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.
Comparing the quite small SF city limits to the quite large Chicago city limits, I take Chicago, but IMO the gap between NYC and Chicago is greater than the gap between Chicago and SF.
Comparing the Bay Area to greater Chicago, I take the Bay Area straight up.
What is it with Chicago boosters deflecting realities? Your city is segregated beyond belief, economically stagnant and population growth stagnant (though technically contracting). Those factors really make Chicago unique among the 6 or 7 largest Metros in the country.
Actually, segregation is more a trait of the older, eastern U.S. cities in general, it's not at all unique to Chicago. The NY MSA is very segregated, as is Boston, Philadelphia, even DC.
Even in places where people deem are mega diverse and "integrated"..... there's still a distinct level of segregation.
This moreso is due to history, hence why newer cities tend to be a bit more lax and integrated. Again, nothing at all about that is unique to Chicago. "White flight" happened in every single metro in the country that had a prominent population between the 1940's-1980's, and effects of this linger on to this very day all over the country.
Last edited by CCrest182; 05-07-2020 at 06:06 PM..
Important to note, basically all of the land around Chicago is developable. I'm not sure if even 50% of the land around SF is developable
That's true, so what? Chicago has already sprawled out 40-50+ miles in any direction. So, it's basically been fully developed. It could keep going, but in a day and age where sprawl is heavily frowned upon, I doubt suburbs that are 80 miles out would be very popular or sustainable, anywhere in the country.
What is it with Chicago boosters deflecting realities? Your city is segregated beyond belief, economically stagnant and population growth stagnant (though technically contracting). Those factors really make Chicago unique among the 6 or 7 largest Metros in the country.
OK a city lowers itself. Yet on C-D we need someone to say a city is a lower echelon has-been city on the decline as if population alone is the merit of all a city's diverse attributes. Chicago still as I noted, has a booming core outward and increasing as a more educated professional city. Still I'm sure all posting here know Chicago and Chicagoland has lost population. Not huge overall but still a loss. NYC metro joined that losing status. Just the city did not. I like the city. I'd love to live in its core especially. Give me a Florida retreat for winters too. LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by FalstaffBlues
Important to note, basically all of the land around Chicago is developable. I'm not sure if even 50% of the land around SF is developable
SF is a peninsula so 3 sides it cannot grow. It can go upward, but nimbyism prevents that and desire to preserve it from becoming a highrise filled Bay city like a Hong Kong or a Rio. Clearly a demand for housing SF has. SF did not endure lost housing. Chicago did and surely has a lot of space to infill one day on the South and West sides by blight removal and lost industry. Clearly this will be future land for rebuilding in another decade or two and three. Certainly areas that gentrified show this is possible. Sad the city may have to shrink yet in gangland areas especially, before the Midwest and North become more a booming region overall again. I think the region will.
People in here are hilarious. Yes San Jose will be included in discussions about stature because San Jose is literally part of the functioning urban area of SF. Some imaginary line created by the census doesn't dictate otherwise. If this is the main argument for Chicago being closer to New York in stature then the argument is lost.
People in here are hilarious. Yes San Jose will be included in discussions about stature because San Jose is literally part of the functioning urban area of SF. Some imaginary line created by the census doesn't dictate otherwise. If this is the main argument for Chicago being closer to New York in stature then the argument is lost.
Imaginary lines form most boundaries. Just an FYI, in cases you didn't know.
Imaginary lines form most boundaries. Just an FYI, in cases you didn't know.
Imaginary lines don't make particular sense when talking about stature of urban areas. San Jose and San Francisco function as parts of a whole much like Riverside and Los Angeles do. And the fact of the matter is that the San Francisco urban area is catching up fast to Chicago.
Imaginary lines don't make particular sense when talking about stature of urban areas. San Jose and San Francisco function as parts of a whole much like Riverside and Los Angeles do. And the fact of the matter is that the San Francisco urban area is catching up fast to Chicago.
San Jose is not part of the SF MSA though, it's a separate city, with its own MSA. As I've stated previously, it doesn't stand on its own...ever, on this site.
San Jose is not part of the SF MSA though, it's a separate city, with its own MSA. As I've stated previously, it doesn't stand on its own...ever, on this site.
Eventually you need to realize that you can repeat this as many times as you like but it wont change a thing.
San Jose is part of the Bay Area, so that sucks for SF haters. Oh well, you'll get over it.
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.