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.
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.
I think people on this site are obsessed with "urban" cities which is why urban cities like Chicago typically win C-D polls. The result of this poll merely shows that people perceive Chicago to be more urban than San Francisco.
I think most people would agree that the Bay area is actually a much more attractive place to live than Chicago in real life. I wonder if there are numbers for this? (non city-data numbers, of course)
I honestly don't see how there is even data available to support a claim such as that.
There isn't data because its untrue. Chicagoland is simply not as diverse as the Bay area. Big whoop, there are other more important things to discuss IMO
I think people on this site are obsessed with "urban" cities which is why urban cities like Chicago typically win C-D polls. The result of this poll merely shows that people perceive Chicago to be more urban than San Francisco.
I think most people would agree that the Bay area is actually a much more attractive place to live than Chicago in real life. I wonder if there are numbers for this? (non city-data numbers, of course)
Well since an additional 2 million people choose to live in Chicagoland over the Bay, wouldn't that indicate that it's the more desirable place to live?
I think people on this site are obsessed with "urban" cities which is why urban cities like Chicago typically win C-D polls. The result of this poll merely shows that people perceive Chicago to be more urban than San Francisco.
I think most people would agree that the Bay area is actually a much more attractive place to live than Chicago in real life. I wonder if there are numbers for this? (non city-data numbers, of course)
San Francisco is more denser than Chicago (in both city proper and metropolitan area). I like Chicago's amenities but I like San Francisco proper's temperatures and cultural activities better.
Well since an additional 2 million people choose to live in Chicagoland over the Bay, wouldn't that indicate that it's the more desirable place to live?
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.
Who wakes up and says, "Hmmm... Illinois, thats where I want to visit!"
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.
you kind of lost credibility from using a city - data poll to justify why chicago is better. for all we know all thee Chicago votes could be bloggers with multiple counts. so it proves nothing
I think people on this site are obsessed with "urban" cities which is why urban cities like Chicago typically win C-D polls. The result of this poll merely shows that people perceive Chicago to be more urban than San Francisco.
I think most people would agree that the Bay area is actually a much more attractive place to live than Chicago in real life. I wonder if there are numbers for this? (non city-data numbers, of course)
perceive? It is...how could one not? Its about 4x the population and 4x the land mass plus all the outer ring burbs flow right into it seemlessly with inner ring suburbs being undifferentiated. SF is surrounded on 3 sides by water. go north over golden gate and you are seeing horses, cows and in a state park and quiet suburbs soon as you cross it. to go east you are about 7 miles over the water and small land mass and an island before you hit oakland, south is san jose that is 40+ miles away and an hour in traffic, but these are both totally different cities with different feels, Chicago is one mega city and functions as such. East Bay, Silicon Valley, SF and the North Bay Wine countries are all doing their own thing...
the higher population density is only one aspect of "urbanity". You can't rave about the outdoor amenities close by, then all of a sudden be more urban than somewhere like Chicago...
They might be comparable in lots of other categories but that one SF definitely loses in.
This post makes me think you have never been to Chicago...
perceive? It is...how could one not? Its about 4x the population and 4x the land mass plus all the outer ring burbs flow right into it seemlessly with inner ring suburbs being undifferentiated. SF is surrounded on 3 sides by water. go north over golden gate and you are seeing horses, cows and in a state park and quiet suburbs soon as you cross it. to go east you are about 7 miles over the water before you hit oakland, south is an jose, but these are both totally different cities with different feels, Chicago is one mega city and functions as such. East Bay, Silicon Valley, SF and the North Bay Wine countries are all doing their own thing...
the higher population density is only one aspect of "urbanity". You can't rave about the outdoor amenities close by, then all of a sudden be more urban than somewhere like Chicago...
They might be comparable in lots of other categories but that one SF definitely loses in.
This post makes me think you have never been to Chicago...
People perceive Chicago to be more urban than San Francisco (I'm not arguing either way) because Chicago is larger and has more shiny, tall skyscrapers than SF. That is how most people who have never spent significant time in both cities (which I'm guessing is about 75% of the people on this website including the voters) decide what is more urban.
Well since an additional 2 million people choose to live in Chicagoland over the Bay, wouldn't that indicate that it's the more desirable place to live?
No, probably just that it's really cheap.
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.
