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.
finalcut-- It's just a suggestion. All we hear is how great the Pacific is and it's value to SF. If it's so great, why not try swimming it? You can swim in Lake Michigan (one of Chicago's attributes). That's all. You should try it too.
I know I can but the lake is warm enough maybe a month every year.
I also like the waves. Pacific is a great value as cities located on the Pacific (or Atlantic) are naturally "America's windows to the world" and enjoy greater diversity and cultural prominence then in-land located cities.
I know I can but the lake is warm enough maybe a month every year.
I also like the waves. Pacific is a great value as cities located on the Pacific (or Atlantic) are naturally "America's windows to the world" and enjoy greater diversity and cultural prominence then in-land located cities.
Note up front: this is off topic, but a good discussion nonetheless. thefinalcut and I will wrap up our discussion of beaches, waves, oceans, lakes and boogie boards shortly.
thefinalcut: Disagree and agree.
Disagree: Lake Michigan is warm enough (at least by Pacific standards) from early July through Sept. (60 - mid 70 water temps).
Agree: Yes, ocean waves are good and better than calm(er) lake waters (IMO).
Note up front: this is off topic, but a good discussion nonetheless. thefinalcut and I will wrap up our discussion of beaches, waves, oceans, lakes and boogie boards shortly.
thefinalcut: Disagree and agree.
Disagree: Lake Michigan is warm enough (at least by Pacific standards) from early July through Sept. (60 - mid 70 water temps).
Agree: Yes, I ocean waves are good and better than calm(er) lake waters.
Fair enough however the ocean offers much more than beautiful beaches.
Being an international port has its cultural advantages.
I just don't like how people from California automatically assume their cities have a greater influence just because they are from California. If that makes sense
Ooh and while we're on the top of Cali cities..
San Diego/San Fran >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LA!
Why does everyone pair SF and San diego like this? Have you even tryed LA why do you dislike it?
Chicago is the heart of theatre and opera in the United States. The Lyrical Opera is the most highly regarded institution currently, although for America that's more like winning a race when the other contestants are a day late.
For every television series you watch, for every play you go to, for every show or program or artist you listen to... I recommend looking into their background. Chicago produces an astounding number of commercial heavy-weights, literary geniuses and cultural institutions. It would perhaps surprise many here, but San Franciscans and their supposed bohemian wonderland are not by any measure highly-regarded enough to be welcomed into the homes of the university professionals of Chicago. You'd be hard pressed to find a more starchy, old-fashioned group of poets and scholars than the University of Chicago (my alma mater), even on the east coast. Beyond Chicago, NYC or Boston they regard the rest of the nation as empty wasteland for their craft.
Do not ask their opinion on Hollywood.
San Francisco is a consumer of culture but certainly not a producer. The citizens like to think of themselves as artsy, but there's very little there that is ever reflected on the national scene. When your city has nothing but computer programmers who think the Dandy Warhols are "happening", you really tend to lag behind in the creation of artistic capital.
And contrary to popular belief, Chicago has a significantly greater number of people living as "artists" than San Francisco. Yes, Chicago, the heavy, cold, post-industrial city in the midwest. In the middle of farmland (incidentally, San Francisco is also located to the left of a vast swath of completely empty farmland; the difference is that Northern California is so severely water-deprived right now that the fields are fallow and poorer than ever).
Chicago contributes significantly more to pop culture than San Francisco. Comedy groups and musicians and art schools, theatres and talent pools... I believe many will have to have their idea of Chicago firmly rearranged, but this is the truth.
Actually, San Francisco contributes almost nothing to American culture of any kind. The very culture people associate with San Francisco was misappropriated by cultureless Californians. You are new money. You took culture from New York and Chicago, the fine dining and the cultural eateries, and you made the form without the substance. I don't care how many wine and cheese shops San Francisco opens, trying to think of SF as "cultured" is hard to do when that culture is only mimicked from the uglier, industrial cities of decades past.
Hell, even tech and science are developed outside San Francisco. SF is where the venture capitalists own homes, not where the actual beneficiaries of the funds themselves live or work.
If we were to have an honest comparison between the contributions of two cities regarding popular culture, it would be between LA and Chicago. I think Los Angeles would win, but even then, I do not at all think it would be by a wide margin if the truth were known by more people.
Chicago is the heart of theatre and opera in the United States. The Lyrical Opera is the most highly regarded institution currently, although for America that's more like winning a race when the other contestants are a day late.
For every television series you watch, for every play you go to, for every show or program or artist you listen to... I recommend looking into their background. Chicago produces an astounding number of commercial heavy-weights, literary geniuses and cultural institutions. It would perhaps surprise many here, but San Franciscans and their supposed bohemian wonderland are not by any measure highly-regarded enough to be welcomed into the homes of the university professionals of Chicago. You'd be hard pressed to find a more starchy, old-fashioned group of poets and scholars than the University of Chicago (my alma mater), even on the east coast. Beyond Chicago, NYC or Boston they regard the rest of the nation as empty wasteland for their craft.
Do not ask their opinion on Hollywood.
San Francisco is a consumer of culture but certainly not a producer. The citizens like to think of themselves as artsy, but there's very little there that is ever reflected on the national scene. When your city has nothing but computer programmers who think the Dandy Warhols are "happening", you really tend to lag behind in the creation of artistic capital.
