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.
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.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with Chicago, but it definitely is more urban than it's density would imply. San Francisco doesn't have the large swaths of industry. If you were to look at Chicago's north side, which is most comparable to San Francisco itself, you'd actually see that's it's more dense :O, and looks/feels more urban. That may sounds like a cop out, but Chicago is 227 sq miles, San Francisco is less than 50. It's very hard to maintain such high densities over such large areas of land. The only U.S city capable of this is obviously New York. If anything, I'd say it's more impressive that Chicago can maintain almost 13,000 people per square mile over 227 sq miles than San Francisco having 18,000 over 48 sq miles, or however big it is.
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.
And they would be right...
The concept of Urbanized Areas as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau is often used as a more accurate gauge of the size of a city, since in different cities and states the lines between city borders and the urbanized area of that city are often not the same. For example, the city of Greenville, South Carolina has a city population under 60,000 but an urbanized area over 300,000, while Greensboro, North Carolina has a city population over 200,000 but an urbanized area population of around 270,000 — meaning that Greenville is actually "larger"
The largest urban area in the United States is that of New York City, with its city proper population exceeding 8 million and its metropolitan area population almost 19 million. The next four largest urban areas in the U.S. are those of Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami and Philadelphia.[10]
Chicago is 8.3 Million Urbanized Area continuously.
SF is 3.2 million....
Sorry but I think I will go with the U.S. Census Bureau and my own experience over random forum posters who have never been to both areas, much less lived there.
Again, SF can compete on quality on many levels and statistics with Chicago, but Chicago is definitely the much bigger, size, feel, however you want to put it up city. They aren't even really close honestly.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with Chicago, but it definitely is more urban than it's density would imply. San Francisco doesn't have the large swaths of industry. If you were to look at Chicago's north side, which is most comparable to San Francisco itself, you'd actually see that's it's more dense :O, and looks/feels more urban.
That may sounds like a cop out, but Chicago is 227 sq miles, San Francisco is less than 50. It's very hard to maintain such high densities over such large areas of land. The only U.S city capable of this is obviously New York. If anything, I'd say it's more impressive that Chicago can maintain almost 13,000 people per square mile over 227 sq miles than San Francisco having 18,000 over 48 sq miles, or however big it is.
Like I said, I'm not arguing one way or the other. I don't have much experience in Chicago, but I have no doubt its every bit as urban as you say.
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)
Quote:
October 5, 2009 — New York City tops the list of cities that people would most like to live in or near, followed by Denver and San Francisco.
These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,498 U.S. adults surveyed online between August 10 and 18, 2009 by Harris Interactive.
New York City has topped the list of cities where the most people would like to live in or near, every year, since 1997, except in 1998 when it slipped behind San Francisco. However, Denver and San Francisco, now tied for second place, have moved up from # 9 and # 4 last year. This is the first time in the thirteen year series that Denver has placed higher than #4.
California tops the list of states that Americans would choose to live in if they did not live in the states where they are now. Florida, which was the most popular state in 2001, retains second place on the list and Hawaii is number three, as it was in 2007.
Most Popular Cities People Want to Move to:
1. New York City
=2. Denver =2. San Francisco
4. San Diego
5. Seattle 6. Chicago
7. Boston
8. Las Vegas
9. Washington, DC
10. Dallas
11. Austin
12. Nashville
13. Atlanta
14. Orlando
15. Los Angeles
Chicago proper is NOT where the majority of people in Chicagoland work-most of them work in suburbs, just like every other Metro Area, no principal city accounts for 50.1%+ of all jobs.
San Francisco is the region's financial center, the region's media center, the region's retail hub, the region's cultural and entertainment heart and so on.
Whether at CSA or MSA level, SF is more diverse than Chicago.
