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.
actually....it's the opposite...the loop has been rather forcefully pushing into the south and west sides. It's only a matter of years before the south lakefront is more or less totally gentrified to hyde park...which will create a vibrant urban swath extending nearly twenty miles to evanston. Chinatown is already in the orbit of the mega loop and southwest side neighborhoods like pilsen and even brighton park are rising. You seem to have an outdated impression of what's happening in chicago.
and this.... 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
and this.... there is many websites to find these facts about these cities,
look it up, u cant miss it..
Okay so...
Quote:
a much younger population
Wrong. The median age in Chicago is 32.9 years old. The median age in San Francisco is 38.5 years old. SF isn't even close to younger than Chicago. In fact, SF is older than the national average.
While SF does indeed lead the US in this, does it truly matter? You're comparing a city of 2.7 million to one of 800,000. It's not the same thing. Anybody who is familiar with Chicago knows that the areas where young people live are packed with eateries, cafes, bars/clubs/lounges, etc. I love both cities, but let's not fool ourselves here. If I'm living in Lincoln Park in Chicago, I'm not concerned about ever finding a place to eat within a short walk. EVER
Quote:
MUCH more culture
What do you mean by this?
Quote:
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
Your view of Chicago is outdated, severely. Though I will say I love SF's neighborhoods, but there's many great ones in Chicago too that have charm. And downtown Chicago is not upbeat and not vibrant? LOL! Let me guess, you visited Chicago once, you stayed in the central business district full of offices where not many people live and now you think you're an expert on downtown Chicago? That's like going to the Financial District in NYC and complaining that it's pretty dead at night (which it is). Downtown is a lot more than just that. Only a fool would go to areas like River North and Gold Coast and think it's not that vibrant.
I absolutely love SF - it's in my top 3 cities in the US, but your view of Chicago is outdated and for some things just wrong. I do agree that SF is more beautiful and you have great nature right there. Great city and area - truly great. But your post above just sounds like you're trying too hard.
quit hatin on SF because ur city isn't nowhere near that level smh lol
You can't still possibly believe this can you? Lmao OK bro yea sf is just superior to Chicago in every way lmao keep telling yourself that maybe one day it will be true lol
You can't still possibly believe this can you? Lmao OK bro yea sf is just superior to Chicago in every way lmao keep telling yourself that maybe one day it will be true lol
Guys calm down. It almost feels like arguing with a 14 year old. Let him be.
I think a couple of SF's worst parts are near its southern periphery. And of course, there's the Tenderloin and parts of The Mission...
True, but they're tiny in comparison. And there are still some normal people walking through. I walked through the tenderloin and part of the mission last week. They are very tiny and next to or include reasons for being there. The tenderloin has a theater having a show last weekend.
I know the loop is growing but wherever it grows, it will still for the foreseeable future have the ghetto as its border. I'm glad for the changes and it is changing for the better. I just feel the presence when I'm in Chicago closing in. I realize that's a paranoid sounding way to put it. I should think about a better way to say it.
Maybe if you're from there you don't notice but I notice and feel uncomfortable by the ghetto subculture in Chicago. Even downtown. I don't feel that in San Francisco.
My brother got jumped by 14 ghetto youths. Much less likely to happen in SF
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,135,974 times
Reputation: 2919
Quote:
Originally Posted by chitownsFinest
Your probably right but I've noticed since joining this site recently there is this SF mentality in a lot of folks or maybe it's just me
No, it's not just you--they are relentless. I really like San Francisco, but their boosterism makes me reconsider.
Chicago is clearly the better city here--haven't heard a cogent argument to dissuade me otherwise. SF only competes when you consider the bay area as a whole--but that's not the question posed. City vs city, here. And even as a metro, no. Chicago is clearly the number three city of the United States--SF is not. Though this is all subjective at the end of the day. Still, talk on preference--not on established facts. Objectively, Chicago is "superior".
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
