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.
If I blind folded you and took you to parts of West Englewood and Back of the Yards (just north of WE) you'd think you were in a normal north side neighborhood).
Naw, homey. If you blind fold me and take me to those neighborhoods, I'm gonna ask you what set you claim... GD's or La Raza? :chuckles:
Well, consider this from someone who has lived in both the Bay Area (Peninsula) and SoCal (Orange County) and also visited Chicago.
The Bay Area and Greater L.A. are, regionally, most of the socioculturally, geographically, and climatically diverse and interesting regions in the world. Within easy proximity to the Bay Area, one has easy access to Mendocino, Humboldt, Napa, Sacramento, Tahoe, Reno, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, and Santa Cruz. Within easy proximity to LA, there is San Diego (another world unto itself), Santa Barbara, SLO (again), Anza-Borrego, Palm Springs, Big Bear, and, if you're willing to stretch the limit a bit, Las Vegas. Chicagoland (the greater region of Chicago) is a socioculturally and more socioeconomically diverse region than either of the California metropolises, but you have Lake Michigan...and very flat land that has no redeeming features for four months of the year when there is no vegetation growing anywhere. You can drive from Chicago to the Michigan shore of Lake Michigan, Wisconsin Dells, Indianapolis, and Milwaukee, but you have to stretch the drive more to reach other places like the Twin Cities, northern Wisconsin, and the rural state parks of southern Illinois. Clearly California is the winner in the all-around package category here.
However, pound for pound and buck for buck, Chicago is one of the best deals in the entire world as far as alpha, important, historic, urban world cities go. Downtown L.A., while making a strong comeback, already has a high opinion of itself and for what one would pay to rent there, you might as well live in Santa Monica, Westwood, Pasadena, or Orange County anyway. San Francisco has had price bubble inflation--as well as smug, self-awareness ego inflation--because of tech and a huge influx of highly-educated yuppies, so it is obviously ridiculously expensive (enough that it makes L.A. look like a bargain in comparison...and really, L.A. IS a bargain compared to the Bay Area as a whole).
But the comparison is between SF and Chicago here, so I'll stick to that. I could easily live in the Bay Area again, as long as its certain parts of the Peninsula/South Bay, East Bay, or North Bay. I'm much more of an Oakland fan because as long as you don't live in a totally crap neighborhood, it is a very "redeeming," interesting, fun city. Berkeley is just to its north, and then the "Lamorinda" cluster of suburbs just to the east are all very relaxing and walkable (I love downtown Orinda, small and quaint). To the east of that, Livermore has some great and little-known wineries, Mt. Diablo is an awesome place to hike. The Bay Area really values parks and open space and you can't spit without hitting a gorgeous park in most places in the Bay Area. So, my advice would be to pick the Bay Area over Chicago; but while you can work in San Francisco, commute outside of the city after work so you can live without a plethora of self-righteous, smug, pseudo-intellectual people who are so "liberal" that they're actually conservative.
Chicago is great, but the winters...
And as some previous posters have said (I'll echo their sentiments even though I live in south Orange County), if one person loves the "actual city" of L.A., they are bound to hate the "actual city" of S.F. And vice versa, I'll add--S.F. lovers HATE L.A. Personally, I like both SoCal and NorCal, but I do tend to like L.A. while I don't love S.F. My $.02.
I say Chicago. I'm from LA. The actual city of LA. I hate SF and nearly every single person I've met from the actual city of LA that moves to the actual city of SF hates it. I don't know a single person from the city of LA that LOVES SF. Some tolerate it, others like it but prefer LA, and others hate SF. So if that's your case, I say Chicago.
Either way, Chicago gets my vote! SF feels very small coming from SoCal. Cost of living is out of control. The weather sucks. Chicago may suck in the winter, but having spring and fall is awesome. And, Chicago gets warm enough in summer to actually go to the beaches of Lake Michigan. You can't swim in the waters of SF even on the few days it's warm enough to. Public transportation in Chicago is way better. The people are much friendlier. The nightlife is much better and affordable. Clubs are open till 5am instead of shoving people out at 1:30am after paying double the prices for your drinks.
Chicago and even LA (with its pretentiousness and "look at me" syndrome sometimes) are markedly friendlier than SF (not referring to the Bay Area at-large necessarily, just SF). SF is easily one of the most pretentious and arrogant cities in North America that I've been to, and may well be one of the most pretentious and arrogant cities in the world.
I'll say, to be perfectly honest, that there is a gender divide with SF. Most men I know (like myself) tend to like to just visit and then get out, while some women I know have damn near romantic visions of the city and stories of their experiences in the city that go along with those visions.
In defense of SF natives, however, most actual natives aren't bad, especially the ones that grew up there before the tech boom of the 1980s and on. Old-school SF natives are some of the friendliest people I've found on the West Coast, but they're also a fairly rare find these days.
Well, I moved to the Midwest (not Chicago) from Oakland, so partially there. Your money will go much father in Chicago, and there's a large gay population to choose from for dating, culture, etc. The main adjustment will be the weather, where you have hot summers and cold (cold) winters...which includes a solid three months indoors a year. On the upside, you can walk around in t-shirt and shorts at night in May, whereas in SF you need a jacket year-round. Still, the trade-off was worth it for me, and Chicago is a dynamic city, with some things you won't find in SF (a world-class art museum, for one). I'd recommend giving it a shot....you can always move back if you hate it after a couple years or so.
Thank you to everyone who has posted. Yes, to clarify, I'm more interested in city proper than outlying areas. If I moved to Chicago I'd want to live in the city and if I took the job in SF I would live in SF.
Thank you to everyone who has posted. Yes, to clarify, I'm more interested in city proper than outlying areas. If I moved to Chicago I'd want to live in the city and if I took the job in SF I would live in SF.
What exactly are you looking for in a city? Are you one who loves outdoorsy types of activities (i.e. hiking) or not?
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.
Aren't there a lot of ethnic Chinese living in San Francisco? Or is this more true in the Bay Area outside of the 7X7? And doesn't SF have a Tagalog community as well? I also know that there is a decent sized Indian population in SF as well, though their numbers are most likely bigger in the other Bay Area locales such as Fremont and Sunnyvale.
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.
