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.
well honestly I believe chicago is an all around better city...sanfran has better weather.....Chicago is "Chicago"..This city fathered skyscrapers..is home to some of the most iconic teams and players in history. Its diverse, exciting, and cheaper than living on the coasts. We can talk culture, food etc all day and chicago has it all...there is really nothing that any of the other cities possess that chicago doesn't..over all sanfran just doesn't compare
well honestly I believe chicago is an all around better city...sanfran has better weather.....Chicago is "Chicago"..This city fathered skyscrapers..is home to some of the most iconic teams and players in history. Its diverse, exciting, and cheaper than living on the coasts. We can talk culture, food etc all day and chicago has it all...there is really nothing that any of the other cities possess that chicago doesn't..over all sanfran just doesn't compare
And SF isn't. SF and the Bay Area is home to just as many iconic teams and players for their respective franchises as Chicago and perhaps more. There is perhaps more homegrown sports talent as well. And the bay has produced more musical talent than Chicago in most genres and is home to counter-culture, much of what has has a HUGE impact on Chicago and the rest of the country.
The Bay is more diverse, food is even though I think the quality of seafood, nearby wine country, and produce pushes SF over Chicago in the food category. The outdoor amenities and beauty of SF far exceeds that of Chicago and their is little that the Chicago has that the Bay doesn't offer and vice versa. Two great cities, indeed, but for me the greater diversity, culture, beauty, and access to so much more activities that I am into--pushes the Bay ahead of Chicago imo.
SF is overall more dense than Chicago and not by a slight margin either and it is arguably more urban, and definitely more cosmopolitan.
CA's has almost double the population of the next largest state... if it didn't then CA would be the safest state in the union.
But yea, its real funny when people talk about SF like its disneyland or something when its the only city in the bay other than Pittsburg and Richmond that still has housing projects... rofl
No and no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650
Well, buddy, feel free to hold onto whatever incorrect opinion you want. I mean the world still needs clowns too, so don't hold back on my account.
If you think the fact that Chicaaaaag has more residents is enough criteria in itself to determine which place is the most popular, then you lack the critical thinking ability to even hold a discussion on what would and what wouldn't actually determine a city's popularity. SF is maxed out and Chicago is 5 times larger yet only has about 3 1/2 times the population of SF, so I could just as easily argue that if SF were Chicago's size your one lone criteria would make Chicago the loser anyway lol. That's an idiotic argument, and a very simplistic way of viewing things. But go ahead and stick to whatever is within your capacity.v
That would be like me saying that if Chicago were as dense as San Francisco that we'd have even more people. That argument doesn't fly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650
LMFAO pwned!
You make a compelling argument, I can see why people respect you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650
They wouldn't really be equivalent since they'd be in Chicago. No one would pay that much for them in Chicago. People want to be in SF bad enough to pay a higher price.
Then this goes back to what you said before, why does Chicagoland have a higher population?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeusEx
If you haven't read my previous post, they have actually been in criticism of USNews; that particular list factors in several non-academic factors, such as alumni donation rate, etc, that have long been known to skew the data in favor of private institutions. USNews should go mainly by selectivity, the acceptance rate is arguably a better judge of quality than who donates more.
Okay, so you support it when it supports you. Good way of never being wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Absolutely.
Yes, the first USNWR University Ranking came out in 1983 or 1984(cant remember) to the dismay of Ivy League Schools, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, UVA and I believe U. of Washington(Seattle) and North Carolina and possibly Wisconsin were ranked in the top 20. Berkeley was in the Top 5, Michigan, UCLA and UVA were between 6-10. It caused a huge uproar in the halls of prestigious privates.
I think there is even a copy of the first edition at UC Berkeley's library.
Anyway, the Ivies lobbied super hard to have alumni-giving weigh heavily-enough to permanently shut out the public elites from the Top 20. Its actually quite scandalous.
Because based on actual academics, it doesnt make sense that schools with such stellar graduate programs are somehow going to be sub-par at the undergrad level.
They are probably foaming at the mouth trying to manipulate the graduate school rankings as well. Its all hilarious.
Even the President of Princeton said in an interview once that Berkeley is easily among the 5 best Universities in the United States.
You were admanant about using these statistics earlier in this thread, now you are saying why they aren't correct?
Nineties Flavor-There are housing projects in more cities than just SF, Richmond, and Pittsburgh in the Bay. Notably there are still large projects in Marin City, Oakland, and Vallejo. There is also section 8 housing all over the place.
That would be like me saying that if Chicago were as dense as San Francisco that we'd have even more people. That argument doesn't fly.
