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.
He didn't say SF's downtown was more cosmopolitan,all's he said is Chicago's doesn't feel as cosmopolitan as one would expect.
Actually he did say precisely that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johntremaine
Not a diss on Chicago, I love that city! It just doesnt feel quite as cosmopolitan or 'urban' in the downtown area as you would expect, considering the massive skyline and size of the city.
OK, well, have u lived in either of the cities experiencing day to day stuff...? I have lived in the Bay area and in the South and West Loops of Chicago.
I suppose it is only my opinion but, definitely think more is going on in SF.
Here are the density #'s...
17,323/sq mi for SF
2nd only to NYC
and
12,649/sq mi for Chi
Paterson NJ has a density of 17,675.4/sq mi! Does this make it better than SF?
I live in SF and I can tell you it has little going on outside of the central tourist areas. Look at Sunset or Parkside,some great Chinese food but not much else going on with rows and rows of old houses too close together and not much else. Excelsior is a big run down area with one street of restaurants on Mission. The Portola neighborhood does not even have a real supermarket. How about Miraloma, not much there. How about Ingleside,not much there either. At least Glen Park has a BART station and two whole blocks of stores.
San Francisco is more like a "theme park" tourist city which cannot authentically even compare to Chicago. The most accurate description of SF was given in the title of a previous City Data posting by JZT83, " San Francisco: The city with the inconveniences of a dense urban area but without the benefits"
He never mentioned SF,just said that the downtown area of Chicago didn't feel a certain way,reading comprehension my friend. If he says he was comparing it to SF than I'm at fault.
He never mentioned SF,just said that the downtown area of Chicago didn't feel a certain way,reading comprehension my friend. If he says he was comparing it to SF than I'm at fault.
He did. And you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johntremaine
Fair enough. I guess what I mean is it has a more cosmopolitan *vibe*. Downtown SF feels very international, in terms of the types of businesses you see and the type of people.
Hmm. Thats like saying, "See, NYC isnt vibrant, look at these neighborhoods in Staton Island!"
Just for starters, here are San Francisco neighborhoods that are very vibrant and happening, outside of the main tourist core:
Mission District (Inner and Outer), SOMA (which is huge and has several sub-divisions), Fillmore, Castro, Lower Haight, Upper Haight, Church Street Area, Marina, Russian Hill, etc,. And this doesnt even count the numerous sub-areas within downtown (Chinatown, North Beach, Tenderloin, Union Square, etc, etc.). The neighborhoods you mention are 'outer city' exceptions...
Quote:
Originally Posted by capoeira
Paterson NJ has a density of 17,675.4/sq mi! Does this make it better than SF?
I live in SF and I can tell you it has little going on outside of the central tourist areas. Look at Sunset or Parkside,some great Chinese food but not much else going on with rows and rows of old houses too close together and not much else. Excelsior is a big run down area with one street of restaurants on Mission. The Portola neighborhood does not even have a real supermarket. How about Miraloma, not much there. How about Ingleside,not much there either. At least Glen Park has a BART station and two whole blocks of stores.
San Francisco is more like a "theme park" tourist city which cannot authentically even compare to Chicago. The most accurate description of SF was given in the title of a previous City Data posting by JZT83, " San Francisco: The city with the inconveniences of a dense urban area but without the benefits"
San Francisco is more like a "theme park" tourist city which cannot authentically even compare to Chicago. The most accurate description of SF was given in the title of a previous City Data posting by JZT83, " San Francisco: The city with the inconveniences of a dense urban area but without the benefits"
Do you mean a city has to be ugly and run down to be considered urban?
What exactly are the urban benefits of living in Chicago compared to SF which are missing in SF?
Chicago's streets are wider and larger, thus the sidewalks too. SF is all cramped, thus the impression that it is more urban and vibrant when in reality chicago has more foot traffic in the loop.
Paterson NJ has a density of 17,675.4/sq mi! Does this make it better than SF?
I live in SF and I can tell you it has little going on outside of the central tourist areas. Look at Sunset or Parkside,some great Chinese food but not much else going on with rows and rows of old houses too close together and not much else. Excelsior is a big run down area with one street of restaurants on Mission. The Portola neighborhood does not even have a real supermarket. How about Miraloma, not much there. How about Ingleside,not much there either. At least Glen Park has a BART station and two whole blocks of stores.
San Francisco is more like a "theme park" tourist city which cannot authentically even compare to Chicago. The most accurate description of SF was given in the title of a previous City Data posting by JZT83, " San Francisco: The city with the inconveniences of a dense urban area but without the benefits"
No, it has to do with amenities as well...
Hrrmmm I'll have to disagree, I just don't see it that way...
What conveniences does Chicago have you can't get living in SF?
I could say the same thing about Chicago's Loop and River North and Navy Pier being a tourist theme park...when in reality both cities get a ton of tourists...I can't remember how many people get out of Union Station and ask where is the sears tower... LOOK UP! Also fighting and walking past all the crowds of tourists in Chicago downtown as well.
I have lived in 3 different places in Chicago... but not lived in SF... but lived outside of SF for a bit and was in the city very frequently... I didn't see what SF is missing that Chicago has... if anything SF is more walkable and things are tighter packed for most people living there.
CTA/MTA might be slightly better than Bart/Muni but nothing significant...
^ The loop is absolutely dead on weekends and after 5pm. There are minimal restaurants and shopping there either, probably no good restaurants honestly. Can't think of one.
Last edited by grapico; 04-07-2009 at 09:38 AM..
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.
