Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-01-2009, 03:34 PM
 
2,563 posts, read 3,624,695 times
Reputation: 3434

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
As far as ambience, yes. DT SF and DT Chicago along with Manhattan are the only downtowns in America I consider to be real destination downtowns. People gravitate there outside of M-F for purposes like shopping and entertainment in a way that I have never seen anywhere else. Sure some cities have little bar districts but they lack everything that is found in total in the above mentioned three.


I didnt say DT SF is bigger than DT Chicago. Im saying its better. The notion that SF lacks streetlife is quite absurd at best. Pound for Pound, SF is second to Manhattan in streetlife.


No, I think if we evaluate the whole package, retail, entertainment, hotels, bars, restaurants, pedestrian traffic, SF and Chicago are tied, but SF gets the edge from me because its more interesting to walk around
quite frankly. SF is also more memorable.
I guess I'll just say that I respect your opinion, but I really don't think you can compare San Francisco with Chicago. Like I said, SF has a very nice downtown, but in both quantity and quantity, it's a couple levels below Chicago. I put SF in a league with Boston. Not bad company. (FWIW-- I also put NYC a couple of levels above Chicago).

Agree to disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-01-2009, 05:44 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,653 posts, read 67,487,099 times
Reputation: 21229
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigLake View Post

Agree to disagree.
You think Chicago is 2nd as far as downtowns, I say its San Francisco. We are at an impasse.

And that's okay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2009, 07:26 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,968,139 times
Reputation: 917
One thing's for sure, SF's downtown waterfront can't compete with Chicago's. And that's from somebody who likes SF better overall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2009, 04:34 PM
 
5,347 posts, read 10,154,410 times
Reputation: 2446
Chicago's DT dies after dark. I wouldn't put it at number 2. SF DT is cool. I think SF has more foot traffic overall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2009, 05:53 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,653 posts, read 67,487,099 times
Reputation: 21229
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC's Finest View Post
Chicago's DT dies after dark. I wouldn't put it at number 2. SF DT is cool. I think SF has more foot traffic overall.
I agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2009, 06:27 PM
 
1,119 posts, read 2,741,428 times
Reputation: 389
That was my experience with downtown S.F, not Chicago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC's Finest View Post
Chicago's DT dies after dark. .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2009, 10:32 PM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,943 posts, read 5,071,664 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC's Finest View Post
Chicago's DT dies after dark. I wouldn't put it at number 2. SF DT is cool. I think SF has more foot traffic overall.
How could Downtown SF possibly have more foot traffic when it's less than half the size of the Loop?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 12:15 AM
 
Location: Villanova Pa.
4,927 posts, read 14,210,868 times
Reputation: 2715
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
As far as ambience, yes. DT SF and DT Chicago along with Manhattan are the only downtowns in America I consider to be real destination downtowns. People gravitate there outside of M-F for purposes like shopping and entertainment in a way that I have never seen anywhere else. Sure some cities have little bar districts but they lack everything that is found in total in the above mentioned three.
Manhattan and SF certainly are heavyweights in the downtown department but to say no other cities can compare is a bit of an overstatement, at least in SF's case. Manhattan is in a league all its own. SF trying to jump on Manhattans coattails would be akin to Tori Spelling standing next to Megan Fox and proclaiming that they are the two hottest girls in the room.

Chicagos downtown is 3x the size of SF, eventhough SF may appear more quaint and lively you have to take the sheer size and vibrancy of downtown Chicago into account. Boston and Philly both have close to 100,000 full time downtown residents which dwarfs SF. Boston + Phillys downtowns are also cultural + entertainment centers for regions that are the same size as The Bay area. Admittedly SF is more of a national + international tourist city than either Boston or Philadelphia

Center City Philly is extremely lively. Its liveliness may be more economically and racially diverse than SF and thus it may not register in what you categorize as a "destination". My guess is that you classify "lively" with $$$$ and may have a certain criteria of demographic in what qualifies for destination status.

Italian Market



Typical scene along Market Street


Rittenhouse Square






Broad Street



South Street



Walnut Street

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 03:06 AM
 
246 posts, read 758,775 times
Reputation: 157
I think perhaps you havent seen most of downtown SF. Its very big and spreads into several different areas, n ot just the touristy parts. In addition, neighborhoods like the Mission, Lower Haight, the Castro, etc, which arent technically downtown, are actually more vibrant and bustling than most downtowns across the country.

Here are some pictures of the Mission District, an area far form downtown








Quote:
Originally Posted by BigLake View Post
I guess I'll just say that I respect your opinion, but I really don't think you can compare San Francisco with Chicago. Like I said, SF has a very nice downtown, but in both quantity and quantity, it's a couple levels below Chicago. I put SF in a league with Boston. Not bad company. (FWIW-- I also put NYC a couple of levels above Chicago).

Agree to disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2009, 03:19 AM
 
246 posts, read 758,775 times
Reputation: 157
No, I think they equate vibrancy with vibrancy. Ive spent a lot of time in Philly, and love it, its gritty in an awesome way and has some cool areas.

But San Francisco's Downtown far eclipses Philly. Its way more dense, more crowded (especially during the daytime, when the city's population doubles), has more distinct sections, and feels more like a big city. You can walk through the Tenderloin, the Theatre District, Chinatown, North Beach, Union Square, Market Street (forget Fishermans Wharf), etc and have yourself a guarenteed adventure, seeing all walks of life, from the slummiest to the most grand, from great street food to top notch fine dining. And its so unbelievably packed you can discover something new everytime. Not to mention, most other neighborhoods in San Francisco feel almost like a downtown.

This, for instance, is normal foot traffic for certain areas of Market Street, and not during a "festival":



Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
Manhattan and SF certainly are heavyweights in the downtown department but to say no other cities can compare is a bit of an overstatement, at least in SF's case. Manhattan is in a league all its own. SF trying to jump on Manhattans coattails would be akin to Tori Spelling standing next to Megan Fox and proclaiming that they are the two hottest girls in the room.

Chicagos downtown is 3x the size of SF, eventhough SF may appear more quaint and lively you have to take the sheer size and vibrancy of downtown Chicago into account. Boston and Philly both have close to 100,000 full time downtown residents which dwarfs SF. Boston + Phillys downtowns are also cultural + entertainment centers for regions that are the same size as The Bay area. Admittedly SF is more of a national + international tourist city than either Boston or Philadelphia

Center City Philly is extremely lively. Its liveliness may be more economically and racially diverse than SF and thus it may not register in what you categorize as a "destination". My guess is that you classify "lively" with $$$$ and may have a certain criteria of demographic in what qualifies for destination status.

Italian Market



Typical scene along Market Street


Rittenhouse Square






Broad Street



South Street



Walnut Street
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top