You make a compelling argument, I can see why people respect you.
Then this goes back to what you said before, why does Chicagoland have a higher population?
Okay, so you support it when it supports you. Good way of never being wrong.
You were admanant about using these statistics earlier in this thread, now you are saying why they aren't correct?
SF is resticted in growth as it is on a penisula surrounded by water on 3 sides. Since the city hasn't and won't annex anything on the penisula the growth of SF is restricted to up not out. Chicago is much larger in area, thus giving it more people, and the fact that it is so cheap and a lot of people would love to live in SF but simply cannot afford it. You could take SF and add the surrounding Bay Area to equal Chicagos' area and you would have a similar population.
And SF isn't. SF and the Bay Area is home to just as many iconic teams and players for their respective franchises as Chicago and perhaps more.
I don't see that at all, aside from the Niners I don't see what Bay Area team is as iconic as any of the Chicago teams. The Bulls and Cubs are more iconic and have a more interesting history than any of their Bay Area counterparts. People outside the Bay Area really don't care much about its teams.
I don't see that at all, aside from the Niners I don't see what Bay Area team is as iconic as any of the Chicago teams. The Bulls and Cubs are more iconic and have a more interesting history than any of their Bay Area counterparts. People outside the Bay Area really don't care much about its teams.
The 49ers are a huge one. They are perhaps the most iconic team in all of sports history. Top 5 for sure. The Giants, excluding their tenure in NY, are more iconic, have had better teams, and more prestigious players far exceeding the cubs imo. The same is true for the A's over the White Sox and the Raiders are over the Bears as well. The Bulls are of course more iconic than the Warriors and the Blackhawks over the Sharks too, but it stops there.
I could care less about Chicago teams or any other teams for that matter. Anyways a diehard fan only cares about the teams that they love--their teams. Most people in any metro who are fans of that metros' team could really care less about other metros' teams.
Also the Raiders and 49ers sell more apparell historically (not sure about today) than any teams in Chicago. Raiders apparell is probaly the most recognizable team apparel in football and the most popular as well.
The 49ers are a huge one. They are perhaps the most iconic team in all of sports history. Top 5 for sure. The Giants, excluding their tenure in NY, are more iconic, have had better teams, and more prestigious players far exceeding the cubs imo. The same is true for the A's over the White Sox and the Raiders are over the Bears as well. The Bulls are of course more iconic than the Warriors and the Blackhawks over the Sharks too, but it stops there.
I could care less about Chicago teams or any other teams for that matter. Anyways a diehard fan only cares about the teams that they love--their teams. Most people in any metro who are fans of that metros' team could really care less about other metros' teams.
Also the Raiders and 49ers sell more apparell historically (not sure about today) than any teams in Chicago. Raiders apparell is probaly the most recognizable team apparel in football and the most popular as well.
I definitely disagree with you...
you are totally wrong imho on the bears and giants/a's man... seriously nobody cares about them outside the bay area. People actually despise them now nationally because of Bonds... Cubs/bears/bulls all have pretty good national followings, largely thanks to WGN...
The Raiders is the only other one with a national following, mostly in the black community.
lol @ this 49ers most iconic in sports history? is that a joke? ever heard of the yankees...celtics? lakers??? they are top 5 for football, not all sports though (if that is what u meant)
I definitely disagree with you...
you are totally wrong imho on the bears and giants/a's man... seriously nobody cares about them outside the bay area. People actually despise them now nationally because of Bonds... Cubs/bears/bulls all have pretty good national followings, largely thanks to WGN...
The Raiders is the only other one with a national following, mostly in the black community.
lol @ this 49ers most iconic in sports history? is that a joke? ever heard of the yankees...celtics? lakers??? they are top 5 for football, not all sports though (if that is what u meant)
I said they were perhaps the most. They are right up there beside the Yankees, Celtics, and Lakers...in the top 5. Although I do agree that the Yankees are the most. Why do you act like they are far from the top? They def are not. And no, the Giants and A's are more iconic than the Cubs. The A's have actually won multiple world series. Maybe I am wrong about the Bears, but they still pale in the history books and fan base in comparison to the 49ers and Raiders.
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.
. SF and the Bay Area is home to just as many iconic teams and players for their respective franchises as Chicago and perhaps more. There is perhaps more homegrown sports talent as well. And the bay has produced more musical talent than Chicago in most genres and is home to counter-culture, much of what has has a HUGE impact on Chicago and the rest of the country. 
. Maybe I am wrong about the Bears, but they still pale in the history books and fan base in comparison to the 49ers and Raiders.