San Francisco feels more urban and vibrant than Chicago (Boston, skyscrapers, beach)
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.
Which is strange, because Chicago has a larger population (although metro areas are somewhat similar) and a bigger skyline.
But downtown San Francisco to me feels more like a big city than Chicago...so many people, the density and diversity is overwhelming. And even outside of downtown there are incredibly vibrant neighborhoods. The entire city is surprisingly urban and cosmopolitan.
Chicago is happening, but nothing in Chicago can quite rival the hustle and bustle of Union Square, Chinatown, North Beach, or even the Mission.
Ive lived in both cities (ok, I lived in Evanston, but spent a lot of time in Chicago) and loved them both, but San Fran is second only to NYC (which is a whole 'nother level) in terms of urban vibrancy.
Chicago's architecture is hard to beat, though.
I'd put San Francisco thrid, after Philadephia. It too is a very fast paced city that gets little attention on these fourms.
I'd put San Francisco thrid, after Philadephia. It too is a very fast paced city that gets little attention on these fourms.
Having been to Philadelphia several times I have to disagree. It is definitely very, urban, but it can't quite match San Francisco overall. Downtown philly at street level just can't compare with the bustle and feeling of envelopment you get in downtown SF either.
I LOVE San Fran and Chicago. If I had to choose anywhere in the US, it would only be between those two cities, and then NYC for the third.
San Fran is MUCH more compact compared to Chicago. Chicago is almost 5 times large in square milage than the city of San Fran. I think if you picked off the 49 square miles of downtown and the north side it would be a better comparison than the huge swaths of the northwest, west and southwest sides that are up to 20 miles from downtown.
This is an interesting comparison, and the original post may be true, but only speaking about relatively small areas. They are both great cities. But Chicago is HUGE compared to SF. The stretch from rogers park to the loop is unmatched in the US in terms of mass of urbanity; except obviously in NYC. If you were to take a chunk of 49 sq miles of chi, the population would far surpass SF, much more than 1 million people. Even the densest 24 sq miles of chicago (the loop to rogers park, and other northwest hoods) is already over 750K.
Maybe in small spots in SF it feels more vibrant or 'urban' than in Chicago, but that doesnt carry very far. Theres areas in DC or Philly as well that feel extremely urban and vibrant; but again this is only in relatively small spots compared to the rest of these cities. The huge mass of urban areas in chicago may be more patchwork and feel less vibrant compared to some cities (they are still very vibrant), but they are much greater in number and travel over far greater distances than in SF, Philly or DC. SF also when taken as a metro feels smaller than chicago, and that is because of below:
Urban Area population (best way to measure city size):
Pop/ Area /Density (pop/km2)
Chicago - 9,030,000/ 5,952/ 1,517
SF - 5,450,000/ 2,497/ 2,183
I guess my original point was that the area of SF between Soma and North Beach, and even including parts of the Mission District, has more of a hustle and bustle than anywhere Ive been to in Chicago.
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.
Also, I dont think Philly or DC can really come close to either SF or Chicago. My sister lives in DC and have been to Philly a few times. The most bustling areas to me there couldn't compare to Union Square/Powell or Michigan Ave. in my opinion
is
Quote:
Originally Posted by roboto
This is an interesting comparison, and the original post may be true, but only speaking about relatively small areas. They are both great cities. But Chicago is HUGE compared to SF. The stretch from rogers park to the loop is unmatched in the US in terms of mass of urbanity; except obviously in NYC. If you were to take a chunk of 49 sq miles of chi, the population would far surpass SF, much more than 1 million people. Even the densest 24 sq miles of chicago (the loop to rogers park, and other northwest hoods) is already over 750K.
Maybe in small spots in SF it feels more vibrant or 'urban' than in Chicago, but that doesnt carry very far. Theres areas in DC or Philly as well that feel extremely urban and vibrant; but again this is only in relatively small spots compared to the rest of these cities. The huge mass of urban areas in chicago may be more patchwork and feel less vibrant compared to some cities (they are still very vibrant), but they are much greater in number and travel over far greater distances than in SF, Philly or DC. SF also when taken as a metro feels smaller than chicago, and that is because of below:
Urban Area population (best way to measure city size):
Pop/ Area /Density (pop/km2)
Chicago - 9,030,000/ 5,952/ 1,517
SF - 5,450,000/ 2,497/ 2,183
^ Urban area is not the same thing as metro population. Urban area only includes the continuous built up areas and leaves out the far flung suburbs that are separated by gaps of undeveloped land.
I guess my original point was that the area of SF between Soma and North Beach, and even including parts of the Mission District, has more of a hustle and bustle than anywhere Ive been to in Chicago.
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.
Also, I dont think Philly or DC can really come close to either SF or Chicago. My sister lives in DC and have been to Philly a few times. The most bustling areas to me there couldn't compare to Union Square/Powell or Michigan Ave. in my opinion
is
You are horribly misusing the word cosmopolitan in this post. The adjective cosmopolitan can only be used when describing a person or group of persons. It would be correct to say the city of San Francisco (which is composed of the people of San Francisco) is more cosmopolitan than Chicago. However, it would be incorrect to say that San Francisco's downtown (which is composed of inanimate structures) is more cosmopolitan than Chicago's downtown.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjacobeclark
You are horribly misusing the word cosmopolitan in this post. The adjective cosmopolitan can only be used when describing a person or group of persons. It would be correct to say the city of San Francisco (which is composed of the people of San Francisco) is more cosmopolitan than Chicago. However, it would be incorrect to say that San Francisco's downtown (which is composed of inanimate structures) is more cosmopolitan than Chicago's downtown.
You are horribly misusing the word cosmopolitan in this post. The adjective cosmopolitan can only be used when describing a person or group of persons. It would be correct to say the city of San Francisco (which is composed of the people of San Francisco) is more cosmopolitan than Chicago. However, it would be incorrect to say that San Francisco's downtown (which is composed of inanimate structures) is more cosmopolitan than Chicago's downtown.
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.
well then the densent, most vibrant places would be in jersey. It's the densent state with the densest cities (more like towns though).
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.
