Chicago vs San Francisco: Which feels more urban or cosmopolitan? (building, south)

[ForeignCrunch]

Originally Posted by MidwestCoast714

It really depends on the year. Some years there is no spring. Some years there is no fall. It’s totally random how long or short it is. I would argue there’s about 5 months of decent weather. Although much of that is a little too humid. I case could be made that SF and even Oakland are a little too cold year round. But it’s generally always good weather for hiking and so forth.


Chicago has more than Chad and trixie but what else is there tends to be ‘third rate copy cat artists’ , and ‘hood/low brow culture - I think the majority of people who don’t fall into these demographics would rather live somewhere more dynamic and flavorful or laid back and relaxed.

Be it California, New York, Miami (I much prefer the Latino culture in both Miami and La to Chicago btw) or somewhere quiet like metro St Louis or Tulsa

Chicago used to be the second city but these days it feels like the city for people who like to drink and buy crap but don’t want to chance living somewhere that demands more of them but also don’t want to live somewhere that seems ‘unimportant’ it’s sort of a haughty paradox.

And because of these people Chicago FEELS unimportant despite the built environment feeling important.

Go to Milwaukee and Cleveland and it’s a running joke about how their city sucks even though lots of great improvements have been made


Slight Chicago and he ready for a cringey rehearsed feeling self important monologue about how great Chicago is.

There’s just an overall dearth of irony in Chicago for the most part.


There’s the whole line loving Chicago is like loving a woman with a broken nose


Well Chicagos personality imo is a woman with a broken nose who thinks she’s the hottest woman in the world and should be constantly accommodated who monologues about how worldly she is (lmao sounds like my current girlfriend )

The thing to understand about Chicago is that its population is largely confined to two groups--natives and transplants from pinprick small towns in the rural Midwest who spend much of their lives visiting and dreaming of Chicago as a symbol of Midwestern success. So every class president of their 60-student high school class makes Chicago into this weird avatar of world class living and success. It creates this superiority complex that is not only undeserved but it's actually downright funny because literally nobody else thinks of Chicago on these terms except for Midwestern strivers. For everyone else it's just a big, interesting city that can be really fun to visit when it isn't arctic cold out. Chicago is not and really never has been a cosmopolitan, international city and its main appeal has always been being the largest inland economic giant in the country. There is this Big Ten Bro mentality that pervades the Midwest and it's utterly immune to reality because Midwestern parochialism is sometimes that thick.

[ggplicks]

Originally Posted by ForeignCrunch

Just to be clear, you're arguing that Chicago is more cosmopolitan because it is going to have a 24/7 casino ?

Argument over, but I'm not sure the winner is who you are expecting.

Please explain how SF Today is more cosmopolitan. SF has become a victim of its own success. Too much gentrification/sky high COL has ruined the city

[ggplicks]

Have tourists walk around downtown Chicago and then another group walk around downtown SF and let's see which they like better. Chicago always tops the list of best cities to visit, dont see SF on there

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by ForeignCrunch

The thing to understand about Chicago is that its population is largely confined to two groups--natives and transplants from pinprick small towns in the rural Midwest who spend much of their lives visiting and dreaming of Chicago as a symbol of Midwestern success. So every class president of their 60-student high school class makes Chicago into this weird avatar of world class living and success. It creates this superiority complex that is not only undeserved but it's actually downright funny because literally nobody else thinks of Chicago on these terms except for Midwestern strivers. For everyone else it's just a big, interesting city that can be really fun to visit when it isn't arctic cold out. Chicago is not and really never has been a cosmopolitan, international city and its main appeal has always been being the largest inland economic giant in the country. There is this Big Ten Bro mentality that pervades the Midwest and it's utterly immune to reality because Midwestern parochialism is sometimes that thick.

About a fifth of Chicago is foreign-born (not including Puerto Ricans which adds a couple of percentage points but are American though of a culture pretty distinct from mainstream America) and they and others fairly recently before them in turn had children who likely still have a one foot in the other culture as almost all the Hispanic and Asian population which together comprise over a third of Chicago's population are from the mid 20th century at the earliest. A good lot of transplants from the Midwest are from mid-sized cities/metropolitan areas and Chicago is a magnet for them as well, and then you have transplants from other parts of the US.

