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.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,948,491 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeignCrunch
There are a lot of people who would absolutely move next week to San Feancisco if only they could actually afford to live there. Virtually nobody thinks that about Chicago.
I've lived in both. I'd pick SF. But the only reason I think your statement is true is because money isn't an obstacle to live in Chicago. It's super affordable. It's a hell of city to live in, and I'd pick it over all but a handful of other cities (SF being one).
You dont need $100M for a house like this in the Bay Area, maybe just $30M?
This pic belongs to Me.
No. But you will need it to afford the mortgage, to furnish it, keep it looking presentable, and to keep it off the auction block (taxes). You will also need it to be able to relate to your neighbors... assuming you have them at this location. House is beautiful though.
There are a lot of people who would absolutely move next week to San Feancisco if only they could actually afford to live there. Virtually nobody thinks that about Chicago.
To be fair, SF and Chicago are two different lifestyles. The urban "big city" lifestyle/experience you get in Chicago and NYC are basically unmatched anywhere else in America, including SF. To a lot of people Chicago is just a cheaper, smaller, and less hectic version of NYC.
If you prefer a "big city" experience, Chicago may be the winner between these two, regardless of cost. After all in terms of CBDs/urban core, there's NYC, then Chicago, then a BIG step down to the next city, which is either Philly or Boston.
SF is more diverse, and while it definitely has the best downtown on the west coast.... isn't the same "big city" experience as NYC and Chicago. Which is fine.
It all comes down to preference. So I think saying "nobody wants to move to Chicago except for because it's cheap" is pretty extreme. Plenty of people want to move here too.
But $20 million wasn’t even an option, so I don’t understand the point of saying that. Why San Francisco? Weather? Location? Better amenities (specifically that you care about)? Better state? Recreational advantages?
But $20 million wasn’t even an option, so I don’t understand the point of saying that. Why San Francisco? Weather? Location? Better amenities (specifically that you care about)? Better state? Recreational advantages?
It was a clarification to show that its more complex than one or the other.
The Bay Area has access to the best outdoor activities of any place in the Lower 48. Its weather is mild year round and I spend a lot of time in Asia so the proximity is a plus.
But as a city, I like Chicago more than SF. I do like the Bay Area more than Chicagoland though.
If you prefer a "big city" experience, Chicago may be the winner between these two, regardless of cost. After all in terms of CBDs/urban core, there's NYC, then Chicago, then a BIG step down to the next city, which is either Philly or Boston.
Strongly disagree with you there - I'd say it's NYC, then a huge gap, then Chicago, then SF, then Boston/Philly. SF has the densest, most bustling and vibrant CBD/urban core in the country outside of NYC. It has many blocks with dozens and dozens of businesses crammed in more closely than any US city I've seen aside from NYC. (e.g. - https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7878...7i13312!8i6656 or https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7890...7i13312!8i6656)
The reason I put Chicago ahead of it is just because of the sheer scale. Chicago's CBD/urban core is much bigger than SF's (or any city not named NYC) but in terms of pound for pound "big city feel", commerce, and bustle it goes to SF.
Last edited by Vincent_Adultman; 11-07-2019 at 03:04 PM..
Strongly disagree with you there - I'd say it's NYC, then a huge gap, then Chicago, then SF, then Boston/Philly. SF has the densest, most bustling and vibrant CBD/urban core in the country outside of NYC. It has many blocks with dozens and dozens of businesses crammed in more closely than any US city I've seen aside from NYC. (e.g. - https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7878...7i13312!8i6656 or https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7890...7i13312!8i6656)
The reason I put Chicago ahead of it is just because of the sheer scale. Chicago's CBD/urban core is much bigger than SF's (or any city not named NYC) but in terms of pound for pound "big city feel", commerce, and bustle it goes to SF.
I agree with most of this but add DC to the mix. Chicago has more scale than the others but is not a peer city to NY.
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.
