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 pancake-flat, tornado-prone, bitterly cold, and humid as all Hell. It's been hemorrhaging residents for years and is, arguably, the most dangerous major city in the entire country. IMO, it really fails to stack up to SF in many departments.
As the age-old adage goes, Chicago is great place to be from, and I'm sure countless Chicago area transplants in both LA and SF would agree. As someone who grew up in Southern California, I'm sure you're well aware of the fact that every other person you meet in SoCal is either from Chicago or, if they're not, their parents are. Ditto Bay Area. I mean, I'm sure you've had to at least wonder, at some point or another, why so many people from the Chicago area are now living on the West Coast...
I've been to Chicago more times than I care to count, and although it's a fine city, there's no real wow-factor like there is with Western cities such as LA, SF, San Diego, Seattle, Denver, Phoenix. It's always just kinda been a place for conferences, summits, layovers, etc.
The flaw in your reasoning is that Seattle, Denver, and Phoenix are filled with transplants from California as well. People moved from the Northeast to the Midwest, from the Midwest (and Northeast) to California, and now people are moving from California to the Pac NW, the Southwest, and the Intermountain West. People always go where there are jobs, a lower cost of living, etc. I'm pretty sure California registered a net loss of domestic residents as of the last census though that may have turned around since, I'm not sure. Of course, there are millions who buck the trend all the time going in opposite directions, but the pattern I described seems to be the general course.
Anyway, that's just how the cookie crumbles so to speak. Weather frankly doesn't have too much to do with it. A little I guess, but it's not the be all end all factor otherwise we'd all be living in California and the rest of the country would be barren.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,151,021 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
I see your point there, but have you hung out in the Richmond ever? There's a huge population here and in the Sunset. Besides the SF State and USF students, there's a HUGE population of older Chinese and Russian people. I'd say about half the population is in that category when I walk around here.
I have hung out in the Richmond. Halu is my favorite izakaya place in all of SF. And yes, I agree that in certain neighborhoods there are more older people.
I'm just tired of seeing these two being compared literally every single day, other cities exist in this country too, and these two aren't the premier cities of the United States. I'd rather take Los Angeles over San Francisco if I had to go out to California and New York over Chicago. If it came down to San Francisco and Chicago, I'm just staying home in Washington.
C'mon. San Francisco outclasses Los Angeles in virtually every way - in architecture, economic vitality, cultural offerings, and general walkability. I go to LA for specific purposes - a museum exhibit opening, to see family, etc. - but it's always for those purposes. I go to San Francisco because I simply want to be there, to soak in the fabric of one of the world's most beautiful cities. No one's ever left his heart in Los Angeles.
C'mon. San Francisco outclasses Los Angeles in virtually every way - in architecture, economic vitality, cultural offerings, and general walkability. I go to LA for specific purposes - a museum exhibit opening, to see family, etc. - but it's always for those purposes. I go to San Francisco because I simply want to be there, to soak in the fabric of one of the world's most beautiful cities. No one's ever left his heart in Los Angeles.
While I agree that 8to32characters is purposely trying to get a rise out of people, one does have to understand where different opinions are coming from.
Does the physical, natural environment influence surrounding whether someone is wowed by a particular city.
Personally I agree that Phoenix, is "one giant suburb", but as I personally love the west, and grew up going to national parks, etc. to have a metro area butting up against public land/wilderness is going to "wow" me. In the midwest, metro areas are largely surrounded by ag fields, and the best nature (as is the case in most of the eastern half of the country) is super country in culture, and is still looks largely the same as its still deciduous forest with a lot of rivers and lakes). (I know thats wrong and offensive buy you get the idea).
I personally already live in a small western town for grad school. While it was a neat experience it definitely was not for me (for the usual suspect reasons: lonely/isolated, too conservative/insualar anywhere outside the immediate universities). But again, growing up, we never went to the western cities on our family trips (why would we since we can experience Chicago in a 30-45 minutes jumping on the train), I grew up experiencing the touristy gateway small towns close to national parks, etc. When I learned more about western cities and about the different natural environments part of the public domain to experience and enjoy in rather short trips, I was . . . . yes "WOWed!" that one can have the trappings of a city and have the western nature.
because coming from a large metro area that was mostly flat farm fields beyond the city and suburbs, and thinking that you had to go to the cowboy country or hippy communes to experience all that in the west I was wowed by western cities where you can have both.
However, I would not describe my experience as being wowed because I know that it would only open one to ridicule.
C'mon. San Francisco outclasses Los Angeles in virtually every way - in architecture, economic vitality, cultural offerings, and general walkability. I go to LA for specific purposes - a museum exhibit opening, to see family, etc. - but it's always for those purposes. I go to San Francisco because I simply want to be there, to soak in the fabric of one of the world's most beautiful cities. No one's ever left his heart in Los Angeles.
First of all, both great cities. Second, this thread is not about LA.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,539,115 times
Reputation: 3107
this thread is pathetic. OP, if you somehow find my post a few pages back between all the bs around it, let me know if you have any other questions.
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.