Chicago was once much more heavily foreign-born and transplants outside of the Midwest as people streamed into there due to a plethora of jobs. It still has that component to some extent.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by ggplicks

Please explain how SF Today is more cosmopolitan. SF has become a victim of its own success. Too much gentrification/sky high COL has ruined the city

SF does have natives who bought in before real estate prices went insane and SF also has a lot of very high paying jobs that make it so there is a contingent of people who can afford such. I think the cosmopolitan aspect has to do with name recognition outside of the US and the visitors it brings, the very large corporations headquartered or with a large base there that attract a lot of international talent and in turn have large presences outside of the US market.

Originally Posted by ggplicks

Have tourists walk around downtown Chicago and then another group walk around downtown SF and let's see which they like better. Chicago always tops the list of best cities to visit, dont see SF on there

I think this is a pretty silly thing to say. Both cities are often used as examples by right-wing media as poster children for some paranoid version of hell. In reality, they both can be very good cities to live in or visit. It's weird that either side is falling for this bull**** when they should be able to understand how the way their own city is painted is divorced from reality and nowhere near a full picture and be rational enough to understand the same kind of smears against their cities could be used against other cities.

[2020's YouTube Vlog]

Originally Posted by MidwestCoast714

I’ll add that Oakland does have a pronounced African American influence. SF no longer does because of the intensity of gentrification. But it once did with the Fillmore being a top African American neighborhood at one point.

Overall California’s black population is a little sparse.


Chicago def has some overlap with New York and I do think the lot of black people
In Chicago is improving somewhat especially because of all the immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean.


Bronzeville/Kenwood/Oakland/Jackson Park Highlands/Arguably the mixed Hyde Park/and even parts of Woodlawn are really coming along.

And uptown and Albany park both have a strong black presence although Africans and Caribbean people are big players in that.


Overall, there’s a long history of animosity and segregation. Redlining was essentially devised in Chicago and it has intense tension the city

Not everyone is like that but it’s hard to escape it’s shadow.

There’s not the sense of positivity frequently found in say Atlanta or DC or even Dallas, Houston, and NY or even what you find in LA in pockets

I think Chicagos race relations mirror most of the Midwest between blacks and whites.

Oh yeah, Oakland does. But since it was asking about SF only, I didn't include that. If it was asking about SF-Oak (Bay Area), I'd mention it.

[ggplicks]

Both cities are experiencing a black exodus for two different reasons.

[MidwestCoast714]

Originally Posted by ForeignCrunch

Just to be clear, you're arguing that Chicago is more cosmopolitan because it is going to have a 24/7 casino ?

Argument over, but I'm not sure the winner is who you are expecting.

Dead

[MidwestCoast714]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

SF does have natives who bought in before real estate prices went insane and SF also has a lot of very high paying jobs that make it so there is a contingent of people who can afford such. I think the cosmopolitan aspect has to do with name recognition outside of the US and the visitors it brings, the very large corporations headquartered or with a large base there that attract a lot of international talent and in turn have large presences outside of the US market.



I think this is a pretty silly thing to say. Both cities are often used as examples by right-wing media as poster children for some paranoid version of hell. In reality, they both can be very good cities to live in or visit. It's weird that either side is falling for this bull**** when they should be able to understand how the way their own city is painted is divorced from reality and nowhere near a full picture and be rational enough to understand the same kind of smears against their cities could be used against other cities.

I’ll admit though that downtown SF while worth a visit for its very good architecture is nowhere near the best part of the city although it’s adjacent to some fantastic areas like Nob Hill and North Beach

[moderatedensityandgreen]

Originally Posted by MidwestCoast714

This is somewhat true these days. But if you get out of downtown sf and some adjacent neighborhoods like south of market, civic center, some of the waterfront towards mission bay, SF is far more appealing than Chicago. 90% of Chicagos appeal outside of ethnic enclaves and some places arguably to eat and drink is downtown

Yeah there’s some nice grey stones and row homes and Hyde Park is gorgeous. But generally speaking SF offers much more varied beautiful neighborhoods

On how SF vs CHI are in neighborhoods not in the core or near can appear. I did some random street-views and collected some to compare.

Clearly Chicago and SF differ in housing stock pretty completely. SF's is vastly attached housing with front facing garages. Chicago's are generally in the alleyway behind if they have one.

I believe none are considered core SF neighborhoods. Chicago I stuck to the North side east to west.


SF street-views in these neighborhoods. Some of the east side of the peninsula and west.

