Better Vacation: Chicago Vs San Francisco (living, Los Angeles, beach, beautiful)
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.
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.
I would say your overall sentiment is probably correct, but to add my perspective, I think classifying the thoughts of “Europeans” broadly, could be inaccurate. Given Chicago’s large Polish and Eastern European population (Ukrainian included), Chicago is a very popular city there. I am Polish American for reference.
I can’t say with certainty what all Europeans dream of (nobody can), in terms of cities to visit, but Chicago is very popular for a good portion I know, and would suspect it is for many Eastern Europeans.
I think SF is way ahead of Chicago here and that goes for city proper and region. The only advantage Chicago has over SF, in my opinion, is size. SF has a more varied topography, stunning views of the Bay from hills, cable cars, etc. It's just a much more iconic city than Chicago, particularly if we're talking about international recognition. Then once you leave the city proper you have Muir Woods, Sausalito, Berkeley, Pacific Coast Highway, Carmel, etc. I know this is all a matter of opinion, but I'm frankly surprised Chicago has this many votes.
Region: Bay Area and it’s not close. Chicagoland is a bit of a snooze fest compared to the Bay Area.
How is that even possible when the Bay Area likely has the worst social skills in the entire U.S.? I guess it depends on what people truly value in life?
I would say your overall sentiment is probably correct, but to add my perspective, I think classifying the thoughts of “Europeans” broadly, could be inaccurate. Given Chicago’s large Polish and Eastern European population (Ukrainian included), Chicago is a very popular city there. I am Polish American for reference.
I can’t say with certainty what all Europeans dream of (nobody can), in terms of cities to visit, but Chicago is very popular for a good portion I know, and would suspect it is for many Eastern Europeans.
It seems Chicago is "popular" for settlement among that community. The same way Southeastern Michigan has been popular for settlement among Arab Americans. I'm not sure if that means people from those regions of the world would actually prefer to visit there or rather that they would visit those cities simply due to familial ties.
I'm sure a number of Chicagoans visit Mississippi throughout the year given the ties between the two through the Great Migration. I'm not sure if that makes Mississippi a "popular" destination or simply a necessary one for people who want to see family.
How is that even possible when the Bay Area likely has the worst social skills in the entire U.S.? I guess it depends on what people truly value in life?
Chicagoland outside of the North Shore is largely flat, monotonous SFH subdivisions with cookie cutter homes and Walgreens every tenth block and surrounded by big box stores. In this kind of environment does social skills even matter? For finesse in setting up kids playdates?
Bay Area is way more interesting. It's not even close.
Chicagoland outside of the North Shore is largely flat, monotonous SFH subdivisions with cookie cutter homes and Walgreens every tenth block and surrounded by big box stores. In this kind of environment does social skills even matter? For finesse in setting up kids playdates?
Bay Area is way more interesting. It's not even close.
Most of the inhabited Bay Area is "monotonous SFH subdivisions with cookie cutter homes and Walgreens every tenth block and surrounded by big box stores", as is most of the US. The difference there is that it's not flat, but that's still not much fun. What Chicago and Chicagoland has a decent amount of are places that are not that and that's in more than just the North Side of Chicago which is also pretty sizable.
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.
The accepted, mainstream definition of "San Francisco" on this forum is typically the city itself along with the surrounding 12 counties.
I saw an earlier post including Santa Cruz as an attraction and just thought here we go again....
I think SF is way ahead of Chicago here and that goes for city proper and region. The only advantage Chicago has over SF, in my opinion, is size. SF has a more varied topography, stunning views of the Bay from hills, cable cars, etc. It's just a much more iconic city than Chicago, particularly if we're talking about international recognition. Then once you leave the city proper you have Muir Woods, Sausalito, Berkeley, Pacific Coast Highway, Carmel, etc. I know this is all a matter of opinion, but I'm frankly surprised Chicago has this many votes.
Downtown Chicago in the summertime is far better than San Francisco. And I don't have to dodge a bunch of homeless, needles, and **** in Chicago.
I think SF is way ahead of Chicago here and that goes for city proper and region. The only advantage Chicago has over SF, in my opinion, is size. SF has a more varied topography, stunning views of the Bay from hills, cable cars, etc. It's just a much more iconic city than Chicago, particularly if we're talking about international recognition. Then once you leave the city proper you have Muir Woods, Sausalito, Berkeley, Pacific Coast Highway, Carmel, etc. I know this is all a matter of opinion, but I'm frankly surprised Chicago has this many votes.
I’m not at all surprised that Chicago has as many votes as it does. I’m also not surprised that SF has more votes.
Yea to me in a City limit comparison I’ll take Chicago if you include the metro and beyond it’s SF by a large margin. Both cities have their issues but If I had the chance with a free ticket I’d take Chicago.
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.
