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 would say that Chicago is more cosmopolitan, but SF is more international. I think that's fair. Chicago has more of a big city feel, and SF has more immigrants and non-American visitors.
Also, LOL at some SF forumers claiming that SF is more exciting because of Apple and Google. Giant corporations don't exactly make a place more exciting, and neither company is based in SF city or metro area anyways. "Hon, let's check out SF because the world's leading search engine is located in a nearby metro area". Yeah, no...
You should learn to read and comprehend. I said that corporations like that create more international exposure, not make "a place more exciting". Globally, San Francisco is definitely more well-known, and that is partially due to Silicon Valley.
You should learn to read and comprehend. I said that corporations like that create more international exposure, not make "a place more exciting".
Ah, so the person who doesn't know what they previously wrote, and doesn't know that Apple and Google aren't in San Francisco, is now lecturing others?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dapper23
Globally, San Francisco is definitely more well-known, and that is partially due to Silicon Valley.
No, SF isn't associated with Apple and Google, neither of which are in SF city or metro. People may sometimes associate these companies with the Bay Area, but they have basically no presence in SF city or metro.
And obviously corporations don't really make a city more well known. SF is well known for natural beauty, interesting neighborhoods, historic events, and the like.
People typically aren't going to be more familiar with a place based on the HQ office of a company. It isn't like "oh, yeah, Wolfsburg, Germany is such a well-known, cosmopolitan place, because they have the world's largest auto company. Forget Paris, hon, we're going to Wolfsburg because they have a more well known company."
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,286,956 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Ah, so the person who doesn't know what they previously wrote, and doesn't know that Apple and Google aren't in San Francisco, is now lecturing others?
No, SF isn't associated with Apple and Google, neither of which are in SF city or metro. People may sometimes associate these companies with the Bay Area, but they have basically no presence in SF city or metro.
And obviously corporations don't really make a city more well known. SF is well known for natural beauty, interesting neighborhoods, historic events, and the like.
People typically aren't going to be more familiar with a place based on the HQ office of a company. It isn't like "oh, yeah, Wolfsburg, Germany is such a well-known, cosmopolitan place, because they have the world's largest auto company. Forget Paris, hon, we're going to Wolfsburg because they have a more well known company."
He meant SILICON VALLEY... NOLA, you know that. San Franciscans will argue it being its metropolitan
Area in any other thread it is vs. You seemed to infer ...... Chicago would still feel Cosmopolitan to one from SF... in a previous post ? I was almost floored? But it still remains just a maybe for me? That that is what you meant....
"International" is defined by individual preference of beaches, parks, and weather?
The truth is, foreign investment in San Francisco is at an all time high, and foreign buyers (62% of whom are Asian) are snatching up Bay Area real estate faster than virtually any region of the country.
In terms of your beloved skyscrapers, SF has 19 highrises under construction as opposed to Chicago's (3x bigger) 15.
And if you'd bothered reading as much as a Wikipedia page on SF, you'd know that, historically, the city harbors a large NIMBY population determined to strike down any development that would threaten the "neighborhood atmosphere" or block views. Even then, construction in SF is still occuring at a faster pace and foreign investments continue to pour into the city from all corners of the world.
As someone who has lived near both, I can assure you that SF is culturally more diverse (though Chicago doesn't slack in this respect) and is only growing in terms of international connections (The number of international passengers through SFO has increased 5.6% year over year while that count has declined 1.7% at ORD).
Anyways, I'll leave you to read the thread title and try posting again
You want to talk foreign investment? You're referring to Asian people, mainly from China, that want to buy homes and either rent them out or move to the United States, so logically where do you think they would go? The West Coast. In those terms, Los Angeles has more foreign investors than SF. On the other hand, in the business sector, You have the wealthiest person in Mainland China saying "hey how about I don't invest $1 Billion in SF, instead let's build in Chicago". Hmm I wonder why he made that decision.
Haha just stop, you're from Naperville, you're not that close, but nice try Mr. Suburb. You claim that I look at Wikipedia, but you're bereft of the fact that individuals are capable of traveling as well, try it sometime. Really, because majority of these "high-rises" (if you would like to refer to them as that) you speak of in SF happen to be condos. My answer pertained to tourism. I understand you're getting very butt-hurt over SF, but I don't see any major corporations handing out money in the hundreds of millions for the betterment of SF and its residents.
You want to talk foreign investment? You're referring to Asian people, mainly from China, that want to buy homes and either rent them out or move to the United States, so logically where do you think they would go? The West Coast. In those terms, Los Angeles has more foreign investors than SF. On the other hand, in the business sector, You have the wealthiest person in Mainland China saying "hey how about I don't invest $1 Billion in SF, instead let's build in Chicago". Hmm I wonder why he made that decision.
