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.
I agree. For how small San Francisco is area-wise, it feels like you're in a HUGE city when you're in the thick of it. People are kind of aggresive and in-your-face though. Lots of crackheads and homeless in SF. Chicago had a much friendlier vibe to me...
It's funny you say that because when I grew up in SF that was the norm to me and I remember we where finally going to visit my Grandma who lived in Chicago at the time and I was excited to be in such a big city and see what a big city was really like(before I knew that SF was a "big city" and more urban than most other US cities I hadn't been to yet but had heard of) and I remember loving it but being kind of disappointed haha. All in All though I think the density in such a smaller area plays a big part to it and in reality it is only 2nd to 1.
I have been to both cities and had a great time in both. But I do agree with your observation, San Francisco is much more urban with more hustle and bustle.
But I have to say part of what I like about Chicago is that it looks like a huge city but feels like a small town.
Its true though, that Union Square/Marker Street in SF is as close as you can get to NYC (without being in NYC)
SF may be 2nd in terms of feeling "urban", but NYC is so far ahead of all the rest its not even close...
That's true,it's one thing to be 2nd to NYC but NYC itself is light years ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to being urban and vibrant.
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.
Live in Chicago and have been to San Francisco many times. To me the neighborhood vibrancy feels about the same in both cities. Chicago has a much larger downtown and I think the foot traffic on Michigan Avenue tops Union Square. I do think San Francisco has a more consistent urban fabric than Chicago and an overall better layout. Some of Chicago's urban character can feel a bit patchwork like.
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.