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.
Wow, you went to a lot of trouble here, didn't you? I guess we're still debating because some people evidently like to have the last word.
Hey, I have yet to see a shred of data to prove that Chicagoland is more diverse than the Bay Area.
All I have seen is misplaced Bravado, personal insults, warped personal opinions, unrealistic excuses and the blame game. HELL even threats of of bodily harm(LMAO)
If anything the primary amount of white collar jobs are in Chicago Downtown though, as compared to Bay Area where they are pretty split between Silicon Valley (Greater San Jose) and SF, with a bit in downtown Oakland as well.
Chicago doesn't have a Silicon Valley or an Oakland pulling these jobs away from a city that is already almost 4x smaller in population than Chicago. Of these San Jose is the largest in land area, population and industrial development, as well as higher median income, and higher salaries. SF is also similarly a home to super wealthy so don't be mistaken. Even though SF remains a huge banking and finance center, as well as being tied into a lot of the startup crowd, the #1 industry in SF is Tourism. It is also the media and cultural center of the region no question. This takes nothing away from SF, the quality and compactness are hard to compete with, but it definitely takes away from the whole "big city" effect, or how the core serves the metro is completely obvious if you are in either...SF is pretty much completely built out, but the quality over this whole area is better than the quality over all of Chicago city limits... If it would have continued its growth through the century instead of spreading, it could very well look like Hong Kong or something now. Chicago could also very possibly get even bigger with people moving back into the city and more gentrification and up to the recent downturn in the economy was experience a pretty large building boom... Similar to what happened to New York. New York is a good 20-30 years ahead of Chicago in that department though.
I.E. NYC peaked at 7.9 million, then proceeded to shed 1 million off that down to 7...now its back to 8.3 million.
It looks like Oakland is getting revitalized a bit, and San Jose will continue to grow. SF is growing slower but the quality is going up and becoming more of one of the elite world cities. Smaller and compact, but remaining higher quality overall.
Chicago downtown job center continues to grow as well as the metro, but the population has dropped from 3.6 to 2.9 mil...In that same time in the last 60 years... SF has pretty much stayed right around 800,000... its maxed out obviously, so the only thing left to do is refine it, which it has done very well and now competes with Manhattan for some of the highest priced real estate in the United States.
Anyway, you just have to put these cities histories in perspective when talking about them.
Because it always has been treated differently than most other rivers, Chicago is the nation's only major city that doesn't disinfect its wastewater before pumping it back into the environment.
For two areas that are supposedly incomparable (claimed by almost everyone in this thread), this thread has sure ran extremely long. Like I said, I think this is the 2nd most contentious comparison after NYC vs. LA. If it wasn't comparable, then "Chicago vs. SF" or "Chicagoland vs. Bay Area" threads wouldn't run into the 15-20 page mark. You simply don't see that when its threads like "NYC vs. Phoenix".
Reading most of this thread reminds me of this picture;
Most people's opinions are already pretty set. I don't think it will change from one thread to another and that's ok. Let's agree to disagree, yeah?
If anything the primary amount of white collar jobs are in Chicago Downtown though, as compared to Bay Area where they are pretty split between Silicon Valley (Greater San Jose) and SF, with a bit in downtown Oakland as well.
Chicago doesn't have a Silicon Valley or an Oakland pulling these jobs away. Of these San Jose is the largest in land area, population and industrial development.
True.
Santa Clara, Alameda, San Mateo and Contra Costa are all major employment centers-as evidenced by the amount of income that is earned there by people who live in other counties.
But even then, Chicago proper pales in comparison to the suburbs as the place of employment. The Suburbs are the overwhelming majority-not the city.
Just like New York and everywhere else.
Well, did you notice that the SF MSA also has a higher proportion of Hispanics than the Chicago MSA.
Hispanic Population, 2008
San Francisco MSA 20.4%
Chicago MSA 19.8%
As well as a higher proportion of every group except Whites and Blacks.
In other words, for the 10th time, SF is more diverse.
It was your fellow Chicago fan that brought the term "lily white" into this conversation when he accused the Bay Area suburbs of being primarly just that...and that has lie has been squashed soundly, in fact its the Chicago counties that better fit that description.
Why are trying to get personal? That is dumb as hell.
I guess its because you can't find stats to back up anything you say.
In other words, life is not fair and all metro areas are NOT created equal.
I know.
Yes, because instead of admitting the obvious even in the face of irrefutable facts, its better to come up with a bunch of far-reaching excuses and make try to make it personal.
Good job buddy.
lol at how badly you clowned on this person...