Haha just stop, you're from Naperville, you're not that close, but nice try Mr. Suburb. You claim that I look at Wikipedia, but you're bereft of the fact that individuals are capable of traveling as well, try it sometime. Really, because majority of these "high-rises" (if you would like to refer to them as that) you speak of in SF happen to be condos. My answer pertained to tourism. I understand you're getting very butt-hurt over SF, but I don't see any major corporations handing out money in the hundreds of millions for the betterment of SF and its residents.
Oh, please, you're the one who brought up these arbitrary measures of which city is more "international" to begin with.
Keep in mind you tried to justify your argument for Chicago being more cosmopolitan by saying you preferred the weather and a 24.5 acre park. Pathetic.
Chicago can have Wanda Vista, but the fact still is that SF tops it in foreign investment (as all real estate investments are, by definition, business investments)- so what does that change?
Last edited by garyjohnyang; 01-13-2015 at 10:26 PM..
Oh, please, you're the one who brought up these arbitrary measures of which city is more "international" to begin with.
Keep in mind you tried to justify your argument for Chicago being more cosmopolitan by saying you preferred the weather and a 24.5 ace park. What a joke.
Lived there? God no! who would want to live in such a place where the average temperature year-round is 50-60 and the water is always cold, I like my environment to have character and liveliness. San Francisco is a pain to walk in and is not anything to be in awe of compared to an Alpha+ City like New York, London, Chicago, Tokyo, Paris. I would rather be in Los Angeles any day.
Cosmopolitan : familiar with and at ease in many different countries and cultures. Stylish, world-wise, cultured.
More people know of Chicago globally than San Francisco, there. What is San Francisco's culture? Laid back Techsters with big dreams and lots of money? I see a lot of people saying that SF is somehow better because of BART, architecture (lmao really?) and all this crap about better dining, etc. etc. I just had to give examples of the different leagues these two cities are in. I understand it is off-topic a bit, but there's a reason for it.
The level of reading comprehension on this forum is at an all time low. Chicago feels bigger in some areas while SF feels bigger in others. A skyline alone does not make a city feel "big". Neither does geographic size as a high density can make a geographically smaller place seem quite large (eg NYC, Paris, etc).
SF seems more thoroughly vibrant in all directions than Chicago, and the style of building right to the curb throughout SF as opposed to the setbacks, combined with the abundant level of vibrancy found in places like the Mission, even the Marina, to me lend itself to a "feel" at least as cosmopolitan as Chicago. Both cities have equivalent nightlife - SF's is more "widespread" and concentrated due to the nature of the city. SF is also more international by any metric you want to look at, and like others have said, a lot of that is a factor of being on a coast, and also a major tourist destination.
Finally, nobody, I repeat, nobody has stated that SF is more international because of Google and Apple. Again, reading comprehension. But on that note, NOLA, you continue to make me cringe when you refuse to acknowledge that SF is a tech hub. Apple is exclusively down in Cupertino. I'll give you that, and Cupertino is deep in Santa Clara County. Many employees however live in SF and work flex time from the city. Google has nearly 1 million sf in the city now (that's a lot in case you don't know anything about real estate) and Mountain View, where its largest campus is located, is adjacent to San Mateo County, which is part of SF MSA. Google is very much connected to SF. Google would like its 3 biggest campuses to be Mtn View, SF, and NYC. As such, it acquired a building in NYC still leased to many other tenants, and it has quickly leased a ton of space in SF, going so far as to ponder building an urban campus.
But I digress. Never let facts get in the way of a good argument.
Lived there? God no! who would want to live in such a place where the average temperature year-round is 50-60 and the water is always cold, I like my environment to have character and liveliness. San Francisco is a pain to walk in and is not anything to be in awe of compared to an Alpha+ City like New York, London, Chicago, Tokyo, Paris. I would rather be in Los Angeles any day.
Cosmopolitan : familiar with and at ease in many different countries and cultures. Stylish, world-wise, cultured.
More people know of Chicago globally than San Francisco, there. What is San Francisco's culture? Techsters with big dreams and lots of money? I see a lot of people saying that SF is somehow better because of BART, architecture (lmao really?) and all this crap about better dining, etc. etc. I just had to give examples of the different leagues these two cities are in. I understand it is off-topic a bit, but there's a reason for it.
If weather is your sole measure of character and liveliness, Chicago right now is one of the least vibrant cities in the US, and LA is more vibrant than NYC. See how that works?
