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.
How did you judge the order for culture and food? And please don't say "because NYC is bigger than Chicago and Chicago is bigger than SF."
Culture's not close-- NYC and Chicago, then SF is distant. Lets talk music, museums, etc. SF is not in the conversation. Food is close for all three. I think it's a toss-up betwen the three. If pressed, I think NYC, Chicago, then San Francisco is the right order, but I will say food is the one category that SF distinguishes itself in. Depending on cuisine, even day of week, it's a toss-up.
As far as the quality of life thing goes, it's harder in NYC to have a better quality of life the less money you have, but if you have enough money, your quality of life is pretty good still.
I don't get this cost of living argument with quality of life. Because let's be honest here, NYC is a league of it's own in this country. Chicago doesn't come close and certainly not San Francisco. A lot of people live there for that level of life. If they were looking for that level how can they have a better quality of life in Chicago?
If it makes any difference, I am pretty sure there are far more rich, upper middle class etc people with more money than in Chicago and San Francisco.
If I had to choose between these three cities. I would pick SF every single day of the week. I am glad you made the 3 options so easy of a choice. cause this isn't even close.
I have lived in both NYC and Chicago and visited SF a bunch of times:
Here is how I would rate ' em on the OP's criteria
1. Food - all are fantastic! And this would be the closest category, and for different cuisines, different cities would come out on top, but finally NYC> Chicago>SF
2. Arts scene. 10 years ago NYC by a lot, but the city has gotten increasingly corporate, os its much more of a place you go once you've made it, than a place you go to be creative, but the scale of creative activities still dwarfs anywhere in the US except perhaps L.A., and the best museums in the country by a long way. So NYC still first. Chicago has great museums, a fabulous theatre scene, excellent live music and generally impeccable high culture amenities. SF is a very distant third and not really in the league of the other two, even if you count the whole Bay Area. Oakland has a more interesting arts scene than SF.
3. Nightlife. NYC - economies of scale matter here - way more variety and quantity of nightlife options than anywhere in the US. Chicago is pretty great too, though generally more of a bar town than a club town. SF does not belong in this conversation. The 2am last call really hurts nightlife. SF is decent for early evening life but for nightlife kinda sucks.
4. Quality of life: this one is more subjective, but for me quality of life is connected to cost of living and since Chicago offers much more bang for your buck than the other 2, on this measure: Chicago>NYC>Chicago.
i have lived in both nyc and chicago and visited sf a bunch of times:
Here is how i would rate ' em on the op's criteria
1. Food - all are fantastic! And this would be the closest category, and for different cuisines, different cities would come out on top, but finally nyc> chicago>sf
2. Arts scene. 10 years ago nyc by a lot, but the city has gotten increasingly corporate, os its much more of a place you go once you've made it, than a place you go to be creative, but the scale of creative activities still dwarfs anywhere in the us except perhaps l.a., and the best museums in the country by a long way. So nyc still first. Chicago has great museums, a fabulous theatre scene, excellent live music and generally impeccable high culture amenities. Sf is a very distant third and not really in the league of the other two, even if you count the whole bay area. Oakland has a more interesting arts scene than sf.
3. Nightlife. Nyc - economies of scale matter here - way more variety and quantity of nightlife options than anywhere in the us. Chicago is pretty great too, though generally more of a bar town than a club town. Sf does not belong in this conversation. The 2am last call really hurts nightlife. Sf is decent for early evening life but for nightlife kinda sucks.
4. Quality of life: This one is more subjective, but for me quality of life is connected to cost of living and since chicago offers much more bang for your buck than the other 2, on this measure: Chicago>nyc>chicago.
Culture's not close-- NYC and Chicago, then SF is distant. Lets talk music, museums, etc. SF is not in the conversation. Food is close for all three. I think it's a toss-up betwen the three. If pressed, I think NYC, Chicago, then San Francisco is the right order, but I will say food is the one category that SF distinguishes itself in. Depending on cuisine, even day of week, it's a toss-up.
I agree with you on museums and music. As far as food, I'd place Chicago last. As far as culture I don't see how SF is a distant last? Having been to Chicago, though not for a long period of time, it did feel like a large mid western city in many ways. SF definitely feels more international to me than Chicago did.
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.
