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.
I visited SF last year and felt disappointed. There are a lot of really cool day trips out of the city, but the city itself felt like a letdown. It was dirty, the skyline was underwhelming, the culture/vibe/attitude just struck me as annoying, and the cold summer weather sucks. I like mild summers (i.e. Seattle and Portland, or LA near the beaches), but not downright cold summers.
On the other hand, I finally visited Chicago last week and I loved it! The architecture is incredible -- Chicago's skyline is a contender for best in the country IMO (only NYC beats it, and it might actually be debatable). The people were fun, friendly, and open-minded. The 5:00 pedestrian rush hour crossing the bridges was cool. The river itself and the many bridges are all great. The public spaces and museums are awesome and way above what I found in SF. And all of this is without having much time to explore the northern parts of the city that everyone says are even better. I had limited time and spent most of it around the touristy areas. But I will be back!
there is many websites to find these facts about these cities, look it up, u cant miss it.. but anyway I like SF more because its MUCH more beautiful, better weather, more progressive, more activities, restraunts, bars, cafes etc per capita, MUCH more internationally diverse, MUCH more culture, MUCH more free spirited, a much younger population, MUCH more identifiable and distinguished. You can go hike in the mountains or on the beach, or in the north bay area redwood forest or napa valley (wine capital) and its beautiful. MUCH more exotic city, MUCH more romantic city, more NOTABLE landmarks, MUCH more AMAZING places to take in the view, MUCH more money to make and its the tech capital of the world (in silicon valley which is part of SF bay) and much more acceptance amongst individuals, MUCH MUCH more character (including Oakland since its part of SF bay as well) and u feel like ur in a city much bigger than Chicago when ur in downtown SF because dwntwn Chicago isn't as upbeat and doesn't have the urban vibrancy like SF.. and the list goes on buddy (HERE ARE SOME SOURCES) you can find any other source that will back this too just google it.. heres one part saying sf is number 1 for 17 straight years and its source is Conde Nast Traveler which is the number 1 travelers magazine, u can google that too.. San Francisco Voted #1 U.S. City to Visit by Conde Nast Traveler | LowFares.com
... #1 city to visit, as rated by Conde Nast Traveler. The OP of this thread was asking about where he and his girl friend could move to in terms of cost of living and careers.
And you pulled out a Conde Nast review for vacationers ... Of course SF is awesome to visit for a few days. I do that frequently as well whenever I travel to Cali. But try looking for a decent place to rent or (god forbid) buy. Good luck with the mortgage. I have a lot of friends who work in nearby silicon valley, and even they find SF's rental and real estate costs shockingly high even with their higher than average compensation.
No not really.
San Francisco has long been more desirable as a place to live than Chicago.
Population growth stats show that more people are moving to the Bay Area.
Population Growth, 2000-2013
Bay Area CSA +789,000....+10.20%
Chicago CSA +432,000....+4.55%
Chicago has 1.4 million more people than the Bay Area but an economy that is about $75 billion smaller than the Bay Area-which is actually quite astounding.
2013 GDP
Bay Area CSA $664 Billion
Chicago CSA $590 Billion
Even just the combined SF & SJ MSAs with 6.4 million people was only $5 billion shy of Chicago in 2013. Im pretty certain SF-SJ has surpassed Chicago this year
Chicago CSA....$590 Billion GDP.....9.9 Million population....$59,000 Per Capita GDP
SF & SJ MSAs..$585 Billion GDP.....6.4 Million population....$91,000 Per Capita GDP
Households Earning $200,000+, 2013
Bay Area CSA 381,000
Chicago CSA 235,000
In this $200K ranking, Chicago has actually fallen behind DC, SF and Boston and is now 6th.
And the thing is, I cant quite figure out why Chicago's economic and population growth is so stagnant when the place is so vibrant and quite frankly amazing. I love the place.
Population growth stats show that more people are moving to the Bay Area.
