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 also has a lot of mid and low-rise density and it has that pretty far out from its core especially to the north. Those further out neighborhoods with low-rise buildings sometimes with setbacks and a tiny space between buildings rather than attached in the residential streets, but then also feature a greater number of mid-rise and sometimes high-rise buildings especially on the main streets than their SF equivalents. I'm pretty certain that a roughly 47 square mile contiguous piece of Chicago with its core is denser than SF and I remember nei and others running the stats on such. It's probably a longer rectangular shape than the roughly square shape that SF has though since it'd be going up the northern lakefront more.
I agree, and that’s why overall I said Chicago is more urban. But I was talking more about comparing the downtown cores of the two cities (generally the areas in those satellite photos), not the full 49 square miles. I think while Chicago’s downtown area is definitely bigger, grander and taller, SF’s is more bustling, tightly-built, vibrant, and pedestrian-oriented. And in terms of scale it’s no slouch. Aside from NY and Chicago, the scale of SF’s core urban area compares favorably with any US city.
How did we get to this consensus that we crown San Francisco as the more "cosmopolitan" city (whatever that means)? Just because it is on the west coast? Tech economy? If it is, it's be the length of a fingernail. I'm certainly not convinced that it is.
Those are the main reason, it's not that Chicago is not cosmopolitan by any means, it's just due to San Francisco geographic location and it's specific job market helps the city pull people from different places than Chicago's more traditional economy.
San Fran is a more demographically diverse city, where as Chicago culturally more diverse.. but the differences are marginal.
How did we get to this consensus that we crown San Francisco as the more "cosmopolitan" city (whatever that means)? Just because it is on the west coast? Tech economy? If it is, it's be the length of a fingernail. I'm certainly not convinced that it is.
No you need to convince us because SF is more cosmopolitan on paper and in person and while Chicago is very cosmpolitan as well, SF is just at a different level.
Merriam-Webster
cosmopolitan adjective
cos·mo·pol·i·tan | \ ˌkäz-mə-ˈpä-lə-tən \
Definition of cosmopolitan (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : having wide international sophistication : WORLDLY
Greater cultural diversity has led to a more cosmopolitan attitude among the town's younger generations.
2 : composed of persons, constituents, or elements from all or many parts of the world
a city with a cosmopolitan population
3 : having worldwide rather than limited or provincial scope or bearing
… his cosmopolitan benevolence, impartially extended to all races and to all creeds.
— Thomas Babington Macaulay
San Francisco-Oakland Urban Area:
Population: 3,556,206
35.5% White
28.5% Asian
22.5% Hispanic
7.4% Black
4.3% Multiracial
You should not assume that the west and south sides as a whole are dirty. There are many parts of the south side that are well kept, even though crime stats would indicate otherwise. You will be looking at the news at a murder scene on the south side, and swear those bungalows with the mowed lawns and flowers are in the suburbs. People in SF are so unaware of how much their city gets a bad rap in the dirt dept., and justifiably so in many cases. Maybe rain does have something to do with it as you said. In addition, Chicago's homeless problem is light year's away from SFs, so poop is a non-issue here.
First, I have family in Chicago and have visited many times. No where in my post did I mention that those areas of Chicago as a whole are dirty (can you point that out for me?). I wrote that SF has no equivalent of these areas, most of which are neglected compared with Downtown/The Loop and the Northside. The residential areas in SF are cleaner. SF doesn't hide its homeless or make downtown squeaky clean, which is why some people have the impression that the city as a whole is "dirty." SF definitely needs to improve in the cleaning department, but the city is far from a cess pit. That "poop" issue you mentioned is a headline grabber, but is not ubiquitous throughout the whole city.
I'd go with SF, the blocks are smaller than Chicago's giant buildings and the density carries through beyond the highrise district.
However I think Chicago would be more livable than SF since it's medium density and much greener and cleaner.
I’m not gonna dispute you on this, as I think there is a legitimate argument to be made that SF is more urban, I just think you have to ultimately give it to Chicago because of the sheer scale of its urban area. It’s pretty close though overall.
Highrises have nothing to do with relative downtown size. No one is arguing that SF has more highrises than Chicago.
SF has a large downtown, not that much smaller than Chicago. The Loop is quite small, physically. Greater downtown Chicago is large, but not multiples larger than SF.
What you are saying is inaccurate though. The Loop you're referring to might be just within the bounds of the rail loop, but downtown is actually far larger than that. Those high-rises that are north, west, and to a lesser extent, south of the Loop are still filled with businesses and offices. I don't know about several multiples larger than SF's, but it is substantially larger by office space square footage and has more under construction. Sure, this might count as quite small compared to megacities around the world, but the Loop as in the downtown area and not just that within the rail loop is definitely larger than SF's.
Chicago has a beautiful built environment. But it’s literally a 3-7 hour drive to any halfway decent nature other than the Indiana dunes.
It also has a very parochial unsophisticated culture that defines every class of the city.
From the yuppies to the people living in the violent hoods.
You don’t see much of the innate curiosity you find in the Bay Area. Most people in Chicago to he generous just aren’t very smart. And that’s part of why the city is becoming over time as mediocre as it is (other than the undesirable location)
If climate change keeps giving the south deadly heat like this summer, Chicago may see more population growth. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in TX, AZ or FL at this point - too damn hot.
Absent that though, I do think Chicago will slowly drop and just kind of settle in as the king of the midwest, while the sunbelt continues to grow. Chicago is still, hands down the best urban bang for the buck in the United States, and its' not even close. But people are too easily seduced by the promise of a mild winter.
SF, OTOH, is having its own set of new problems that weren't prevalent when this thread started.
Chicago has a beautiful built environment. But it’s literally a 3-7 hour drive to any halfway decent nature other than the Indiana dunes.
It also has a very parochial unsophisticated culture that defines every class of the city.
From the yuppies to the people living in the violent hoods.
You don’t see much of the innate curiosity you find in the Bay Area. Most people in Chicago to he generous just aren’t very smart. And that’s part of why the city is becoming over time as mediocre as it is (other than the undesirable location)
I disagree about halfway decent nature, but I will agree it's not as spectacular as what's within fairly short distance of San Francisco (and even within San Francisco).
I think Chicago's relatively low cost of living while still being in a large urban city is greatly to its advantage and now allows for certain sorts of experimentation and industry that the crushing cost of SF and the Bay Area makes much more difficult. This would be people in industries that aren't as a whole as lucrative, and I don't think that necessarily correlates that tightly with mediocrity or intelligence. The closure of several heavily polluting plants, including electrical generation plants that used coal, in the last couple of decades and as recently as last year points to a greatly improved future for Chicago as the long-term effects of those plants continue to ebb.
Overall I'd say Chicago, with SF not too far behind.
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.
