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.
This has been discussed before. Live in a tiny flat and being poor working a job in New York that potentially can give you a high salary and that house in the Hamptons or take that municipality job in Chicago and live in a nice flat in Lincoln Park with no prospects of “making it big”.
I surely hope you aren't thinking you can't make it big by working in Chicago. If you think this - then you need to learn more. I know you visited it once and wrote up your opinions of the city, but this part is not true at all. You can certainly make a job and make it big.
Not even close to trendiest. Ukrainian Village, East Ukrainian Village, Noble Square, Wicker Park, Logan Square, Bucktown, Gold Coast, River North, Pilsen, Bridgeport, Avondale, etc....all trendier than LP unless you consider North Face jackets trendy then I guess Lincoln Park is your place.
Is there any chance of Bronzeville, Hyde Park and/or Woodlawn becoming trendy due to the presence of large universities?
Is there any chance of Bronzeville, Hyde Park and/or Woodlawn becoming trendy due to the presence of large universities?
I think so - Woodlawn is probably the biggest outlier there even though it's near the U of Chicago's Law school. There's actually more stuff going to Hyde Park lately like a few new high rises (one complete and another just started, with another one about to start). A guy who owns a few good places in Logan Square opened up a place there and a small group that owns two restaurants in town (one is Michelin starred) is opening up a place there too. However, not much to do there if you're younger in the way of nightlife and the older people who live in the neighborhood pretty much deny most things for new nightlife there.
I think Bronzeville is a great location, things have very much improved there since even 10 years ago. Still has its problems and all but it's better. It was supposed to be the next great Chicago neighborhood and then the housing crisis hit. There are some renewed things to try and get it back to that level. Bronzeville is one possible site for the Obama library, and it would have been the site for the Olympic Village if Chicago had one the bid for the Olympics. Woodlawn may be another possible site for the Obama library - though Washington Park just to the west of Hyde Park might be too. That area is another that should be good again, but it's not.
The difference is that you need SIGNIFICANTLY more money to have the same quality of life in SF compared to Chicago. Everything from rent to food to going out to transportation costs is more expensive here. Rent being the main factor. Wrigleyville is probably the "coolest" neighborhood for young urban professionals. I've been looking at places as I may be moving in with my best friend there. You can get 1 bedroom apartments there for $1k/month or less. Rooms in shared apartments can be around $750/month. In SF, studios in the ghetto will run you more than that.
Wrigleyville is cool with recent college grads (BROS, read that as bros), not really yuppies per se. If we're going to recommend that OP move to Lakeview (the neighborhood that Wrigleyville is in), I'm gonna say Boystown. He did say he's in his mid-20s and gay, so he may want a gayborhood. There's also Andersonville in addition to Boystown, but it'll all depend on what the OP is looking for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
Not even close to trendiest. Ukrainian Village, East Ukrainian Village, Noble Square, Wicker Park, Logan Square, Bucktown, Gold Coast, River North, Pilsen, Bridgeport, Avondale, etc....all trendier than LP unless you consider North Face jackets trendy then I guess Lincoln Park is your place.
While not the "it" neighborhood any longer since it fully gentrified ages ago, Lincoln Park is obviously still one of the most popular. I'd also hardly call it unfashionable. Besides, after this winter, everyone owns that one black North Face now.
Lakeview is the same story as Lincoln Park, but it's been my experience that it's probably one of the most popular ports of entry for 20 something transplants to Chicago.
Also, while I realize that Bridgeport is getting popular, I wouldn't ever put it in the same sentence as Logan Square. Admittedly I don't spend a lot of time there, but every person in their 20s who I know who lives there lives there because either 1) they grew up there and their family is still there or 2) they're still living at home.
While not the "it" neighborhood any longer since it fully gentrified ages ago, Lincoln Park is obviously still one of the most popular. I'd also hardly call it unfashionable. Besides, after this winter, everyone owns that one black North Face now.
I agree but there's a big difference between unfashionable and trendy. I never said people were unfashionable - I said they were untrendy. While North Face makes some decent clothing, it's not trendy.
Quote:
Also, while I realize that Bridgeport is getting popular, I wouldn't ever put it in the same sentence as Logan Square. Admittedly I don't spend a lot of time there, but every person in their 20s who I know who lives there lives there because either 1) they grew up there and their family is still there or 2) they're still living at home.
I think you're behind on the times if you think this. Certainly there are some like that, but there's many people living there as the arts scene there has grown and there's many hipsters there. Last time I ate brunch at a (big) cafe there, the place was 75% crawling with hipsters. I have friends who are DJs who go down there now to DJ at some places and are at arts events every month there too.
It's obviously not on the same level as Logan Square, but it's definitely in parts an upcoming hip neighborhood. I would also say another area is part of Humboldt Park (the neighborhood part of West Town, not the community area) between about Chicago, Augusta, Western, and California. Some good stuff there and improved - everytime I've been there it's more hipster and more stuff is coming.
But in the end I agree with you. If you are in your 20s, single, and gay you want to be in either Boystown, Lakeview East, and maybe Andersonville. Boystown and Lakeview East age wise is the best for what the OP is, but Andersonville wouldn't be bad either. Gold Coast has a lot of gay guys in their 30s and 40s too (and some 20s), though you aren't going to find gay oriented business there like you would in Boystown or Andersonville if you want to be living right in the middle of it.
Are you meaning to say you find SF more segregated? Homogenous, I have to disagree with you there. They're about equal. Segregated, they're about equal in certain ways. In most cities, the gays want to be accepted. In SF, the gays enjoy being cliquey in the Castro and are not welcoming to outsiders.