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI MSA
Total Population, 2008: 9,568,532
Non Hispanic White 5,353,766...55.9%
Black 1,655,199...17.2%
Native American 11,108...0.01%
Asian 501,231...5.2%
Native Hawaiian/ Pac. Islander 1,683...0.008%
Other Race 30,445...0.03%
Multiracial 111,367...1.1%
Hispanic 1,903,733...19.8% Foreign Born Populaion 1,689,617...17.6%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA MSA
Total Population, 2008: 4,274,531
Non Hispanic White 1,932,923...45.2%
Black 352,026...8.2%
Native American 8,918...0.2%
Asian 933,635...21.8%
Native Hawaiian/ Pac. Islander 27,105...0.6%
Other Race 19,808...0.4%
Multiracial 127,332...2.9%
Hispanic 872,784...20.4% Foreign Born Population 1,258,274...29.4%
Its so funny that some are actually arguing as if there's a different perspective that actually makes Chicago more diverse. LOL
Well, what I suspect is that many people out there think its odd for there to be so many rich colored folks-who are a dime a dozen in the Bay Area-I thought it was like that everywhere-guess not.
Well, the Bay Area also has more wealthy Hispanic households as well as more college educated Hispanics-despite have less Hispanics overall.
Hispanic Households Earning $100,000+, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 92,076
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 67,626
Hispanic Households Earning $200,000+, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 15,625
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 7,186
Hispanics Age 25+ with a Bachelor Degree or Higher, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 135,075
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 117,858
But its apparent that more immigrants actually attain the American Dream in the Bay Area.
Foreign Born Individuals who earn $75,000+ Annually, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 348,273
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 144,824
Foreign Born Residents with a Bachelor Degree or Higher, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 704,010
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 399,333
I don't know why we're still debating this topic?
You are using faulty logic and embellishing points.
And you have the great reputation for hating Chicago so what you say doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calisnuffy
Who wakes up and says, "Hmmm... Illinois, thats where I want to visit!"
Well you wake up and say "I think I'm going to make another new screen name because being banned 70 times isn't enough."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jordandubreil
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
but anywho the bay area baby.
Says the poster who hasn't posted enough to have gained credibility? Give it a break, kid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk
No, probably just that it's really cheap.
Like your shots at Chicago?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TT1
Most Popular Cities People Want to Move to:
1. New York City
=2. Denver =2. San Francisco
4. San Diego
5. Seattle 6. Chicago
7. Boston
8. Las Vegas
9. Washington, DC
10. Dallas
11. Austin
12. Nashville
13. Atlanta
14. Orlando
15. Los Angeles
You are using faulty logic and embellishing points.
Yes, but this is not the entire Bay Area-just the old SF PMSA before it was combined with Oakland, and the SF PMSA was the richest and most expensive in the country before SF and Oakland were re-combined in 2001.
Furthermore, actual families do quite well.
Median Family Income, 2008
San Francisco-San Mateo City-Redwood City, CA $100,723
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI $73,950
Also, twice as many families earn over $150,000 as Chicago.
Families Earning $150,000+ Annually, 2008
San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA 30.7%
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 15.4%
Families Earning $200,000+ Annually, 2008
San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA 18.7%
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 7.9%
You are using faulty logic and embellishing points.
Here is one:
And you have the great reputation for hating Chicago so what you say doesn't matter.
Well you wake up and say "I think I'm going to make another new screen name because being banned 70 times isn't enough."
Says the poster who hasn't posted enough to have gained credibility? Give it a break, kid.
Like your shots at Chicago?
And I call this whole list bs for few reasons:
1. People complain too much about the rain and gloom for Seattle as well as the cold/heat/lack of seasons etc... for other cities.
2. Growth patterns for the cities.
you need to get a life seriously, so you go around dissing people who dont pick chicago in a thread? get out of here, and what i said speaks the truth i bet their are multiple people who make multiple accounts to give their city extra points in a poll especially chicago, and i have seen in talked about in other threads.
like the average in denial chicagoan you claim everyone who hates chicago has multiple accounts, and now your saying i dont have credibility.
1. People complain too much about the rain and gloom for Seattle as well as the cold/heat/lack of seasons etc... for other cities.
2. Growth patterns for the cities.
.............................
Quote:
Harris Poll #1 Online Research Poll for General Election Result Predictions
14 May 2010 - London: Harris Interactive’s® final prediction of the election result topped the charts as the most accurate poll produced through online research.
