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.
I think the people saying that San Francisco's downtown is more active than Chicago's have not been to Chicago.
San Francisco is most certainly is not as active/vibrant as Chicago by any measure whatsoever. It's smaller and less vibrant pound for pound. Compare yourself to Boston or Philadelphia or DC-- your peer cities.
DT Chicago is active/vibrant over a larger area (obviously) but pound for pound it's pretty even. SF is smaller and more compact, so maybe that is why it can feel more crowded with people to some.
Those voting for San Fran I can only imagine have never been to Chicago. Chicago's downtown is more than twice as large. If people are going on the fact that San Fran has more people per square mile, then that's pretty lame. What does that have to do with a downtown in of itself? No offense to San Fran, but they better start worrying about Boston, Seattle and Washington before worrying about this countries second major powerhouse as far as downtowns are concerned. San Fran is in a pretty location. That's the best thing that it has going for it. That and it's dense. Other than that, it is rather small compared to the size of Chicago's downtown. That's not a guess, that's a fact. Meanwhile, Seattle has been under a small construction boom, D.C. is getting larger and Boston is starting to grow again. In the last ten years there haven't been a whole lot of growth in San Fran.
Last edited by supermanpansy; 09-17-2013 at 02:39 PM..
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,935,179 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigLake
I think the people saying that San Francisco's downtown is more active than Chicago's have not been to Chicago.
San Francisco is most certainly is not as active/vibrant as Chicago by any measure whatsoever. It's smaller and less vibrant pound for pound. Compare yourself to Boston or Philadelphia or DC-- your peer cities.
I lived in both, in SF the Inner Richmond (late 00s), in Chicago in Wicker Park (late 90s). I voted for SF.
I see some Chicagoan's are stuck on the whole "bigger is always better" mentality....
Hey, everybody has a right to their opinion. You can say that about Chicago, just as many can say that people around the Bay area are really stuck on topography and beauty. It's all subjective anyway. What I will say is that if I had a choice between spending a day in dt Chicago or spending a day in dt SF, I'm taking Chicago all the way. Much larger and there's just more to do. That's just my opinion. It's neither right or wrong.
Last edited by supermanpansy; 09-17-2013 at 03:27 PM..
Hey, everybody has a right to their opinion. You can say that about Chicago, just as many can say that people around the Bay area are really stuck on topography and beauty. It's all subjective anyway. What I will say is that if I had a choice between spending a day in dt Chicago or spending a day in dt SF, I'm taking Chicago all the way. Much larger and there's more to do. That's just my opinion. It's neither right or wrong.
True, which why I don't understand why you and another poster just assume anyone who likes DT SF more hasn't been to DT Chicago.
True, which why I don't understand why you and another poster just assume anyone who likes DT SF more hasn't been to DT Chicago.
Perhaps I should have phrased what I said in a better way. It's all irrelevant anyway. If I had to pick one to live in I would choose SF. I'm judging solely on downtowns. But I would rather spend a day in dt Chicago than dt San Francisco. I'm strictly putting my vote in on the basis of downtowns. Actually if Chicago had warmer weather, or wasn't on that freaking cold lake, then I would take Chicago to live in overall. There is just a lot more to do for me in a cluster. I don't care for the ocean, have lived near two in my life and go very little. Besides SF's is freaking cold most of the time. It's not ideal water temperatures for swimming in or surfing in. I like to swim, but I'd rather swim in a pool. Surfing is just not my thing.
biglake, i think sf is definitely a bit busier in the downtown area esp outside of business hours, reasons for this are lots of tourists and
but before we get further carried away...can we define some areas... so far I am defining Chicago as The Loop and Near North Side community areas only...no lincoln park, no lakeview, no west loop, no wicker park or any of that.. SF is more elusive as there are about 8 diff official areas down there...
what do you guys think constitute sf,s downtown
I think the people saying that San Francisco's downtown is more active than Chicago's have not been to Chicago.
San Francisco is most certainly is not as active/vibrant as Chicago by any measure whatsoever. It's smaller and less vibrant pound for pound. Compare yourself to Boston or Philadelphia or DC-- your peer cities.
You realize that Boston, Philly and DC are also Chicago's peer cities, right?
They're easily the closest cities to Chicago (and to SF, of course).
NYC is on another planet compared to all these cities, and LA is just too different to compare. Both cities are far too big to compare to Chicago (or SF).
And I disagree re. Chicago being more vibrant than SF. I think, if we're only comparing downtowns, SF is somewhat more vibrant. Overall Chicago is somewhat more vibrant.
You realize that Boston, Philly and DC are also Chicago's peer cities, right?
They're easily the closest cities to Chicago (and to SF, of course).
NYC is on another planet compared to all these cities, and LA is just too different to compare. Both cities are far too big to compare to Chicago (or SF).
And I disagree re. Chicago being more vibrant than SF. I think, if we're only comparing downtowns, SF is somewhat more vibrant. Overall Chicago is somewhat more vibrant.
If you're going off population alone for the cities proper, then Boston and SF are not Chicago's peer cities. Even if you added the populations of San Francisco and Boston together and then compared that figure to Chicago, Chicago's population would remain closer to that of Los Angeles proper.
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.
