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.
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 like downtown Chicago a lot, especially how it interacts with the river, but it's not more cosmopolitan than SF imo, even in the most generous definition of the word.
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
Downtown is usually used for a pretty broad area and that includes some interesting spots like Chinatown and Union Square, so that's nice. I do think it's not quite as interesting as the Loop and adjacent areas because the urban river canyon there is pretty spectacular.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 07-18-2023 at 07:16 PM..
Downtown is usually used for a pretty broad area and that includes some interesting spots like Chinatown and Union Square, so that's nice. I do think it's not quite as interesting as the Loop and adjacent areas because the urban river canyon there is pretty spectacular.
We know getting downtown stats can be difficult and so many still just say the Loop for Chicago. Still we all know a broader downtown region is the reality. The below area should work. Might not include Chinatown yet?
To at least include neighborhoods like River North, Streeterville, the West Loop, South Loop, and others, the numbers become even more significant. The report pegs the total population of Chicago’s downtown at 244,445 residents, or roughly 9% of Chicago’s total population. Double-digit growth in the Near North Side and Near South Side has helped Chicago’s downtown grow faster than any other major downtown district in the country, the Chicago Loop Alliance report proclaims.
Chicago is more urban definitely. SF may have higher inner core avg densities, but SF's urban core is pretty small. Chicago's is large and the high dense walkable areas extend far out. SF goes pseudo-suburban a few miles outside of the Downtown area.
That's not true - San Francisco is extremely classically urban throughout almost all of its boundaries. If anything, Chicago has far, far more suburban and pseudo-suburban area within its borders.
Both cities are often used as examples by right-wing media as poster children for some paranoid version of hell. .
It's very different - with Chicago the right-wing media focuses on gang activity and murder rates and "black on black" crime. It's heavily racialized with an undercurrent of "blame corrupt democrats".
With SF the right wing media focuses more on (in their framing) liberal policies that have allowed homeless zombies who defecate everywhere to overrun the city. The murder rate in SF is actually very low for an American city so they can't focus on so instead they paint this image of a zombie apocalypse where everyone is a mentally ill homeless person who is going to sleep in your car. Seattle and Portland have gotten this from the right wing media as well, but SF seems to be the favorite target.
Interestingly, for the past few years SF has statistically been the safest of those three cities and far safer than most Southern and Midwestern cities.
I am from Chicago and I work(Kinda live in SF) now.
I've had coworkers tell me they found Chicago boring.
As a tourist, SF was enormously fun. It's just so different and scenic no matter where you go.
I can see why Chicago might not be cool to someone who isn't into history or architecture.
SF feels like a theme park.
Bridges, ocean, fog, hilltops, curvy street, etc
The food scene does suck in SF though. Yeah yeah burritos, asian food, etc. It just doesn't compare to Chicago and the street food.
There's a lot more I can type, but i gotta get to work
I am from Chicago and I work(Kinda live in SF) now.
I've had coworkers tell me they found Chicago boring.
As a tourist, SF was enormously fun. It's just so different and scenic no matter where you go.
I can see why Chicago might not be cool to someone who isn't into history or architecture.
SF feels like a theme park.
Bridges, ocean, fog, hilltops, curvy street, etc
The food scene does suck in SF though. Yeah yeah burritos, asian food, etc. It just doesn't compare to Chicago and the street food.
There's a lot more I can type, but i gotta get to work
Zacharys pizza in the east bay and Tony’s as well as Little Star. Square pie guys. And Cellarmaker house of pizza and pizzeria Delfina all hold their own with Chicago pizza
Oran hummus is pretty great middle eastern food.
Also Chicago has great architecture but SFs is quite comparable in many places. Best Victorian collection in the country. And San Francisco’s history easily rivals Chicago.
Zacharys pizza in the east bay and Tony’s as well as Little Star. Square pie guys. And Cellarmaker house of pizza and pizzeria Delfina all hold their own with Chicago pizza
Oran hummus is pretty great middle eastern food.
Also Chicago has great architecture but SFs is quite comparable in many places. Best Victorian collection in the country. And San Francisco’s history easily rivals Chicago.
Chicago is just very Mid
When I think of a mid city, Denver comes to mind. Sacremento. Major city? Dallas/Phoenix. defintely not Chicago
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.