And contrary to popular belief, Chicago has a significantly greater number of people living as "artists" than San Francisco. Yes, Chicago, the heavy, cold, post-industrial city in the midwest. In the middle of farmland (incidentally, San Francisco is also located to the left of a vast swath of completely empty farmland; the difference is that Northern California is so severely water-deprived right now that the fields are fallow and poorer than ever).
Chicago contributes significantly more to pop culture than San Francisco. Comedy groups and musicians and art schools, theatres and talent pools... I believe many will have to have their idea of Chicago firmly rearranged, but this is the truth.
Actually, San Francisco contributes almost nothing to American culture of any kind. The very culture people associate with San Francisco was misappropriated by cultureless Californians. You are new money. You took culture from New York and Chicago, the fine dining and the cultural eateries, and you made the form without the substance. I don't care how many wine and cheese shops San Francisco opens, trying to think of SF as "cultured" is hard to do when that culture is only mimicked from the uglier, industrial cities of decades past.
Hell, even tech and science are developed outside San Francisco. SF is where the venture capitalists own homes, not where the actual beneficiaries of the funds themselves live or work.
If we were to have an honest comparison between the contributions of two cities regarding popular culture, it would be between LA and Chicago. I think Los Angeles would win, but even then, I do not at all think it would be by a wide margin if the truth were known by more people.
Chicago bashing has to stop so Chicago boasting can start?
I do not think of Chicago as the second most prominent city. Historically there were other more prominent cities in the US: Philly, Boston and DC have always been America's prominent cities only at the very end losing their stature to New York. All of the mentioned above cities had profound impact on the US politics and culture, in my opinion much more profound than Chicago which is simply to young to score a real impact on anything.
Now, talking about the world... Being in Europe right now I can't think of one aspect where Chicago has ever dominated or influenced the world.
DC as the capitol of the most powerful nation in the world, NY as a financial and cultural giant, LA as a global entertainement hub, but Chicago? How? When?
It seems to me that the so-called Chicago bashing only exists in your minds as a reaction to whenever the rest of the country or the world does not agree with your own assesement of your own city.
Chicago bashing has to stop so Chicago boasting can start?
I do not think of Chicago as the second most prominent city. Historically there were other more prominent cities in the US: Philly, Boston and DC have always been America's prominent cities only at the very end losing their stature to New York. All of the mentioned above cities had profound impact on the US politics and culture, in my opinion much more profound than Chicago which is simply to young to score a real impact on anything.
Now, talking about the world... Being in Europe right now I can't think of one aspect where Chicago has ever dominated or influenced the world.
DC as the capitol of the most powerful nation in the world, NY as a financial and cultural giant, LA as a global entertainement hub, but Chicago? How? When?
It seems to me that the so-called Chicago bashing only exists in your minds as a reaction to whenever the rest of the country or the world does not agree with your own assesement of your own city.
Chicago has suprassed Philadelphia as the nation's 2nd "prominent" city like in the year 1900. Chicago has had a long reign of being America's #2 city. Although if we were talking about the 18th and 19th century, it would go to Philadelphia.
Chicago is the heart of theatre and opera in the United States. The Lyrical Opera is the most highly regarded institution currently, although for America that's more like winning a race when the other contestants are a day late.
For every television series you watch, for every play you go to, for every show or program or artist you listen to... I recommend looking into their background. Chicago produces an astounding number of commercial heavy-weights, literary geniuses and cultural institutions. It would perhaps surprise many here, but San Franciscans and their supposed bohemian wonderland are not by any measure highly-regarded enough to be welcomed into the homes of the university professionals of Chicago. You'd be hard pressed to find a more starchy, old-fashioned group of poets and scholars than the University of Chicago (my alma mater), even on the east coast. Beyond Chicago, NYC or Boston they regard the rest of the nation as empty wasteland for their craft.
Do not ask their opinion on Hollywood.
San Francisco is a consumer of culture but certainly not a producer. The citizens like to think of themselves as artsy, but there's very little there that is ever reflected on the national scene. When your city has nothing but computer programmers who think the Dandy Warhols are "happening", you really tend to lag behind in the creation of artistic capital.
And contrary to popular belief, Chicago has a significantly greater number of people living as "artists" than San Francisco. Yes, Chicago, the heavy, cold, post-industrial city in the midwest. In the middle of farmland (incidentally, San Francisco is also located to the left of a vast swath of completely empty farmland; the difference is that Northern California is so severely water-deprived right now that the fields are fallow and poorer than ever).
Chicago contributes significantly more to pop culture than San Francisco. Comedy groups and musicians and art schools, theatres and talent pools... I believe many will have to have their idea of Chicago firmly rearranged, but this is the truth.
Actually, San Francisco contributes almost nothing to American culture of any kind. The very culture people associate with San Francisco was misappropriated by cultureless Californians. You are new money. You took culture from New York and Chicago, the fine dining and the cultural eateries, and you made the form without the substance. I don't care how many wine and cheese shops San Francisco opens, trying to think of SF as "cultured" is hard to do when that culture is only mimicked from the uglier, industrial cities of decades past.
Hell, even tech and science are developed outside San Francisco. SF is where the venture capitalists own homes, not where the actual beneficiaries of the funds themselves live or work.
If we were to have an honest comparison between the contributions of two cities regarding popular culture, it would be between LA and Chicago. I think Los Angeles would win, but even then, I do not at all think it would be by a wide margin if the truth were known by more people.
San Francisco has contributed a ton to culture. You are straight tripping. Maybe you don't know but SF is the most bitten off region of the US.
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.