Moreover, you claim that Chicago has more name recognition than SF globally, which we all know is completely subjective (and with which my Asian relatives would all beg to differ).
There's also this gem: "San Francisco is a pain to walk in... I would rather be in Los Angeles..." On one hand you state a preference for walkable cities (of which Chicago is not even remotely comparable to NY, London, Tokyo, and Paris, but more akin to SF) and on the other you would rather live in America's epitome of suburban sprawl than an urban city with one of America's top 3 most vibrant downtowns. How does that follow?
If weather is your sole measure of character and liveliness, Chicago right now is one of the least vibrant cities in the US, and LA is more vibrant than NYC. See how that works?
Moreover, you claim that Chicago has more name recognition than SF globally, which we all know is completely subjective (and with which my Asian relatives would all beg to differ).
There's also this gem: "San Francisco is a pain to walk in... I would rather be in Los Angeles..." On one hand you state a preference for walkable cities (of which Chicago is not even remotely comparable to NY, London, Tokyo, and Paris, but more akin to SF) and on the other you would rather live in America's epitome of suburban sprawl than an urban city with one of America's top 3 most vibrant downtowns. How does that follow?
Did I specify that the weather of SF is what I use to define character for a city? You asked me if I lived in SF, I replied with the reason why I choose not to. The weather in SF lacks any swings or real changes, aka, it has no character or liveliness. I'm sorry that that threw you off, but next time perhaps you can use common-sense to determine what I'm saying.
Completely subjective? My Asian relatives would beg to differ with yours as well, you know why, because they own a TV, watch movies, TV shows, watch the news, read books and keep up with what's going on in this World. There are more continents on this planet than Asia just so you're aware, and they happen to know what Chicago is too.
In Pop-culture Chicago takes it. How many blockbuster movies were filmed or based in/referenced San Francisco within the past 10 years? I'll wait. How many artists, musicians, etc hail from there? How many world-changing inventions came out of San Francisco? How many National events happen in San Francisco? The Pride Parade? Congratulations!
I don't think you understand what an Alpha-city means. Please look it up.
Even got you information from your favorite source, Wikipedia! Global Cities Index in case you didn't know
Did I specify that the weather of SF is what I use to define character for a city? You asked me if I lived in SF, I replied with the reason why I choose not to. The weather in SF lacks any swings or real changes, aka, it has no character or liveliness. I'm sorry that that threw you off, but next time perhaps you can use common-sense to determine what I'm saying.
Completely subjective? My Asian relatives would beg to differ with yours as well, you know why, because they own a TV, watch movies, TV shows, watch the news, read books and keep up with what's going on in this World. There are more continents on this planet than Asia just so you're aware, and they happen to know what Chicago is too.
In Pop-culture Chicago takes it. How many blockbuster movies were filmed or based in/referenced San Francisco within the past 10 years? I'll wait. How many artists, musicians, etc hail from there? How many world-changing inventions came out of San Francisco? How many National events happen in San Francisco? The Pride Parade? Congratulations!
I don't think you understand what an Alpha-city means. Please look it up.
Even got you information from your favorite source, Wikipedia! Global Cities Index in case you didn't know
There are a lot of reasons to prefer Chicago over San Francisco, but this one is false.
Taken over the course of the last 50 years, San Francisco has CONSISTENTLY beaten out Chicago. In fact its probably one of the only reasons why I HAVE been seeing San Fran and Chicago as being more "neck and neck"
Chicago has largely given the world largely only African American talent and genres in music, etc. (in this way Chicago mirrors its beleaguered midwest brother: Detroit).
San Fran was THE LEADER in popular music during the revolutionary late 60s. I know thats been a long time ago, but some eras are more pivotal and defining. And the reality is, that while SF was giving the world the Grateful Dead, the 68 democratic convention was going on in Chicago. Why is what happened that long ago relevant to today? Because the young people of that era are the political and business leaders today.
SF was where widespread acceptance and tolerance for homosexuals in our society started.
SF is the core of the global capital of the technology that has revolutionized our world. Period. Chicago is middle americas hub for finance and commodity exchanges, and a transportation hub.
I do realize that SF may get a little overrated, and that Chicago is clearly the one that is and feels like the "big city", but on so many levels SF leads Chicago in new ideas.
Chicago was a leader in making unique, timeless iconic movies in the 80s. As far as stuff made after the millenium, you have high fidelity, big fat greek wedding, a couple others.
But no, Chicago most certainly does not take it in terms of pop culture.
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.
...... Chicago would still feel Cosmopolitan to one from SF... in a previous post ? I was almost floored? But it still remains just a maybe 
for me? That that is what you meant....
