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.
It's a little hard for me to believe that a city of 800,000 people has more to see and do for a visitor than a city of 2.7 million, unless we're including their CSAs.
It's a little hard for me to believe that a city of 800,000 people has more to see and do for a visitor than a city of 2.7 million, unless we're including their CSAs.
From a tourist perspective I don't think it's hard to believe. I mean New Orleans has what less than 400k? It certainly has more to offer to a tourst than a city like Houston does which has 2million. That is from a tourist perspective. Now onverall, probably Houston offers more in general than New Orleans.
Overall I think Chicago has more to do and just offers more. But the keyword of the OP is toursists. SF caters more to tourism than Chicago does. It's just the truth.
It's a little hard for me to believe that a city of 800,000 people has more to see and do for a visitor than a city of 2.7 million, unless we're including their CSAs.
So based on that you must believe there is more to do and see as a tourist in San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, and San Jose, etc..than San Francisco correct?
From a tourist perspective I don't think it's hard to believe. I mean New Orleans has what less than 400k? It certainly has more to offer to a tourst than a city like Houston does which has 2million. That is from a tourist perspective. Now onverall, probably Houston offers more in general than New Orleans.
Overall I think Chicago has more to do and just offers more. But the keyword of the OP is toursists. SF caters more to tourism than Chicago does. It's just the truth.
But Chicago is on a very different level in terms of tourist attractions, architecture, cultural impact, history, etc. compared to Houston and other cities being mentioned.
But Chicago is on a very different level in terms of tourist attractions, architecture, cultural impact, history, etc. compared to Houston and other cities being mentioned.
And SF is at or near that same level as Chicago is from a tourist perspective. If you really think Chicago offers so much more then it should be easy for you to actually specify how it offers more than SF besides throwing out some arbitrary city population stat.
But Chicago is on a very different level in terms of tourist attractions, architecture, cultural impact, history, etc. compared to Houston and other cities being mentioned.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. I also think it seems like people here all agree that Chicago is definitely a top 5 city for tourism. It's just SF's caters more to tourism than Chicago and it's tourism forces you to explore the city more. Thus far everyone here has said that they are very close to even but with SF getting the nod.
I think also that Chicago's main tourist spots are concentrated in the core/downtown area, which really doesn't attract toursists to go outside of the Loop area. Where in SF it seems that mosts of it's tourist landmarks/attractions are actually outside of downtown, and make you explore the city more, like Golden Gate Bridge, Fisherman's Wharf, Alacatraz, the Painted Ladies, Lombardy Street, etc. In Chicago I think few if any tourists venture outside downtown, which really is a shame. I think if people explored outside of the Loop area, Chicago could easily become more of a tourists spot than SF. Chicago has amazing neighborhoods, but it really doesn't market it's neighborhoods that well to tourists (and that's not a bad thing).
Size isn't always everything. For example, Sao Paulo is significantly bigger than Rio de Janiero but Rio de Janiero is way more touristy and caters more to tourists. Or Madird and Barcelona. Madrid is larger but Barcelona caters more to tourists. It's just the way it is. Doesn't mean Madrid or Sao Paulo are not amazing places to visit, it just means they don't cater as much to their country's counterparts.
Both are nice and have a lot of good stuff to do. Most people seem to like San Francisco more, but personally I preferred Chicago. I found that it was easier to get around w/o a car b/c of the El train.
Ballparks: both have jewels of baseball parks: Wrigley and AT&T. AT&T's park may be better, but Wrigley's neighborhood is more fun. I didn't go to a football or basketball game in either place, but Soldier Field and the United Center certainly beat Candlestick.
Art: Chicago with the edge here. The Chi Institue of Art beats the Palace of Legion of Honor and de Young Museum.
Music and Comedy Clubs: Chicago easily. Tons of good blues and the Second city comedy show was great. Not sure of anything comparable in SF.
Parks: I liked Lincoln, Grant/Millenium more than Golden Gate.
Architecture/skyline: Golden Gate bridge is nice, but I prefer the awesome skyscrapers in Chicago.
Wild card: Alcatraz tour in SF was really interesting
If you throw in wine country it is a different story, but for the cities themselves, I liked Chicago better. Obvious caveat is that winter in Chicago sucks, so if we are talking about a winter trip then San Fran gets the win easily based on weather.
Ive spent lots of time in both and they are both top tier, but SF is more compact and just has more to do. You feel as if you have really gone somewhere of note. Chicago is great, big, bustling and if you love architecture its awesoe. The history, skyscrapers, Frank Lloyd Wright etc etc Regionally theres little comparison, San Francisco takes it. When you can take a day trip to Napa Valley, Monterey/Carmel, Big Sur, Lake Tahoe.....
SF is more touristy and geared more for tourists even if there is more to do in Chicago, if you are a tourist, you are time limited, and you won't be able to do all there is to do anyway.
Thank you for all the answers so far everyone! And another poster brought up transit. Since I might not be renting a car, which one is better for transportation/getting around??
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.
