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.
Chicago is the Clyde Drexler of American cities--still great, still a Hall of Famer, but overshadowed by Michael Jordan (NYC), a more marketable player with a similar skillset.
San Francisco is like Charles Barkley--a completely different type of player and personality from Jordan, and thus less easily overlooked.
The things with Chicago is, the things it does well are more closely associated with NYC. Seriously, describe Chicago without using famous landmarks: skyscrapers, grand architecture, bridges, financiers, European immigrants, elevated train, lakefront.
Only the last two are a giveaway (though large portions of the NYC subway are elevated). The rest sounds like New York, and most people would probably guess that's the city you're talking about based on those clues.
Now describe San Francisco: hilly streets, large bridges, cable cars, hippies, gays, Victorian architecture. "Cable cars" alone is a HUUUUGE giveaway. It's the more recognizable city, for sure. More cultural? That's extremely debatable.
No offense but now you're just listing every pretty building you could think of to play this game of "anything you can do I can do better, anything you can do I can do too".
Would you say the average joe American would be able to tell you they've even heard of those structures, let alone tell you it's in San Francisco (aside from "Victorian rowhouses - you mean the Painted Ladies?" that is)? Really man?
No, actually, I meant the thousands and thousands of victorian rowhouses in San Francisco, for which the city is known for.
No offense but now you're just listing every pretty building you could think of to play this game of "anything you can do I can do better, anything you can do I can do too".
Also, not listing every building I can think of, I'm listing well-known, iconic structures within SF, of which there are many. I didn't say they were as widely recognizable as, say, the Empire State Building but they are still fairly well-known.
Chicago is the Clyde Drexler of American cities--still great, still a Hall of Famer, but overshadowed by Michael Jordan (NYC), a more marketable player with a similar skillset.
San Francisco is like Charles Barkley--a completely different type of player and personality from Jordan, and thus less easily overlooked.
The things with Chicago is, the things it does well are more closely associated with NYC. Seriously, describe Chicago without using famous landmarks: skyscrapers, grand architecture, bridges, financiers, European immigrants, elevated train, lakefront.
Only the last two are a giveaway (though large portions of the NYC subway are elevated). The rest sounds like New York, and most people would probably guess that's the city you're talking about based on those clues.
Now describe San Francisco: hilly streets, large bridges, cable cars, hippies, gays, Victorian architecture. "Cable cars" alone is a HUUUUGE giveaway. It's the more recognizable city, for sure. More cultural? That's extremely debatable.
A good analogy, but I would draw a line of contrast with it too.
I know it's just an analogy, but Michael Jordan is 10 times as popular and well known as Charles Barkley, is this also true when it comes to Chicago vs San Francisco?
Gays and Victorian architecture are still pretty prominent within the Chicago area, the rest though I agree are undeniably San Francisco.
A good analogy, but I would draw a line of contrast with it too.
I know it's just an analogy, but Michael Jordan is 10 times as popular and well known as Charles Barkley, is this also true when it comes to Chicago vs San Francisco?
Gays and Victorian architecture are still pretty prominent within the Chicago area, the rest though I agree are undeniably San Francisco.
He was saying Jordan was NYC. Clyde Drexler was Chicago in his (rather silly) analogy.
He was saying Jordan was NYC. Clyde Drexler was Chicago in his (rather silly) analogy.
Ahh...not the best analogy considering that Michael Jordan is synonymous with Chicago...isn't the best move to equate him with another city, but I get what you are saying.
Those neighborhoods don't really have international fame and recognition. And those 'icons' of Chicago still don't beat SF's iconic destinations. Lol A river drawbridge. Congrats. SF has the GGB which is far more known. Congrats, the historic 'L' which is really just a subway above ground. SF has historic trollies that you consistently see in movies and are very well known. When they announced we were getting a streetcar here in Atlanta, the first thing I thought of was the SF cable cars.
Face it. The numbers don't lie. SF gets over 2x as many international overseas visitors as Chicago does.
I think both Cali powerhouses are more cultural and iconic than Chicago is. People on these forums overrate how known Chicago is around the world, especially when compared to other cities on it's tier.
1.You have already been told by a person living in France that Haight/Ashbury is not really as well known internationally as you say it is.
2.They only beat SF because you seem to have a habit of saying "well other then having *insert important well known icons* what does Chicago have to show for?" By that same logic I could say "well other than SF having the GGB, hippie culture and trollies what is SF known for?" but I wont because that is what people think of when someone brings up SF. Same as people think of Al Capone and the Sears tower when Chicago comes to mind.
3. So what if the El is an above ground subway. By the same logic a cable car is just a derailed train car in the middle of the street. That does not change the fact that the El is associated with Chicago same as the trolley is unique to SF.(You see the El in movies too, Blues Brothers anyone?)
PS just to throw another well known international Chicago icon into the mix, the Bean is popping up everywhere. I heard OyCrumbler say that he was in Argentina and saw a billboard or something about the Bean.
1.You have already been told by a person living in France that Haight/Ashbury is not really as well known internationally as you say it is.
2.They only beat SF because you seem to have a habit of saying "well other then having *insert important well known icons* what does Chicago have to show for?" By that same logic I could say "well other than SF having the GGB, hippie culture and trollies what is SF known for?" but I wont because that is what people think of when someone brings up SF. Same as people think of Al Capone and the Sears tower when Chicago comes to mind.
3. So what if the El is an above ground subway. By the same logic a cable car is just a derailed train car in the middle of the street. That does not change the fact that the El is associated with Chicago same as the trolley is unique to SF.(You see the El in movies too, Blues Brothers anyone?)
PS just to throw another well known international Chicago icon into the mix, the Bean is popping up everywhere. I heard OyCrumbler say that he was in Argentina and saw a billboard or something about the Bean.
BOOM!
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.
