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.
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.
I can't agree. Coming from LA I'm blown away by how nice SF suburbs are, many with active little downtowns that are surprisingly nice and active. I went out to dinner and Danville and I don't think that we have anywhere in LA to match the quaintness of their downtown and I don't think that's all that special for the Bay Area. If Chicago can match Bay Area suburbs, then their suburbs are very underrated.
I can't agree. Coming from LA I'm blown away by how nice SF suburbs are, many with active little downtowns that are surprisingly nice and active. I went out to dinner and Danville and I don't think that we have anywhere in LA to match the quaintness of their downtown and I don't think that's all that special for the Bay Area. If Chicago can match Bay Area suburbs, then their suburbs are very underrated.
A lot of the older cities that were large early on had a ton of streetcar suburbs and nearby settlements early on and that includes the Bay Area. LA is a little bit newer in terms of how intensely developed it is and meanwhile a lot of its streetcar suburbs like Culver City, Highland Park or Leimert Park have essentially been absorbed into a continuous expanse of urbanization as most of the plains/valleys of the Los Angeles area are quite large though there do exist some cute active little downtowns in the area--it's just that with the population boom coming by far mostly from post-war autocentric sprawl, there's a lot more of that than the cute downtowns. Certainly you've been to stuff like the various beach city downtowns, Old Town _____ in southern California so you've seen some of it.
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.
Fair enough.
I agree with your earlier post that many of the attractions in Chicagoland are not necessarily vacation-worthy. California SR-1, however, is a legit National Treasure, and definitely one of the most scenic places on the face of the planet, so I would think being able to cross the Golden Gate with those views alone would easily put more distance between these two cities in this poll than what's currently reflected. If we were talking about living in these cities long-term, and having to factor in COL, etc., then I could see Chicago doing much better here, but not if we're talking about vacations.
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.
Even NY can become repetitive after 2-3 days. Most cities don't have enough interesting attractions to see before it becomes a matter of going to "cool" local spots here and there.
The main reason most people seem to suggest multiple days in so many cities is because they assume you want to spend a fair portion of your time in museums. If that's the case, then you can spend multiple days in nearly any large city. But if you're trying to hit the major attractions in most cities, I'd say you can do that comfortably in 1-1.5 days max and probably 2-3 days in NY and LA.
A lot of the older cities that were large early on had a ton of streetcar suburbs and nearby settlements early on and that includes the Bay Area. LA is a little bit newer in terms of how intensely developed it is and meanwhile a lot of its streetcar suburbs like Culver City, Highland Park or Leimert Park have essentially been absorbed into a continuous expanse of urbanization as most of the plains/valleys of the Los Angeles area are quite large though there do exist some cute active little downtowns in the area--it's just that with the population boom coming by far mostly from post-war autocentric sprawl, there's a lot more of that than the cute downtowns. Certainly you've been to stuff like the various beach city downtowns, Old Town _____ in southern California so you've seen some of it.
Yeah those pictures didn't excite me enough to venture outside of Downtown Chicago. The Bay Area has way more variety than what Chicagoland has to offer. Don't get me wrong there's some nice burbs out in Chicagoland but the Bay area has more imo.
Where Chicago would win over SF NOW is it's core. SF homeless issue is just too much in the way where you would definitely enjoy Chicago more on a vacation trip.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,542,189 times
Reputation: 6682
Tons to do from an urban perspective in Chicago with lots and lots of great neighborhoods. I usually stay in the Gold Coast neighborhood (classic Ambassador Hotel) which is surrounded by beautiful brownstones and walking distance to Rush & Division, Old Town, Lincoln Park, River North and the Loop and venture out to other areas such as Uptown (Green Mill great spot for jazz), Wicker Park/Bucktown, Logan Square, Fulton River District and much more. I’ve been to Chicago 25+ times and still feel as though I’ve barely scratched the surface…
SF is like Boston. Sleepy, posh and pretty. But the downtowns need work.
Chicago all the way
No. Downtown SF is not "sleepy" at all vs Downtown Chicagoand and I dont know where this idea comes from.
In fact, pound for pound, Downtown San Francisco is more vibrant because it's more dense and more compact.
Downtown melds into Neighborhoods seamlessly in SF more so than in Chicago, precisely because of the compact nature of the city. This is both a blessing and a curse as the Tenderloin exposes the rawest problems SF has for everyone to see, its because we cant avoid it as there's nowhere to hide them lol
In fact, I remember looking into daily pedestrian counts years back and Mission and 4th Street in SF had the most pedestrians per weekday day of any spot in either of these 2 cities.
So obviously Chicago is larger but I actually wouldnt say it's more vibrant.
No. Downtown SF is not "sleepy" at all vs Downtown Chicagoand and I dont know where this idea comes from.
In fact, pound for pound, Downtown San Francisco is more vibrant because it's more dense and more compact.
Downtown melds into Neighborhoods seamlessly in SF more so than in Chicago, precisely because of the compact nature of the city. This is both a blessing and a curse as the Tenderloin exposes the rawest problems SF has for everyone to see, its because we cant avoid it as there's nowhere to hide them lol
In fact, I remember looking into daily pedestrian counts years back and Mission and 4th Street in SF had the most pedestrians per weekday day of any spot in either of these 2 cities.
So obviously Chicago is larger but I actually wouldnt say it's more vibrant.
I would not call San Francisco "sleepy" per se. It's just "less" if you get what I mean. Just a lot smaller. San Francisco however is a very vibrant city.
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.
