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 must be heaven-on-earth for the ultra right wing wing nuts. What could they love better than to see folks trash Chicago and San Francisco.
the tea party is eating this stuff up. Do you realize there are few places if any that the right hates as much as Chicago and San Francisco (although I imagine NY and LA are right up there).
Two cities that have so much in common and, I believe (unlike the idiocy here) really like each other are being pitted against each other like pit bulls. the lunatics cheering in the audience want them both to lose.
I think it's more a case of bored City-Data posters comparing two large cities at random because they've exhausted all other discussion ideas. Next will be Houston vs Miami or Seattle vs DC, just because. I don't think they have much in common other than being second-tier media markets (behind NY & LA) and Democratic strongholds (and even then, different kind of liberals); they were built differently, have different landscapes (landlocked vs expansive flatland), and two very different populations.
I think it's more a case of bored City-Data posters comparing two large cities at random because they've exhausted all other discussion ideas. Next will be Houston vs Miami or Seattle vs DC, just because. I don't think they have much in common other than being second-tier media markets (behind NY & LA) and Democratic strongholds (and even then, different kind of liberals); they were built differently, have different landscapes (landlocked vs expansive flatland), and two very different populations.
funny thing is that I actually think that San Francisco and Chicago have a lot in common. New York offers a centrality all its own. But the central parts of Chicago and San Francisco come next in offering the full range of central city living, working, entertainment, culture, transportation, etc.
also they are the 2 cities outside the Northeast corridor that have the most in common with the Bowash cities, sharing their density and urban experience with them like no other.
Even their opposites make them alike: no city does hills like San Francisco and no city does flat like Chicago. SF's hills like non-other (Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc.) follow the grid and go straight up and down the hills, not only making for incredible views but also great urban context. In addition, those hills are in a city surrounded by water so there is no closed in feeling with them that the river cities have.
No city does flat like Chicago. Its pancake flat is a virtue. The city is incredibly walkable from the Loop and the rest of the downtown core all the way across the neighborhoods. Chicago neighborhoods blend one into the other. and the flatness is an ideal platform for any construction project. The flatness creates a wonderful platform for the city's skyline that soars above. I think the Chicago mix of blue lake, yellow sand, green parks, with skyline as the backdrop is unparrelled.
Prairie State, you are crediting this guy with far too much intelligence. He may not be driving his minivan in Bugatti, but he very well may be a techie taking a "big white bus", the one that is gentrifying a city, San Francisco, that has already been gentrified 4 times already, from his neighborhood (probably the Mission) that is squeezing out al the poor as it squeezes out everything else on the road to carry its privileged elites down the peninsula to Palo Alto and all the other Silicon Valley outposts they reach in their reverse commute. The very techies that squeeze the life's blood out of quirky, liberal, tolerant, eccentric, diverse, funky, cool, deeply rooted, sublime San Francisco.
Yep, I really think he thinks Chicago and Northwestern don't belong in the same league, or same country, as Cal and Stanford.
I guess he can't be as lucky as me: I look at Chicago, Chicagoland, San Francisco, and the Bay Area…..and I love them all: my 2 favorite cities, my 2 favorite metros. Without feeling any need to trash either.
this guy's comments, like those of other self-centered, air heads on city-data, say far more about himself and his ability to troll, than they do about Chicago, San Francisco, or anyplace.
Exactly I wasn't knocking SF or the Bay Area I was just putting another ignorant troll in his place. SF is undeniably one of the best cities in the world and I love both Chicago and SF unfortunately he cant wake up and see that both cities are truly amazing.
Exactly I wasn't knocking SF or the Bay Area I was just putting another ignorant troll in his place. SF is undeniably one of the best cities in the world and I love both Chicago and SF unfortunately he cant wake up and see that both cities are truly amazing.
not a word you wrote could have been construed as you knocking SF/Bay Area. Assuming we are talking about a rational person doing the construing.
this thread must be heaven-on-earth for the ultra right wing wing nuts. What could they love better than to see folks trash Chicago and San Francisco.
the tea party is eating this stuff up. Do you realize there are few places if any that the right hates as much as Chicago and San Francisco (although I imagine NY and LA are right up there).
Two cities that have so much in common and, I believe (unlike the idiocy here) really like each other are being pitted against each other like pit bulls. the lunatics cheering in the audience want them both to lose.
Agreed. Both are fantastic cities.
For those who hate winter, need natural beauty, and are perhaps more "out there"... San Fran. For real grittiness, nightlife, more of a 24 hour vibe and a bigger, urban city...Chicago. Overall... Chicago.
Both cities are almost equal for restaurants and food. May the odds be in each city's favor.
Both cities are awesome and have a lot to offer. Like others have said, if you want more of a urban vibe Chicago is the place to be but San Fran can hold its own with food, culture, weather, economy, etc.
funny thing is that I actually think that San Francisco and Chicago have a lot in common.
I would say SF and Chicago are pretty different, in almost every way.
Weather, topography, politics, ethnic mix, architecture, economy, history, multimodal vs centralized, dense sprawl vs sprawly sprawl, coastal vs interior, etc.
Really the only similarity is that they're both major U.S. cities.
I would say SF and Chicago are pretty different, in almost every way.
Weather, topography, politics, ethnic mix, architecture, economy, history, multimodal vs centralized, dense sprawl vs sprawly sprawl, coastal vs interior, etc.
Really the only similarity is that they're both major U.S. cities.
Well it depends on the context in which you're comparing the two. They're similar in that they are both large, old, dense, established cities at the core of large metro areas.... so inherently there will be several commonalities based on that. I'm speaking in terms of density, amenities, transit, etc. In this regard they are more similar to each other than either are to at least 90% of American cities. But once you start talking about the metro areas... then it becomes a quite different scenario as the two metros are really almost like night and day.
Both cities are awesome and have a lot to offer. Like others have said, if you want more of a urban vibe Chicago is the place to be but San Fran can hold its own with food, culture, weather, economy, etc.
?? I'd say both are about as urban as it gets in America, save for NYC. Their vibes are different, but both are very very urban cities with very "urban-minded/conditioned" populations. Chicago is simply larger/more expansive than SF, but SF is an urban jungle in its limited square mileage. The Bay Area metro as a whole is more urban than Chicagoland, but again, its total population is smaller.
People easily go back and forth between the two on food and culture. If museums is what you like, you can't beat Chicago. If theater is what you like, I'd say SF tops Chicago. SF also "defines" new cultures, whereas Chicago embodies them. Food wise I'd personally give the edge to SF, however, Chicago is often competing with SF for 2nd great international food city of America behind New York.
Yeah what is with people pointing out the urban vibe of these two cities as one of their differences? Saying "if you want more of an urban vibe then it's Chicago, but if you want Category X, Y & Z then it's San Francisco" is somewhat offensive in this context. IMO SF is either ever so slightly below, on equal footing or slightly above Chicago in this regard. Either way, it isn't something I would consider to be a major factor when contrasting the two. I mean it's not like we are talking about Fresno vs Chicago or something. There are plenty of areas where Chicago can make a case for somewhat significantly outshining SF, I just don't see urbanity being one of them.
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.