Population Growth, 2000-2013
Bay Area CSA +789,000....+10.20%
Chicago CSA +432,000....+4.55%
Chicago has 1.4 million more people than the Bay Area but an economy that is about $75 billion smaller than the Bay Area-which is actually quite astounding.
2013 GDP
Bay Area CSA $664 Billion
Chicago CSA $590 Billion
Even just the combined SF & SJ MSAs with 6.4 million people was only $5 billion shy of Chicago in 2013. Im pretty certain SF-SJ has surpassed Chicago this year
Chicago CSA....$590 Billion GDP.....9.9 Million population....$59,000 Per Capita GDP
SF & SJ MSAs..$585 Billion GDP.....6.4 Million population....$91,000 Per Capita GDP
Households Earning $200,000+, 2013
Bay Area CSA 381,000
Chicago CSA 235,000
In this $200K ranking, Chicago has actually fallen behind DC, SF and Boston and is now 6th.
I know it's desirable, who doesn't like year round moderate temperature by the ocean? Monte Carlo is also desirable, but that doesn't mean most people can realistically afford to live there. For ordinary folks who are contemplating starting a family, is it really worth it given the high cost of rent and real estate that's already approaching NYC level? I assume you could get a slightly cheaper rent in a place like San Jose, but the vibe there is obviously quite different from living in SF itself.
And I don't know about you guys, but whenever I move to a new city for work or family reasons, GDP data is not something that's on top of my list... All I care about is rent, living expenses, how much I can earn, and the spending power I have with my disposable income.
Last edited by bostonkid123; 09-26-2014 at 12:10 PM..
I know it's desirable, who doesn't like year round moderate temperature by the ocean? Monte Carlo is also desirable, but that doesn't mean people most people can realistically afford to live there. For ordinary folks who are contemplating starting a family, is it really worth it given the high cost of rent and real estate? I assume you could get a slightly cheaper rent in a place like San Jose, but the vibe there is obviously quite different from living in SF itself.
he included Chicago metro in the numbers as well. plus san jose is a part of the SF bay with San Fran being the urban center (the downtown of the bay)
No there is many websites to find these facts about these cities, look it up, u cant miss it.. but anyway I like SF more because its MUCH more beautiful, better weather, more progressive, more activities, restraunts, bars, cafes etc per capita, MUCH more internationally diverse, MUCH more culture, MUCH more free spirited, a much younger population, MUCH more identifiable and distinguished. You can go hike in the mountains or on the beach, or in the north bay area redwood forest or napa valley (wine capital) and its beautiful. MUCH more exotic city, MUCH more romantic city, more NOTABLE landmarks, MUCH more AMAZING places to take in the view, MUCH more money to make and its the tech capital of the world (in silicon valley which is part of SF bay) and much more acceptance amongst individuals, MUCH MUCH more character (including Oakland since its part of SF bay as well) and u feel like ur in a city much bigger than Chicago when ur in downtown SF because dwntwn Chicago isn't as upbeat and doesn't have the urban vibrancy like SF.. and the list goes on buddy check mate lol
I'll try and reply in more detail later as I'm at work and your reply has so much to address lol I'm actually starting to think you just a Chicago hater even if you state otherwise because although you can argue opinions you cannot the facts. You say MUCH as if sf is in another league then Chicago lmao. The truth is in a lot of ways it's NYC, Chicago, and LA as the only true world class cities imo
oh well some people just like well rounded, mild cities like Chicago. the upbeat high class free spirited cities like SF or NYC isn't for everyone... some like the country more than the city as well so theres an example. its all on opinion. me, I like excitement and energy which chi doesnt really have but its pretty great for the Midwest states.... but like I said SF still remains as the #1 city in usa for 17 straight years... i'll copy and paste an older message for u bro..