One thing about those percentages is that in SF, the whites are just "white". Besides the Russian community in the Richmond District, there's no "white diversity". In Chicago, there are communities of Europeans all over. Italians, Poles, Russians, Greeks, Irish, etc. In SF, the Asians are almost entirely Chinese. Aside from Japantown which is a joke and a small Vietnamese community the Tenderloin, almost every Asian is Chinese.
The Latino and black communities of SF are virtually non-existent anymore. The Mission is gentrified in some areas beyond recognition and nearly all the blacks have moved out.
But let's be honest, the North Side is white and the South Side is black. There's no denying that in Chicago. However, I do find SF to be very cliquey. People of certain races only hang out with their race, sometimes even their own nationality. I have no problems with any race, but I sometimes feel left out from things simply because I'm white. In fact, I've been told that before.
Chicago is by no means more integrated than San Francisco. Contrary to popular belief, there is a difference between overall diversity and integration. In SF people of all races hang out with each other. Hell, even where I live in the Outer East Bay it's not uncommon that you see a group of Asians, whites, and Hispanics hanging out with each other. And no, not "every" Asian in SF is Chinese. As a Chinese male myself, there are plenty of Vietnamese, Thai, Japanese, Filipino, Korean, and Indian people in The City. The last census had SF's Asian population at 33 percent and Chinese alone at 21.4 percent. 21.4/33 is a large chunk of the Asian population (a little less than 65 percent) but besides that the other roughly 35 percent is a good portion of the population. What neighborhood do you live in, Jesse? I have traveled San Francisco extensively and have yet to comprehend whee you are experiencing this; honestly, the exaggeration in some of your posts just appears bitter to me.
I agree but there's a big difference between unfashionable and trendy. I never said people were unfashionable - I said they were untrendy. While North Face makes some decent clothing, it's not trendy.
I think Lincoln Park has a different kind of popularity to it now. It's an extremely popular neighborhood, but it's aimed at the yuppie crowd and to a lesser extent the recent college grad. Sort of like the trajectory that parts of Bucktown seems to be on.
Quote:
I think you're behind on the times if you think this. Certainly there are some like that, but there's many people living there as the arts scene there has grown and there's many hipsters there. Last time I ate brunch at a (big) cafe there, the place was 75% crawling with hipsters. I have friends who are DJs who go down there now to DJ at some places and are at arts events every month there too.
It's obviously not on the same level as Logan Square, but it's definitely in parts an upcoming hip neighborhood. I would also say another area is part of Humboldt Park (the neighborhood part of West Town, not the community area) between about Chicago, Augusta, Western, and California. Some good stuff there and improved - everytime I've been there it's more hipster and more stuff is coming.
Yeah, I could see myself being behind the times on the latest hipster trends as I don't do the urban pioneer thing. The closest I ever came to that was my time in Rogers Park for undergrad, but my time there is currently in the rearview mirror.
Quote:
But in the end I agree with you. If you are in your 20s, single, and gay you want to be in either Boystown, Lakeview East, and maybe Andersonville. Boystown and Lakeview East age wise is the best for what the OP is, but Andersonville wouldn't be bad either. Gold Coast has a lot of gay guys in their 30s and 40s too (and some 20s), though you aren't going to find gay oriented business there like you would in Boystown or Andersonville if you want to be living right in the middle of it.
Yeah, the difference between Boystown or Andersonville will depend on what the OP is looking for. Anderonsville isn't bad, but it's too chill for my taste, if that makes any sense. I prefer Boystown.
If living in a gayborhood isn't a primary concern, then he's good to go pretty much anywhere that's even remotely popular in the city.
I see where you're coming from, but I was under the impression that the OP had similar job offers. I don't mean to generalize and maybe I assumed to early, but I DID assume that the OP is working in a certain job field already and got similar job offers from similar employers. If your view is the correct view, then I fully support your reasonings. However, if my view is correct, I don't mean to simply say the cheaper thing is better. I'm saying that IMO Chicago is a better place overall. And tbh, if I had the money to move to either and income wasn't a problem (say I won the lotto but had family in both and had to choose between them) I would choose Chicago. I prefer the bigger size of the downtown area, the more laidback friendly vibes of the residents, the better nightlife, the change of seasons, the better public transportation, the usable beaches, and IMO Chicagoans are much more attractive.
I think there have been plenty of comparative discussions about SF and Chi-town. I would say SF objectively is better but maybe not for a person with a middle class income. Chicago is comparable to a screwed micro-mirror of New York. Personally I do not think you can go very wrong in any of the major cities in United States so long you stay away from Detroit. When it comes to New York, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Miami, Minneapolis, Denver, Los Angeles, Honolulu, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Atlanta, San Diego, Portland, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Portland, Virginia Beach, Annapolis and many others you wouldn’t go wrong moving to any of them. I’m an “East-Coast” kind of person and if I couldn’t live on the East-coast it would be Chicago or Seattle – just because of the great weather. I think OP should look into the Career-path first and then decide what is best for him.
I sometimes think Chicago can be overrated. It has a nice skyline and dense urban neighborhoods, but I feel there are a lot of internal issues in the city that makes it hard to call it cosmopolitan and a truly top global city. It just doesn't have the same vibe you find in cities like NYC, Paris, London, Hong Kong, Tokyo, LA, and even SF.
I feel like SF is already ahead of Chicago and if not, give it 20 more years. I think Chicago has matured and peaked and quite frankly, doesn't have that essence that NYC has to keep it at the very top.
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.