According to the British Polling Council, the Harris prediction was the second most accurate of nine, and the most accurate of those produced through online research. Companies’ final estimates of the outcome of the General Election were compared with the election result across Great Britain. The Harris Poll predicted that the Conservatives would receive 35% of the vote, Labour would receive 29% and that the Liberal Democrats would receive 27%. The final election result percentages
were 37% for the Conservatives, 30% for Labour and 24% for the Liberal Democrats.
Quote:
ROCHESTER, NY –November 6, 2008–(NASDAQ:HPOL) - The Harris Poll® issued its final presidential popular vote predictions late on election eve: Senator Obama
On average, preelection polls from 23 public polling organizations projected a Democratic advantage of 7.52 percentage points on Election Day, which is only about 1.37 percentage points away from the current estimate of a 6.15-point Obama margin in the national popular vote.
"The 2008 presidential election provided us with a unique opportunity to further prove the effectiveness of our online survey methods," said Kimberly Till, CEO of Harris Interactive. "Election predictions are highly public tests of the efficacy of any methodology, and Harris Interactive proved once again that our online research methods are fast, are very accurate, and are equal to, if not better than the best in the industry."
Sorry. I know you may not like the results since Chicago is below San Francisco, but this study was done by a very respected/accurate firm.
Yes, but this is not the entire Bay Area-just the old SF PMSA before it was combined with Oakland, and the SF PMSA was the richest and most expensive in the country before SF and Oakland were re-combined in 2001.
So, if anything, it adds to my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jordandubreil
you need to get a life seriously, so you go around dissing people who dont pick chicago in a thread? get out of here, and what i said speaks the truth i bet their are multiple people who make multiple accounts to give their city extra points in a poll especially chicago, and i have seen in talked about in other threads.
like the average in denial chicagoan you claim everyone who hates chicago has multiple accounts, and now your saying i dont have credibility.
well thank you god(sarcasm)
Wow, this is the most ignorant post in a while. Have you been looking back through dementor's old posts?
Maybe you should actually read what I said before attacking me.
I don't care what city you choose, I care what you say, and the posts were either untrue or attacks on Chicago or the people in your case. How about you even go back a few pages an see what you said is a lie. But good job basing your attack from one post. Also, it's not what you say, but how you say it.
Maybe if you had been here longer than a few months, you would understand how things work and not act as if your word is the end all be all. Looking through your posts, you have attacked Chicago and its posters before.
As far as the multiple user names goes, who brought up the poll? You did. Go sift through the thousands of threads to understand what you are talking about.
Your argument doesn't hold water, and as you accuse me of all of these things, you are doing the exact same. The only difference is you don't know what you're saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TT1
.............................
Sorry. I know you may not like the results since Chicago is below San Francisco, but this study was done by a very respected/accurate firm.
Look at the above, same goes for you. Instead of guessing what I think, look it up.
I haven't said anything bad about the Bay Area ever.
I don't care about the firm, I care about the people answering the poll.
Also, literally every one of your posts involving Chicago is attacking it or the poster in some way.
I haven't said anything bad about the Bay Area ever.
I don't care about the firm, I care about the people answering the poll.
Wow, this is the most ignorant post in a while. Have you been looking back through dementor's old posts?
Other than your blatant TOS violations with this post, maybe you should actually read what I said before attacking me.
I don't care what city you choose, I care what you say, and the posts were either untrue or attacks on Chicago or the people in your case. How about you even go back a few pages an see what you said is a lie. But good job basing your attack from one post. Also, it's not what you say, but how you say it.
Maybe if you had been here longer than a few months, you would understand how things work and not act as if your word is the end all be all. Looking through your posts, you have attacked Chicago and its posters before.
As far as the multiple user names goes, who brought up the poll? You did. Go sift through the thousands of threads to understand what you are talking about.
Your argument doesn't hold water, and as you accuse me of all of these things, you are doing the exact same. The only difference is you don't know what you're saying.
ok so you only attack when people attack chicago which still has nothing to do with me , since i was just making a clear observation. and no my post isnt ignorant i am not speaking about every chicagoan, just the in denial ones that i think you fit in with.
you say i shouldn't be talking because ive only been here for a couple months, well guess what ive been following for like 2 years so........
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.
