San Francisco or Walnut Creek?

[mayorhaggar]

The Chicago suburbs are definitely not all that great. The ones closest to Chicago are really aging and kind of dumpy. The ones further out are just endless suburban sprawl and the houses are newer and bigger but then Dad has to deal with a longer commute to the Loop. There's not much going on in the suburbs there other than big malls and big box stores. Some of the towns might have entertainment stuff like skate rinks or arenas but others don't.

[NorCal Dude]

The Chicago suburbs are definitely not all that great.

Than why do 6.2 million people live in them. Thats almost the entire population of the bay area.
And we have not even thrown the city of Chicago into the picture which is bigger than SF, Oak, and SJ COMBINED.

The ones closest to Chicago are really aging and kind of dumpy.

Silliest post I've hear come out of someone from oakland yet. There is not a single suburb in the bay area that touches Oakland or SF, that looks like Winnetka, Evanston, parkridge, etc. Only thing ironic about what you saying this is that you come from Oakland, an acutall aging city that is dumpy and loosing population.

The ones further out are just endless suburban sprawl and the houses are newer and bigger but then Dad has to deal with a longer commute to the Loop.

Shows how little you know, Chicago had railroad suburbs before the car was invented. And it takes literally almost the same amount of time to get from Glen Ellyn To downtown chicago via metra rail as it does to get from walnut crack to montgomery on bart.

There's not much going on in the suburbs there other than big malls and big box stores.

Yea thats why chicago burbs have places like walnut creek with vibrant suburban down towns, suburbs with world class private colleges like Palo Alto, and suburbs with sports venues, becaue there is nothing going on there...

Some of the towns might have entertainment stuff like skate rinks or arenas but others don't.

If it has the median family income of walnut creek it will, in fact if a chicago suburb has the median family income of tracy it will. Google Rolling Meadows, Il. Working class, bunglaow burb, has no down town like dublin, and yet they have a nice pool with water slides, Ice rink, etc.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Than why do 6.2 million people live in them. Thats almost the entire population of the bay area.
And we have not even thrown the city of Chicago into the picture which is bigger than SF, Oak, and SJ COMBINED.


Silliest post I've hear come out of someone from oakland yet. There is not a single suburb in the bay area that touches Oakland or SF, that looks like Winnetka, Evanston, parkridge, etc. Only thing ironic about what you saying this is that you come from Oakland, an acutall aging city that is dumpy and loosing population.

.

Chicago's suburbs have way more people, but there are lots of boring areas all over the country with millions of people in them. Millions of people live in African shantytowns, but population alone doesn't define cool. Chicago itself is amazing, one of the best cities around. A few suburbs are cute, but aside from okay downtowns, they aren't well laid out, too sprawling, and not nearly as scenic as California.

You do forget Piedmont, which I mentioned before. Piedmont is surrounded by Oakland and is one of the most affluent suburbs in the entire country.