in 1980.

Yes it was. See http://www.census.gov/population/documentation/twps0027/tab21.txt (broken link)

It appears you are correct that San Diego is 8th again according to the 2005 Census estimate, having fallen back there from 6th where it was in 1990. See http://www.census.gov/population/documentation/twps0027/tab22.txt (broken link)

I dont know where you are getting your facts

The Census Bureau. And you?

but, San diego in 1980 had a population of 875,000 in 1980, now that number is 1.2 +. So from 1980-2000 san diego increased in population by over 30%. I call that a pretty significant change from being a naval city to the 8th largest with suburbs going way east into the destert.

It was already the 8th largest city in 1980. What in the world are you talking about?

San Diego hasnt seen that type of growth SINCEe the 1950's when the population almost doubled.

Yes, actually, San Diego has been seeing that type of growth, consistently, for about 90 years. Consider:


YEAR...................POPULATION

1920......................74,683
1930.....................147,995
1940.....................203,341
1950.....................334,387
1960.....................573,224
1970.....................696,769
1980.....................875,538
1990...................1,110,549
2000...................1,223,400

I stand by my claim and the numbers bear it out. I can't even begin to imagine why you think a city of 875,000 (and who knows how many more in the metro area) is a "Naval city." There was already far, far more to San Diego by 1980 than just a naval base. You want to see a REAL naval city, where the naval base actually is the biggest thing going for it and colors much of the city's economy and culture, check out Norfolk VA some time.

[cdrobert]

Why san diego is a naval city? well this site ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_diego) says:

After World War II, the military played an increasing role in the local economy. But at the end of the Cold War the local economy experienced a downturn due to cutbacks in the local defense and aerospace industry. San Diego leaders sought to diversify the city's economy, and San Diego has since become a major center of the emerging biotech industry. It is also home to telecommunications giant Qualcomm.


Military bases in or near San Diego include U.S. Navy ports, Marine Corps bases, and Coast Guard stations. San Diego is the site of the largest naval fleet in the world, and with the reductions at the Norfolk, Virginia basing facilities and the retrenchment in the Russian naval base at Vladivostok, San Diego has the largest concentration of Naval facilities in the world, with two of the US Navy's Nimitz class supercarriers, (the USS Nimitz and the USS Ronald Reagan), five amphibious assault ships, several Los Angeles-class "fast attack" submarines, carrier and submarine tenders, and many smaller ships home-ported there.

One of the Marine Corps' two Recruit Depots is located here. San Diego is also known as the "birthplace of naval aviation," although Pensacola, Florida makes a rival claim.


So like i said.. san diego is navy city usa. norfolk va? wheres that? hehe.

with these facts it is obviouse why people in california traditionally have called san diego a navy town.

[cdrobert]

And the reason this has played a significant role in that city is because military was the industry in san diego until people had to resort to other industries. There was no blue collar industry in san diego really ever. Hence the lack of urban decay typical of most cities with 1million plus people.

[Drover]

I hate to be argumentative, but... the fact that San Diego's population growth and economy barely slowed down after the reduction of military spending in the area and then promptly continued apace is yet more evidence that there was already more to the regional economy than the naval bases, and that the intellectual and capital basis for economic diversification was already in place. Witness the difference between SD and places like Pittsburgh and Detroit that truly were dependent on one single industry, have stagnant (or worse) economies and population rates, and have yet to re-establish their footing decades after the domestic decline of their respective industries. I don't doubt San Diego has become what it is today because of the naval bases. People still call Pittsburgh "Steel City"; doesn't mean it's still the basis of the city's economy.