Uh, really? Chicago felt far more like NYC than SF does.. I wouldn't call SF "upbeat" and it didn't have as much excitement or energy as Chicago for me. Frankly, downtown SF was surprisingly boring. It has a great surrounding region if you like outdoors stuff, but it doesn't have the "big city vibe" of Chicago or NYC. As for the boring midwest stereotype, meh. I don't even consider Chicago, Detroit, etc. to be "midwest". They are Great Lakes cities, which is its own thing.
[quote=unobtainium;36649814]I visited SF last year and felt disappointed. There are a lot of really cool day trips out of the city, but the city itself felt like a letdown. It was dirty, the skyline was underwhelming, the culture/vibe/attitude just struck me as annoying, and the cold summer weather sucks. I like mild summers (i.e. Seattle and Portland, or LA near the beaches), but not downright cold summers.
On the other hand, I finally visited Chicago last week and I loved it! The architecture is incredible -- Chicago's skyline is a contender for best in the country IMO (only NYC beats it, and it might actually be debatable). The people were fun, friendly, and open-minded. The 5:00 pedestrian rush hour crossing the bridges was cool. The river itself and the many bridges are all great. The public spaces and museums are awesome and way above what I found in SF. And all of this is without having much time to explore the northern parts of the city that everyone says are even better. I had limited time and spent most of it around the touristy areas. But I will be back! [/QUOTE=
I'm glad to hear you enjoyed your visit to our great city. Yes the downtown sector is great lots to offer and vibrant areas, has something for everyone, but I always encourage visitors to visit some of the 77 neighborhoods in order to get a real feel of what Chicago is all about.
oh well some people just like well rounded, mild cities like Chicago. the upbeat high class free spirited cities like SF or NYC isn't for everyone... some like the country more than the city as well so theres an example. its all on opinion. me, I like excitement and energy which chi doesnt really have but its pretty great for the Midwest states.... but like I said SF still remains as the #1 city in usa for 17 straight years... i'll copy and paste an older message for u bro..
Whoa. What an eye opener. There are SF boosters. And then there are SF boosters ballsy enough to use SF to dis NYC. I see someone's had a little too much 420.
And the thing is, I cant quite figure out why Chicago's economic and population growth is so stagnant when the place is so vibrant and quite frankly amazing. I love the place.
It's pulling in two different directions. The blue collar sectors and the suburbs are stangnant and struggling, the central city and white collar jobs are really growing. Every week it seems headquarters are moving into the city from other cities or mostly the suburbs. Suburb housing construction and vacancy rates are pretty bad, in the city they're doing well.
Look at them together and it's flat, look at the separate pieces and there's a much differant story. The city is a HUGE hotbed right now for millennials, I just saw that 7 of the top 13 zip codes in the country for the % of millennials are in Chicago.
New unemployment numbers just came out and Chicago dipped from 9.1% to 6.2% in just one year, which is the biggest drop of any city.
Chicago mirrors the nation in most ways, although it seems to LAG the nation. Most everything I've seen says that the metro is finally set for a pretty nice bump economically. It's lagged the nation, but more indicators have said things are finally getting lined up for an across the board improvement.
Downtown and the north side are hot with tons of new development. The last few years have seen tons of new apartment highrises coming online. There are two large spec office buildings going up across the river from my office, and with all the new parks and 6 block riverwalk extension, Navy Pier reconstruction, Maggie Daley Park, Northerly Island, etc. Things are really active out there, it's just that it's not metro-wide.
Just saw the downtown market hit touristm/hotel records in every metric possible this summer, something that's never happened before, and especially with thousands of new hotel rooms delivered the past few years and thousands more under construction and in the pipeline.
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.
CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol
some people just like well rounded, mild cities like Chicago. the upbeat high class free spirited cities like SF or NYC isn't for everyone... some like the country more than the city as well so theres an example. its all on opinion. me, I like excitement and energy which chi doesnt really have but its pretty great for the Midwest states.... but like I said SF still remains as the #1 city in usa for 17 straight years... i'll copy and paste an older message for u bro..