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.
Strange... seems like All of Chicago's Celebrities/People who have $100 mil dollars eventually leave Chicago for California ( Oprah, Kanye, MJ, The Steve Harvey Show)
Last edited by BlueRedTide; 11-07-2019 at 06:35 PM..
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.
Yes but $100M is more than enough to accomplish all of that and you wouldnt have a mortgage pmt if youre paying off the house in the first place.
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.
Strange... seems like All of Chicago's Celebrities/People who have $100 mil dollars eventually leave Chicago for California ( Oprah, Kanye, MJ, The Steve Harvey Show)
That has more to do with the industry they all are in. And why they moved to LA, not SF.
For me, Chicago. I don’t really like the culture of SF. Chicago just seems more real to me. A penthouse somewhere on the Gold Coast would be amazing. And with that kind of money, my lifestyle would be very travel-oriented so to be honest, I probably wouldn’t spend very much time in either city (or any other city that was “home base”.)
In terms of scale, Chicago comes the closest. But in terms of vibrancy, big city crowds/feel, etc. - SF comes closer.
Big city crowds??? I'm no expert on SF, but I'd be willing to bet Chicago's core is far more lively and vibrant than SF. SF/The Bay Area is more spread out when it comes to businesses, even if the population is more dense. The difference here is people don't live in downtown Chicago, but they do live in downtown SF. That doesn't mean downtown SF is more vibrant/lively than downtown Chicago, and doesn't mean there's more action. Everything in Chicago is focused in the downtown core, whereas the SF/Bay Area is more spread out to different areas and even cities (notably, Silicon Valley is spread out to multiple different cities). Similarly, SF is an extremely small city by land area. Chicago is far bigger, and the "sides" of the city make it appear much less dense than the dense areas really are.
And I definitely would say big city "feel" goes to Chicago in this comparison, and it's not even really close. The images you posted don't prove to me that SF is closer to NYC than Chicago is.
^This is much closer to NYC in my eyes than the images you posted. The only part of your images that relate to NYC are the compactness of the street level businesses, but tons of cities can claim the same exact thing.
San Francisco no contest. There's just so so so so so so so so SO much better scenery.... ....did I mention the scenery is so much better?
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.
