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.
Interesting. So many people I know, including myself, would say exactly the opposite. Also, it's a little hard to believe of these three cities, Chicago is the highest tax city of them all. None of these are low-tax cities.
I think that's a pretty tough argument to make. SF and Chicago are also so much more similar to each other than either are to NYC.
Really? Not seeing strong similarities, at all, between Chicago and SF.
NYC and SF are both very expensive coastal cities that tend to attract somewhat similar types. Chicago is a different type of city, with different cost structure and attracts a different type.
Really? Not seeing strong similarities, at all, between Chicago and SF.
NYC and SF are both very expensive coastal cities that tend to attract somewhat similar types. Chicago is a different type of city, with different cost structure and attracts a different type.
Chicago and SF are both mid-sized and mid-level cities which try to make constant comparisons to NYC. They share similar densities of neighborhoods and levels of activity.
Chicago and SF are both mid-sized and mid-level cities which try to make constant comparisons to NYC. They share similar densities of neighborhoods and levels of activity.
That might be the first time in my life I have heard Chicago referred to as "mid-sized" or a "mid-level" city. Whoa.
Really? Not seeing strong similarities, at all, between Chicago and SF.
NYC and SF are both very expensive coastal cities that tend to attract somewhat similar types. Chicago is a different type of city, with different cost structure and attracts a different type.
Not really, most transient professionals I know have these 3 on their list of places they would live (or have lived), exempting everywhere else. For folks into a truly urban lifestyle, NYC/Chicago/San Fran generally come up 1-3. For that reason, I can understand the Chicago/SF comparison, considering both offer a scaled-down NYC-style urbanity, yet neither can touch the volume of NYC, as it's so much larger that comparisons are quantitatively unfair.
Interesting. So many people I know, including myself, would say exactly the opposite. Also, it's a little hard to believe of these three cities, Chicago is the highest tax city of them all. None of these are low-tax cities.
Who would say its the highest tax city of them?? It has a lower income tax than the average person in NYC or San Fran, the sales taxes are similar (8.75%, 8.875%, 9.25%), and the housing prices are much cheaper with cheaper property taxes.
SF is more similar to NYC in housing costs than either is to Chicago.
Yeah but that's one factor. I mean, Honolulu's housing costs are more similar to those of San Francisco and New York, so are the three of them more similar to each other overall than any are to Chicago? I think the more factors you take into account, the more New York seems to pull away from the rest of the pack so to speak. Population being the obvious one, city and metro, but also things like transit ridership, GDP, etc.
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.
