Chicago Vs. NYC

[bachbeet]

aybojs: SF is NOT that big of a city. LA and SD are bigger. I've lived in LA, SF, Chicago, SD (now). I've also lived in San Luis Obispo, Ca (halfway b/w LA and SF; abbreviated SLO). I've been to NYC to visit.

I don't care for LA. Liked SF. Love SD. Too young to remember Chicago, but don't think I'd like it. Definitely wouldn't trade it for SD. Liked NYC to visit but share your opinion of the crowds, traffic, noise, costs, etc. Yet, if I could afford it, I'd choose SLO. It has culture because of the college and its traffic is almost no concern. Nice people. A lot more smiles than NYC or LA. But, I do not feel more of a desire to go there than if I was living in, say, NYC.

 

[esvoboda]

The perception of San Francisco as a "big city" might come from the fact that the population density of SF itself is second only to NYC in the U.S. SF's population is only about 750,000.

SF is the second most populous city in the Bay Area. San Jose is its big brother to the south with about 900,000. But it's mostly suburban sprawl. The metro area is over 7 million.

I think population density has a lot to do with the ability of a city to support various aspects of culture such as world-class restaurants, nightlife, style, etc.

 

[bachbeet]

esvoboda: I agree. And, SLO has more restaurants per capita than SF.

 

[Manton]

For about 100 years, San Francisco was the most important city in the US west of the Mississippi.  Even though Los Angeles got much bigger, much faster, culturally and business-wise, it was a relative backwater (with the notable exception of the movie industry).  WW2 and the post-war boom changed that.  But slowly.  It still took another 25 years for SF to decline into what it now is: a very pretty, very well-appointed theme park for rich people.

These days, the concept of a "regional capital" does not make sense like it used to.  It's just too easy to move money, people, goods and information around cheaply and quickly.  SF is lucky that it built up so many institutions and such great housing stock when it could, is so beautiful, and has such nice weather.  Other former regional capitals without those assets have not weathered "globalization" nearly so well.

 

[mr. magoo]

Quote:

(aybojs @ May 22 2005,08:44)

Originally Posted by Lord Foppington,May 21 2005,11:00

New York, where I also loved living, had a version of the same problem. A certain, common type of person had to blurt out, every five minutes or so, "New York is the greatest city in the world." or "New York is the center of the universe." Maybe so, but why ceaselessly reassure us all of that?
I find it to be very ironic that many residents from both NYC and SF I've met/interacted with tend to boast about the alleged worldliness and open-mindedness that they possess as the result of living in such a big city, and yet there's a clear myopia that prevents them from recognizing or acknowledging the fact that there's a whole world outside of the city that matters just as much or much more than they do.
The provincialism of newyorkers (especially in light of the derision I initially receive when I inform them I'm from Kansas) never fails to amuse/amaze me.

As someone who lives in and loves New York, I'm always struck by what I refer to as "New York Hicks". If a person said what New Yorkers say about their city and substituted the word West Virginia and changed the accent, you'd know they were hicks.