Outer Sunset

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7599...8192?entry=ttu

Forest Hill

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7474...6656?entry=ttu

Golden Gate Heights

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7579...8192?entry=ttu

Potrero Hill

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7589...8192?entry=ttu

Banel Heights

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7386...8192?entry=ttu


Some Chicago street-views.

Wrigleyville

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9499...8192?entry=ttu

North Center

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9526...8192?entry=ttu

South Irving Park

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9455...8192?entry=ttu

Belmont/Cragin

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9368...8192?entry=ttu

Galewood

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9125...8192?entry=ttu


I would say these show THE DIFFERENCE IN CHI VS SF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING.

If you dislike TREES and are fine with attached housing mostly then SF is for you.

SF has a lot of garages in front facing streets and CHI of course has them in the alleyways.

Both kinds of housing can be loved and rated highly.

CHI is far more brick and some areas similar homes some mixture of many styles all a uniform distance from the curb with green.

SF is far less brick and muted pastel color homes still sleek a bit boxy.

Chicago clearly has more green fronts of homes not to the curb.


I can like both cities for their own slant and style. As far as I am concerned.... whether SF or Seattle, NYC, Boston or DC and Chicago can be Elitist and snobby especially as transplants. Bro or Chad types. Just Hating a city or region for a segment of its mostly professionals with some traits hated is a personal issue. Plenty of other kinds of people in each city especially not transplants.

This anti-Chicago attitude is WAY TOO SEVERE and seems to have festered a long time. This has become some defending Chicago vs 2 the opposite. I CAN LIKE BOTH and dislike attitudes in both without LOATHING ONE and even much of the region one lives. Chads Trixies and Bros is so early 2000s. The SF Tech Bros are NOT much less uppity and self-absorbed nor the NYC, BOS and DC elitist mostly as transplants too.

Plenty of labels I have read against all these cities and agendas against some show in every post of theirs sadly.

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

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.

San Francisco-Oakland Urban Area:
Population: 3,556,206
35.5% White
28.5% Asian
22.5% Hispanic
7.4% Black
4.3% Multiracial

64.5% Visible Minority
17.5% Minority Households Earning $150,000+

33.9% Foreign Born
45.7% Speak a Foreign Language

49.6% Adults w/Bachelor Degree or Higher

Chicago Urban Area:
Population: 8,667,303
50.1% White
23.2% Hispanic
17.5% Black
6.9% Asian
1.8% Multiracial

49.9% Visible Minority
9.1% Minority Households Earning $150,000+

19.9% Foreign Born
31.3% Speak a Foreign Language

38.6% Adults w/Bachelor Degree or Higher

The biggest difference for SF will always be its HUGE Asian %. No doubt there and it does not change for a the much larger Urban Area. Still by city vs city despite SF being a 1/3 or so of Chicago. Adding it is adding the Hispanic Latino whites to a Caucasian count that Chicago's becomes near 1/2 or bit less. If you keep Hispanic Latino SEPARATED. You get the stats below for Chicago and the link I used is census it notes and for SF city.

If you use the full scope of Hispanic Latino count and for the city you get this for Chicago and this for SF.

See the following race percentage based on the 2020 census FOR THE CITY ITSELF. Why would we need to use the whole UA to prove SF wins? Most cities are more diverse in its city-proper anyway. Some sunbelt fast growing cities like boast suburbs increasingly are for them.

Chicago:

Caucasian: 31.4%
Latino: 29.9%
Black: 28.7%
Asian: 6.9%

San Francisco:

Caucasian: 52.8%
Asian: 36%
Latino: 15.2%
Black: 5.6%

UA gets use a lot for DENSITY comparisons. Comparing cities of small city-proper vs larger city-proper the argument goes well to you you got to add border suburbs too for a Boston or DC and SF apparently. It just goes on and on on tangents and long drug on and on post get repeated in the next one.

On being more COSMOPOLITAN. Few are saying Chicago is more and no one is really pushing Chicago by some leaps and bounds. Why should they?

If COSMOPOLITAN = Diversity and large immigrant population and more or larger ethnic enclaves to boast and Chinatown size is who wins. No one will deny SF wins. So many threads seem to have a simple answer that goes on these tangents. Still stats can be collected to boast any agenda and when its a personal agenda it becomes severe.

Luckily there is no anti-agenda against SF in this thread. It is all against Chicago for things not related to being cosmopolitan and are personal.