Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington: Which two are most similar and which is most different from the rest? (best, state)
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.
I consider all three top five and in the United States.
Which ones have the most in common with each other, I know they're incredibly different (cant stress that enough) but if you had to say two of them are most similar for whatever reason then which two would it be? Is it San Francisco that's more similar to Chicago than it is to Washington? Washington is more similar to Chicago than San Francisco? San Francisco is more similar to Washington than it is to Chicago?
Explain why. The criteria could be culture, demographics, industries, politics, pretty much anything really. Just support why though.
Oh yeah, before I forget, not just talking about the city propers but the entire thing and by thing I mean their sprawling masses (suburbs, exurbs, stuff).
Washington and San Francisco are the East and West versions of each other... but make no mistake still VERY different.
Yeah, I hear you. I've thought the same thing too.
Which western city are we closest to in terms of power, stature, international pull? San Francisco. I think Chicago (and Toronto) fill two more slots in this group, all four clearly below the mega-monsters New York, Mexico City, and Los Angeles but way to far ahead of the rest of what's left over, in my opinion.
I legitimately think that Chicago is the aberration here because
1) Larger city size
2) Has a central city
3) More centralized than the other two
4) The "CSA" classification doesn't add as much to CHI as it does to DC or SF Bay Area
Chicago and SF are more similar than Washington and SF or Chicago and Washington.
For one, Chicago is the largest source of domestic immigrants into SF, and Oakland for that matter. This has been the case for a really long time. Secondly, while Washington is also liberal, I feel like SF and Chicago have a more similar form of city government and overall liberal feel. Thirdly, while SF is not known as a brick and timber industrial city, anyone familiar with the city knows this is actually not the case. Parts of SF actually resemble industrial warehousy parts of Chicago. Not the case in Washington. SF has a fairly industrial past and the metro area is much more industrial than people give it credit for. Finally, culturally both are similar. Chicago hosted the 1893 Columbia World Exposition while SF hosted the 1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition. Ever since, each has been a source of social and cultural change not only for themselves, but for the country (in a way that Washington as a city itself hasn't).
The intrinsic pace of the city and workforce mentality is a combination of the pace/mentality found in Chicago and that found in New York, but certainly not the same pace/mentality found in the District. Hard to explain, but this is how I feel.
Overall, I don't think any of these cities are particularly "similar" to each other, but I think Chicago and SF are closer than Chicago and DC or SF and DC. I don't think SF shares very many traits with DC *at all*.
I legitimately think that Chicago is the aberration here because
1) Larger city size
2) Has a central city
3) More centralized than the other two
4) The "CSA" classification doesn't add as much to CHI as it does to DC or SF Bay Area
However, they're all very much different.
I think of the three as a trio. In fact the Chicago versus San Francisco debates are akin to the New York versus Los Angeles type of debates, a good (but smaller) analogue.
All three cities are just too different, but if forced to get off the fence I would say Chicago and Washington. Both cities has some of the best public transit in the nation, large historic AA communties, Obama, four seasons, and great museums. Architect is debatable but I still would say Washington and Chicago architect is more similar to each other in comparison with San Francisco IMHO.
Someone could argue that Washington and San Francisco are more alike because they are both compact and very urban. Both metros are in the top five most educated in the USA, which is another striking similarity.
By definition, SF is geographically a West Coast city, and the biggest difference between any two US cities is not even their size. It's whether they are West of the Rockies or East of the Rockies.
I guess San Francisco and Chicago. Washington has no real tall buildings so the city feels much more European in many ways. San Francisco obviously has wayyyyyy better weather than the other two. You see plants and trees in SF year-round that just don't grow in the other 2 so it looks very different from that perspective. All 3 are fantastic cities. San Francisco and Washington are cities with very specific focuses, they lead the nation (and the world in the case of SF) in Tech and Government. Chicago is more of a jack of all trades, not really the leader in anything but amongst the best in everything.
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.
