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.
maybe that has more to do with SanFran's exploding gay population. it is known that gays are more concerned with the way that they look than most people are.
Or maybe, just maybe, SF is a much more physically active outdoors city than Chicago.
Or maybe, just maybe, SF is a much more physically active outdoors city than Chicago.
yeah...i think i am going to have to go with gays being concerned about their looks...overly so. if there was one big fight between sanfran and chicago, you know chicago would win. although, sanfran has a lot of hardcore lesbians. this post reflects common perception:
The gay scene is shallow and sex-obsessed, yet we are told that the gay community is loving and inclusive..... - Yahoo! Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071227210640AA9XTRT - broken link)
maybe that has more to do with SanFran's exploding gay population
The "gayest" cities in the US are:
1 San Francisco 15.4% 94,234
2 Seattle 12.9% 57,993
3 Atlanta 12.8% 39,805
4 Minneapolis 12.5% 34,295
5 Boston 12.3% 50,540
If SF's gay population is "exploding" as you put it, it's not exploding all that much more than other cities. Not to mention SF's gay population probably hasn't "exploded" since the 1970's or 80's. I'm willing to bet SF's gay population growth nowadays isn't much higher than those other top 5 cities, if it is higher at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by At1WithNature
this isn't true. there is virtually no middle class in San Francisco.
San Francisco's middle class is shrinking, there's no doubt about that, and as a percentage of the city's population, it's smaller than average for a US city...but it's still here. Let's see, myself, my family and most people I know are neither rich (or close to rich), but none are impoverished either. So what are we then, if not middle/working class? Contrary to popular belief middle class people can live here quite easily, and many still do. They're just being increasingly squeezed and other cities offer more bang for the buck, so many are also leaving.
yeah...i think i am going to have to go with gays being concerned about their looks...overly so. if there was one big fight between sanfran and chicago, you know chicago would win. although, sanfran has a lot of hardcore lesbians. this post reflects common perception:
The gay scene is shallow and sex-obsessed, yet we are told that the gay community is loving and inclusive..... - Yahoo! Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071227210640AA9XTRT - broken link)
what the hell? I guess it's time to write off any of your opinions from now on.
This link shows exactly what my first post was about, and why the comparison for the two cities is not apples to apples.
In the link if you compare the walkable areas in SF to those in Chicago, side by side at the same scale, you see how much more massive the walkable areas of Chicago are. Look at the green areas (hoods scoring over 90) stretching from downtown all over the north and northwest sides. Again, the size of this area is clearly only second to NY. The only reason SF is the highest in this study, (and throw DC and Boston in there too) is because its a small city area-wise, and the city proper has fewer 'dead' areas. Chicagos city proper includes huge swaths of industrial land in the south and west sides that are sparsely populated. This brings the overall percentage down. (the same is true of NYC).
Now, SF may have hoods in their city that seem more vibrant and lively than some areas in chicago, but again, that doesnt carry very far. Chicagos lively and walkable areas stretch far longer than any other city in the US besides NYC. So again, SF may have spots that are incredibly lively and vibrant, but they are far fewer in number than in Chicago and far smaller area-wise. This also is not a diss on SF, I have been there a few times and loved it, I am simply stating the difference in scale of the two cities. Something that anyone who has been to both can easily tell first hand.
This link shows exactly what my first post was about, and why the comparison for the two cities is not apples to apples.
In the link if you compare the walkable areas in SF to those in Chicago, side by side at the same scale, you see how much more massive the walkable areas of Chicago are. Look at the green areas (hoods scoring over 90) stretching from downtown all over the north and northwest sides. Again, the size of this area is clearly only second to NY. The only reason SF is the highest in this study, (and throw DC and Boston in there too) is because its a small city area-wise, and the city proper has fewer 'dead' areas. Chicagos city proper includes huge swaths of industrial land in the south and west sides that are sparsely populated. This brings the overall percentage down. (the same is true of NYC).
Now, SF may have hoods in their city that seem more vibrant and lively than some areas in chicago, but again, that doesnt carry very far. Chicagos lively and walkable areas stretch far longer than any other city in the US besides NYC. So again, SF may have spots that are incredibly lively and vibrant, but they are far fewer in number than in Chicago and far smaller area-wise. This also is not a diss on SF, I have been there a few times and loved it, I am simply stating the difference in scale of the two cities. Something that anyone who has been to both can easily tell first hand.
Good point. If you want to compare equal land areas, but ignore city limits, then Chicago probably does beat SF...though I would guess it's probably not too far ahead. For example, Oakland, Berkeley, Daly City, and some other smaller cities in the bay that are close to SF would have pretty significant walk scores (unfortunately the website didn't rate any other entire cities in the Bay Area, except for San Jose, which has measly score of 55).
With the Bay Area as a whole though (which includes SJ and tons of other suburban areas), and the Chicago metro as a whole I have no idea how they'd compare, but i'm sure both would have greatly reduced scores, just like any metro area.
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.
