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.
Depends on the season as I'd take Chicago for its summers for the city bursting with life and the beaches, fall for the brisk air and colors, plus a little bit of the holidays in late December and over New Year's so it feels more like the holiday seasons. A good deal of the Bay Area's hills and mountains can be quite brown and dead in summer and fall as the rainy season, which isn't all that rainy, comes mostly in winter so it's a lot more charming in winter and spring with that greenery and the rains washing a bit of the grime away and obviously a lot less cold than the Chicago region is in winter.
Region: Bay Area and it’s not close. Chicagoland is a bit of a snooze fest compared to the Bay Area.
City: Chicago and it’s not close. SF proper you can see in 2–3 days and afterwards it gets a bit repetitive and boring.
Depends on the season as I'd take Chicago for its summers for the city bursting with life and the beaches, fall for the brisk air and colors, plus a little bit of the holidays in late December and over New Year's so it feels more like the holiday seasons. A good deal of the Bay Area's hills and mountains can be quite brown and dead in summer and fall as the rainy season, which isn't all that rainy, comes mostly in winter so it's a lot more charming in winter and spring with that greenery and the rains washing a bit of the grime away and obviously a lot less cold than the Chicago region is in winter.
Agree with this. For a holiday experience (Christmas) and traditional big city experience, especially in the summer-time, I’d choose Chicago. For a regional experience with variety of interesting things to do, the Bay Area would easily be a better vacation spot.
Although, San Francisco on its own offers a great big city experience. It offers all of the traditional big city amenities for tourists.
Region: Bay Area and it’s not close. Chicagoland is a bit of a snooze fest compared to the Bay Area.
City: Chicago and it’s not close. SF proper you can see in 2–3 days and afterwards it gets a bit repetitive and boring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by personone
Agree with this. For a holiday experience (Christmas) and traditional big city experience, especially in the summer-time, I’d choose Chicago. For a regional experience with variety of interesting things to do, the Bay Area would easily be a better vacation spot.
Although, San Francisco on its own offers a great big city experience. It offers all of the traditional big city amenities for tourists.
I'm actually not that down on Chicagoland / regional tourism since it's pretty fresh to me having never lived there and only visited. Giant lake, big sand dunes on said giant lake, lots of small rivers and lakes, farmlands with things like corn mazes, cool accessible smaller city with Milwaukee and a plethora of other even smaller cities across three/four states (that southwest bit of Michigan count?). I do wish more of the suburbs were contained and were either farmland or natural preserves though I feel that way about most of US suburbia.
I'm actually not that down on Chicagoland / regional tourism since it's pretty fresh to me having never lived there and only visited. Giant lake, big sand dunes on said giant lake, lots of small rivers and lakes, farmlands with things like corn mazes, cool accessible smaller city with Milwaukee and a plethora of other even smaller cities across three/four states (that southwest bit of Michigan count?). I do wish more of the suburbs were contained and were either farmland or natural preserves though I feel that way about most of US suburbia.
Chicagoland has a lot going for it, but I personally don’t consider those things “vacation” worthy. If you are local it’s really cool to have those things, especially in the fall/early winter. But I wouldn’t choose to go to Chicagoland for a vacation in the same way, I would take a flight to the Bay Area to see Napa Valley, Redwoods, The Bay, SF/Oakland, etc. I think the Bay Area offers more for a “vacationer,” although as with everything, there’s some subjectivity.
Chicagoland has a lot going for it, but I personally don’t consider those things “vacation” worthy. If you are local it’s really cool to have those things, especially in the fall/early winter. But I wouldn’t choose to go to Chicagoland for a vacation in the same way, I would take a flight to the Bay Area to see Napa Valley, Redwoods, The Bay, SF/Oakland, etc. I think the Bay Area offers more for a “vacationer,” although as with everything, there’s some subjectivity.
Good point, though I think a double-header with Milwaukee makes some sense. I also think the dunes in Indiana are worth it, but all of it depending on the length of stay. I'm actually curious as to why Chicago doesn't have ferry service to across the lake as there are bits there that seem interesting, but to me aren't worth the car rental and drive though I did consider taking the train to St. Joseph.
San Francisco is always a top tourist destination for people from Europe. Many Europeans dream of a day they can come to San Francisco for a visit. How many are sitting at home, chomping at the bit to visit Chicago? Ditto for people in Japan.
I am just lending some perspective to the discussion.
I concur, don't visit in summer. It is cold and foggy. Visit in September or October. My riend came in summer with the sole desire to walk across the Goloden Gate bridge. He was horrified to fins he was immersed in wet fog the entire walk, with zero visibility. He was hoping for gloriious views of Alcatraz and the SF skyline. No dice. Nothing but a wall of gray fog beyond the bridge barriers.
San Francisco is always a top tourist destination for people from Europe. Many Europeans dream of a day they can come to San Francisco for a visit. How many are sitting at home, chomping at the bit to visit Chicago? Ditto for people in Japan.
I am just lending some perspective to the discussion.
I concur, don't visit in summer. It is cold and foggy. Visit in September or October. My riend came in summer with the sole desire to walk across the Goloden Gate bridge. He was horrified to fins he was immersed in wet fog the entire walk, with zero visibility. He was hoping for gloriious views of Alcatraz and the SF skyline. No dice. Nothing but a wall of gray fog beyond the bridge barriers.
Right, but I think that's partly an issue of Chicago not really marketing itself well enough. I think it really should push a few things like media creation in and based on the city, highlight summers in Chicago which are glorious, really tamp down on crime so it's not as (albeit a bit unfairly) associated with the city, and play up the river and lake access (the riverwalks are really good steps in the right direction). I also really think Lake Shore Drive being removed or somehow greatly modified would also make it a lot more scenic.
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.
