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.
This thread has run its course, several times over. It's bad enough people are actually trying to compare San Francisco to Chicago (folks, it does not compare), but now some posters are comparing SF to London and New York. Horsesh\t.
San Francisco is a great city, but give it a rest.
You make it sound like Chicago is way better than SF when in reality it is not. Both are wonderful cities, but it is the other way around.
This thread has run its course, several times over. It's bad enough people are actually trying to compare San Francisco to Chicago (folks, it does not compare), but now some posters are comparing SF to London and New York. Horsesh\t.
.
Personally, I think SF and Chicago are VERY comparable, to think otherwise makes you look foolish.
Ok I've been reading this board for a while now, and honestly, y'all act like five year olds. San Francisco and Chicago are two of the two best cities in the world and are on par with the equally amazing and wonderful cities of Paris, London, etc.(all of which are, quite frankly, much better than Milan, which is a dump)
Ok I've been reading this board for a while now, and honestly, y'all act like five year olds. San Francisco and Chicago are two of the two best cities in the world and are on par with the equally amazing and wonderful cities of Paris, London, etc.(all of which are, quite frankly, much better than Milan, which is a dump)
San Francisco despite the fact that it's comprably a smaller city is amazingly vibrant for it's size and a beautiful city. But, I mean yeah, Chicago feels more urban--much closer to Manhattan on it's scale than San Francisco.
And what's up with the silly flame wars all of these threads descend into..."Oh your city is a pathetic backwater." Is the average age of these posters in their teens? If you want to argue that San Francisco is overrated that's one thing...
And yeah, Milan is only exciting for gay fashion designers..it's not even close to the best city in Italy.
San Francisco despite the fact that it's comprably a smaller city is amazingly vibrant for it's size and a beautiful city. But, I mean yeah, Chicago feels more urban--much closer to Manhattan on it's scale than San Francisco.
And what's up with the silly flame wars all of these threads descend into..."Oh your city is a pathetic backwater." Is the average age of these posters in their teens? If you want to argue that San Francisco is overrated that's one thing...
And yeah, Milan is only exciting for gay fashion designers..it's not even close to the best city in Italy.
Milan isn't that great of a city. It's industrial and not really exciting. Milan is just breath of fresh air for people watching after you've visited a city with such a group of unfortunate looking people like San Francisco.
You make it sound like Chicago is way better than SF when in reality it is not. Both are wonderful cities, but it is the other way around.
No-- you're putting words in my mouth. This is about downtowns -- size and vibrancy. No-- San Francisco is not nearly as vibrant, energetic, moving, populated and so on. People can delude themselves that it is, but it is not. San Francisco is vibrant-- but on a much smaller scale. Anyone who has spent ANY amount of time in either city can tell you this. Chicago's vibrant throughout it's core which is what-- triple the size of SF??? We're not comparing a one foot square parcel on Randolph and Lake to a one foot parcel in Union Square. We should be comparing urban cores. San Francisco simply cannot compare on that critieria. Again. No.
Personally, I think SF and Chicago are VERY comparable, to think otherwise makes you look foolish.
No-- you are wrong. You're comparing the vibrancy of a city of 3 million -- and its huge urban core-- to a city of what 700,000K? There is not a viable comparison unless you pluck an indeterminant swath of high-density/traffic areas. Yes, they compare then (somewhat). Over a downtown area, they do not. BTW-- don't call me foolish.
Doesn't much of SF serve as a downtown core for much of the Bay Area in general? SF itself might be small in terms of its legal limits, but it serves a somewhat comparable area. SF's great cultural and social amenities aren't consigned to those within the boundaries of the city, and this is evident from its great institutions, name recognition, and mass transit service lines.
That being said, Chicago is bigger. The real ace up SF's sleeve in comparison to Chicago is that SF maintains its vibrancy year-round. It's reasonable that Chicago's vibrancy hits a bit of a slump during the winter.
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.
it's a cheetah!!!!!!!!
