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.
Agreed. Dont have any arguments there, though i think that most tourists will probably avoid Chicago in the Wintertime anyways. On the flip side, folks who visit SF city in the Summer will likely have an unfavorable view of the weather.
Haha my visitors are always amazed at how comfortable the weather is in the summer while pretty much the rest of the country is arid or humid.
I had people from Zurich, Sydney and Boston visiting me during the summer and I heard nothing but unsolicited praise for the climate.
Sunny with blue skies and a cool breeze. That sounds perfect to me.
Last edited by 18Montclair; 10-18-2016 at 11:09 AM..
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by gichicago
Agreed. Dont have any arguments there, though i think that most tourists will probably avoid Chicago in the Wintertime anyways. On the flip side, folks who visit SF city in the Summer will likely have an unfavorable view of the weather.
What? Are you kidding? That is the best. It doesn't get too hot!
Chicago has a great built environment, one of the most beautiful cityscapes in the country (it really is something to take it all in either at street level or from a far vantage point). Its location on Lake Michigan allows for some nice natural scenery, too.
That said, people are definitely referring to the natural landscape when they say "scenery" (I have used "natural landscape/environment" in my posts for this specific reason) - and in that regard, SF blows Chicago away. As a visitor to a city, this is a BIG deal, and definitely contributes to people's enjoyment of visiting "SF" (in quotes because people associate the surrounding natural environment with SF, even if it's outside of its city limits). I know this was a big deal because I was once a visitor to SF, and it was a huge plus to my overall experience.
I think Chicago has the edge as a city in many of the big city amenities (shopping, nightlife, transit, museums), but SF is close enough in all of those categories that it's not a landslide.
Food I'd personally give to SF, especially in the meal price category that I eat most ($10-$20 meals, which I find SF does VERY well in across the nation (or even world)). Variety is a bit better in SF, too. Chicago has some good food, though, so it's close.
I think there is something about the compactness of SF that visitors really enjoy - you can check out different neighborhoods quite easily and get a different feel of the various "vibes" of each part of SF. I've never felt like I could walk Chicago the way I can walk SF - that is, Chicago is VERY walkable overall, but it's so much bigger that one can't easily "see" most of the rest of the city beyond the core part. I'm not suggesting visitors are walking from Union Square to the Outer Sunset (unless they're going to the beach) - but you do see a ton of tourists in many of the outer neighborhoods (The Mission, The Haight-Ashbury, The Marina, The Castro, North Beach, The outer Richmond around Lands End, The Presidio, etc...). I've never gotten the sense that any outer neighborhoods in Chicago are tourist hotspots like they are in SF (although, please correct me if I'm wrong here).
All of these points taken into consideration, the two cities are really close in most categories. But I think it really is the surrounding landscape/environment (that is far in SF's favor) that pushes SF beyond Chicago as being more enjoyable for most visitors. And this is quite clear when you talk to any recent visitor to SF. It's so different and unique (at least, domestically)...and they ALWAYS rave about the natural environment/things to do in SF AND outside SF (e.g. Marin, GG Bridge, Muir Woods, Napa/Sonoma, etc.).
Living in SF is a completely different topic...Chicago fares MUCH better in that comparison.
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 10-18-2016 at 11:17 AM..
Because O'Hare struggles with international flights. Got it
This has nothing to do with what I said.
You put up travel statistics and I said I am most interested in the number of international visitors, which SF has more than twice as many of than Chicago.
You put up travel statistics and I said I am most interested in the number of international visitors, which SF has more than twice as many of than Chicago.
The routes for a specific Airbus model also had little to do with my travel stats from 2015, but still you added them regardless. You just wanted to plug that SF had the routes.
Here are Forbes' Five and Four Star Hotels and Restsurants for 2016:
Chicago Area
Five-Star Hotels: 4
Four Seasons Hotel Chicago
The Langham, Chicago
The Peninsula Chicago
Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago
Five-Star Restaurants: 3
Alinea
Grace
Sixteen
Four-Star Hotels: 4
Hotel Arista
Park Hyatt Chicago
The Ritz-Carlton, Chicago
Waldorf Astoria Chicago
Four-Star Restaurants: 4
Everest
Les Nomades
NoMI Kitchen
Shanghai Terrace
Tru
San Francisco Bay
Five-Star Hotels: 4
Auberge du Soleil
Four Seasons Hotel San Francisco
Rosewood Sand Hill
The St. Regis San Francisco
Five-Star Restaurants: 3
The French Laundry
Manresa
The Restaurant at Meadowood
Four-Star Hotels: 15
Bardessono Hotel and Spa
Calistoga Ranch, An Auberge Resort
The Carneros Inn
Meadowood Napa Valley
Napa River Inn
Solage Calistoga
Garden Court Hotel
Hotel Nikko San Francisco
JW Marriott San Francisco Union Square
Loews Regency San Francisco Hotel
The Ritz-Carlton, Half Moon Bay
The Ritz-Carlton, San Francisco
Taj Campton Place
Four Seasons Hotel Silicon Valley at East Palo Alto
Rosewood CordeValle
Four-Star Restaurants: 13
Auberge du Soleil Restaurant
Lucy Restaurant & Bar
Terra
Campton Place
Gary Danko
La Folie
Madera
Meritage at the Claremont
Michael Mina, San Francisco
Navio
Parallel 37
Quince
Spruce
While I do agree SF has the better fancy stuff outside the city, all this hotel bull**** is priced out. I wouldn't be staying at any of them. I'm not a millionaire. I don't make close to six figures. So really, it's a non-factor for me.
The routes for a specific Airbus model also had little to do with my travel stats from 2015, but still you added them regardless. You just wanted to plug that SF had the routes.
You mean foreign flag carriers deciding to use the most talked about new aircraft since the 747 on their most strategic international routes says nothing about international visitors?
Oh okay.
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.