Seriously though... 70% of the people in this thread have only been to one of them. Having been to Chicago numerous times and living in the bay, Chicago is definitely one of the top 3 cities in the country, the other two being LA and NY. That being said, the Chicago AREA is not Chicago... the Bay Area has the culture of its main cities spread across the entire area, and from what I've seen in chicago suburbs, bay area suburbs have FAR better food selection, more diverse architecture (ie you'll find victorians, Spanish architecture, Craftsmans, Gablefronts, etc. all in the same neighborhood or even street) more diverse plant life (not exactly fair but true) and a whole host of other things not including better weather and more ethnic diversity. Seriously... Chicagoland is a fairly segregated area. You see the traditional division between blacks and whites A WHOLE LOT MORE in Chicago than you do here. Hispanics tend to be in both, but there's not enough of them for it to make a sizeable difference.
If you were comparing cities, Chi>SF by a decent margin... if you're comparing Chicagoland to the bay area, the bay > Chicagoland by a bigger margin. The bay has far more going for it than SF while Chicagoland would be nothing without Chicago.
Seriously though... 70% of the people in this thread have only been to one of them. Having been to Chicago numerous times and living in the bay, Chicago is definitely one of the top 3 cities in the country, the other two being LA and NY. That being said, the Chicago AREA is not Chicago... the Bay Area has the culture of its main cities spread across the entire area, and from what I've seen in chicago suburbs, bay area suburbs have FAR better food selection, more diverse architecture (ie you'll find victorians, Spanish architecture, Craftsmans, Gablefronts, etc. all in the same neighborhood or even street) more diverse plant life (not exactly fair but true) and a whole host of other things not including better weather and more ethnic diversity. Seriously... Chicagoland is a fairly segregated area. You see the traditional division between blacks and whites A WHOLE LOT MORE in Chicago than you do here. Hispanics tend to be in both, but there's not enough of them for it to make a sizeable difference.
If you were comparing cities, Chi>SF by a decent margin... if you're comparing Chicagoland to the bay area, the bay > Chicagoland by a bigger margin. The bay has far more going for it than SF while Chicagoland would be nothing without Chicago.
Nice post, I agree on all of that. except the clowning, they are both just coming from different angles. I am not a suburban type person but, if one were, the Bay Area suburbs are some of, if not the nicest in the United States IMHO.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower
For two areas that are supposedly incomparable (claimed by almost everyone in this thread), this thread has sure ran extremely long. Like I said, I think this is the 2nd most contentious comparison after NYC vs. LA. If it wasn't comparable, then "Chicago vs. SF" or "Chicagoland vs. Bay Area" threads wouldn't run into the 15-20 page mark. You simply don't see that when its threads like "NYC vs. Phoenix".
Reading most of this thread reminds me of this picture;
Most people's opinions are already pretty set. I don't think it will change from one thread to another and that's ok. Let's agree to disagree, yeah?
This isn't even a comparison thread, this thread is about where the OP should live. LOL!
I've been saying the same thing as you since my very first post, even reposted the OP's post to get it to swing back in the right direction, but it's not happening.
Oh don't forget the LA- Chicago threads, those tend to end in a stale mate with various name calling and Dementor dementoring as usual with LosAngelesNightmare and his multiple aliases going "LA owns".
NYC- LA
Chicago- SF
LA- Chicago
Boston- Philadelphia
Those threads are always going to end in a stalemate, no question about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Hey, I have yet to see a shred of data to prove that Chicagoland is more diverse than the Bay Area.
I honestly don't see how there is even data available to support a claim such as that.
This isn't even a comparison thread, this thread is about where the OP should live. LOL!
I've been saying the same thing as you since my very first post, even reposted the OP's post to get it to swing back in the right direction, but it's not happening.
Oh don't forget the LA- Chicago threads, those tend to end in a stale mate with various name calling and Dementor dementoring as usual with LosAngelesNightmare and his multiple aliases going "LA owns".
NYC- LA
Chicago- SF
LA- Chicago
Boston- Philadelphia
Those threads are always going to end in a stalemate, no question about it.
I honestly don't see how there is even data available to support a claim such as that.
The Bay Area tends to be overrated on this site. It's a nice place, but people really tend to over exaggerate it. Chicago tends to win these threads, as I am sure one could easily find 400 of them on this very topic, all showing Chicago as a clear winner. The same holds true even for the Chicago vs L.A threads.
Chicago isn't more diverse than the Bay Area. Chicago's suburbs tend to be majority white, and even the diverse ones tend to be near 60% white (on the N. Shore anyway).
They're both nice, most people just prefer Chicago.
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.
