Chicagoans thoughts on SF (San Francisco: apartments, how much, hotel)

[ChikidII]

So I thought I would not have enough time to see things but I saw so much!

Here are the areas I saw and explored: Downtown, Tenderloin, Almost all of Embarcadero, Nob Hill, Telegraph Hill, Saw a lot of Van Ness, Mission District, Twin Peaks, Chinatown, Castro, Fishermans Wharf and North Beach. I loved SF it was just beautiful. In my opinion the most beautiful American city. Here we're my pros and cons:

Pros:
The landscape. Just amazing and IMO is really what makes SF so beautiful. The bay, the hills, the mountains, the islands, just beautiful.

The architecture. The architecture was charming and very pretty.

The diversity of the people, shops and restaurants.

Loved that fast food chains are harder to find, makes the city feel more authentic.

Cleanliness. I have heard people say SF is dirty. I found it to be clean, I find Chicago to be cleaner, but SF is almost as clean.

The street life, people out and about.

The neighborhoods and how connected they are.

The overall urban feel to it. It truly is one of Americas greatest cities.

The weather was also amazing.


Cons:

Architecture. Okay I know it was a pro but it's also a con. The architectue was very pretty but nothing special though. My main dislike though was it gets too repetitive. It's kind of like if almost the entire city has the same style in every hood. It's pretty but it's getting boring after seeing it over and over again. I do think Chicago has better overall architecture, and maybe I am not being fair, because I am just used to seeing more diversity in architecture here in the chi.

Lack of vegetation. I was surprised how little vegetation there was throughout the city. Chicago looks like a tropical rainforest in comparison (well at least in the summer).

I will say I was expecting it to be a little more beautiful, but still found his city to be amazing and absolutely beautiful. I will dare say if Chicago was plopped on San Francisco's landscape I would say it would be more beautiful than San Fran as it is now. I am not being a booster but these were just my thoughts while I visited.

[Nineties Flava]

Glad you liked SF.

On the vegetation, there actually is a lot of it in SF, it's just not in the areas tourists typically see. Here's some examples:

San Francisco - Google Maps

San Francisco - Google Maps

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by ChikidII

I will dare say if Chicago was plopped on San Francisco's landscape I would say it would be more beautiful than San Fran as it is now.

Well, keep in mind that SF has much less precipitation year-round than Chicago (as does most of the rest of California), leading to a more arid landscape in general. Also, many of the dramatic building heights that you see in Chicago are more limited in SF due to the threat of earthquakes. I would agree that the plethora of Victorians, Edwardians and Post WWII row houses tend to be a bit too repetitive.

[ChikidII]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

Glad you liked SF.

On the vegetation, there actually is a lot of it in SF, it's just not in the areas tourists typically see. Here's some examples:

San Francisco - Google Maps

San Francisco - Google Maps

Yeah I figured there had to be areas that had more vegetation especially after driving to Twin Peaks where I saw more, regardless, A big chunk of the city did not have very much.

I forgot to say my two favorite hoods were Nob Hill and the Mission District. How expensive is the Mission District? I really loved it.

[gone down south]

Remember, it doesn't rain here for 9 months straight, we don't get lush overflowing vegetation.

[ChikidII]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

Well, keep in mind that SF has much less precipitation year-round than Chicago (as does most of the rest of California), leading to a more arid landscape in general. Also, many of the dramatic building heights that you see in Chicago are more limited in SF due to the threat of earthquakes. I would agree that the plethora of Victorians, Edwardians and Post WWII row houses tend to be a bit too repetitive.

I totally understand about the vegetation. Its just I was expecting more in that category.

About architecture I wasn't really talking about SF's downtown. I was talking overall. The only area where the architecture wowed me was nob hill. I think what I didn't like was lack of diversity in the architecture. Again, I liked the buildings, but it just got to repetitive.

[ChikidII]

Originally Posted by gone down south

Remember, it doesn't rain here for 9 months straight, we don't get lush overflowing vegetation.

Yeah, I understand that now, I just always thought SF got a decent amount of precipitation. If I knew that before going I might of not has those expectations,

[SunDevil1212]

Originally Posted by ChikidII

I totally understand about the vegetation. Its just I was expecting more in that category.

About architecture I wasn't really talking about SF's downtown. I was talking overall. The only area where the architecture wowed me was nob hill. I think what I didn't like was lack of diversity in the architecture. Again, I liked the buildings, but it just got to repetitive.

I hear what you are saying. Although I will say, the longer you live here the better you can recognize the subtle differences in the architecture by neighborhood. Personally, I am a fan of the uniformity of the architecture. In Nob Hill, North Beach, Russian Hill, you find very similar three story apartments, all with the bay windows, all in a row...but all with different paint and other subtle details. For instance:

Union St

I for some reason am attracted to that - but I could certainly see how other people would find it repetitive.

[Isebiel]

Yay! Glad you enjoyed your visit. I agree with your impressions (also coming from Chicago.)

I know what you mean about the architecture. On our first visit my husband and I wound up staying in a top-floor penthouse hotel room with a fabulous view out huge windows... and it was very interesting, but the tall buildings are mostly kind of boring and ugly, compared to Chicago. Admittedly, Chicago has gorgeous skyscrapers, so that's a tough comparison. But walking around SF neighborhoods at street level, the buildings and views are consistently interesting and pretty.

I didn't realize how much less greenery there was until a month after we moved here. Walking around we happened to pass a house which had a little patch of green lawn in the front. We stopped and stared. Look at that! Lawn! Almost forgot what that looked like.

[ChikidII]

Originally Posted by Isebiel

Yay! Glad you enjoyed your visit. I agree with your impressions (also coming from Chicago.)

I know what you mean about the architecture. On our first visit my husband and I wound up staying in a top-floor penthouse hotel room with a fabulous view out huge windows... and it was very interesting, but the tall buildings are mostly kind of boring and ugly, compared to Chicago. Admittedly, Chicago has gorgeous skyscrapers, so that's a tough comparison. But walking around SF neighborhoods at street level, the buildings and views are consistently interesting and pretty.

I didn't realize how much less greenery there was until a month after we moved here. Walking around we happened to pass a house which had a little patch of green lawn in the front. We stopped and stared. Look at that! Lawn! Almost forgot what that looked like.

Agreed. I think those were the only two cons. I am not lying when I say Chicago is much greener and lusher than SF, but I wasn't aware SF didn't get that much precipitation either. With the excepetion of downtown and the industrial areas Chicago has a lot of trees and actually fairly lush, I mean every city has its cons. Chicago is too flat! Withat being said I think both SF and Chicago are the two most beautiful. In terms of natural beauty meshed with a city, SF is prettier. But as a city itself, as stand alone, Chicago is prettier. IMO they are neck in neck.