Question about SF vs Chicago

[pathstudent]

I have narrowed it down to Northwestern vs Univ of Chicago vs San Francisco for residency.

It is important to me to live in a big city and I had always assumed SF was one, but upon researching I found:

Chicago has 80 buildings taller than 500 feet while SF only has 6.

Chicago has 1500 "skyscrapers" while SF only has 200

Chicago has 4-5 world class museums, their symphony is ranked #1 in the US and #3 in the world while SF was not listed in any of the world class museums and their symphony was ranked #10 in the US and #34 in the world.

Chicago has 135 operating theaters and 245 theater companies while SF has only 37 theaters and 52 companies.

I know tall buildings and a vibrant arts culture are not the best reasons to select a location for residency, but given that UCSF and Univeristy of Chicago and Northwester are all on par with each other, it does make a difference.

I do know that SF has a milder winter by far, but the summer is supposed to be the pits. Chicago has a rough winter but an awesome summer.

Chicago has clubs and bars that stay open until 4 am while things wrap up in SF by 2am. The subways run 24 hours in Chicago while they quit at midnight in SF.

Chicago invented House music while SF was the acid rock city.

Can anyone who lives in SF help me out and paint a better picture? A mild winter sounds nice, but not when you compare everything else.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Eraserhead]

Hmmm, while all of these facts may be true, except for the info. on the summer weather here in SF (they are fine, I don't know where that came from--its pretty mild here all the time, never really hot and never really cold) I would still choose SF over Chicago. San Francisco is much smaller area-wise and people-wise, and so most of these numbers should of course be lower without saying anything about the quality of the theatre, art, etc. or type of people...

I've visited Chicago and the advantage to San Francisco in my opinion is that you can walk everywhere (hopping quickly onto a Muni here and there if necessary) and be fine whereas Chicago is really spread out and things seemed more inaccesable. UCSF is only about 10-15 minutes away from downtown San Francisco and really close to cool-but not too much to handle- neighborhoods like Cole Valley and the Haight whereas U of Chicago was really really far from everything if I remember correctly. Chicago seemed boring and conservative to me as a 24 year old versus liberal and vibrant. I couldn't find any cool places to hang out, and its really easy in SF. I guess I didn't really know anyone in Chicago. And I don't know exactly where NW is.

I would choose UCSF without question, but I am biased because I live a few blocks away and have never lived in snow.

 

[drumming207]

Visit San Francisco and your decision will be made. My brother lives in the city and my wife and I visit him and his wife almost every month... the city is absolutely amazing. Make sure to eat at the House of Nanking when you go. Oh yeah, the buildings are so unique and the city has so much history... and I love the fact that most of the buildings aren't over 3 stories. PM me if you want all the details.😉

 

[pathstudent]

Thanks for those endorsements. I will do a month there in march when it will still be downright cold in Chicago!

But for sure Chicago is not boring. When I visited there, you could leave bars/clubs at 3 am and the streets were still crawling with people. But this was near the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. I know University of Chicago is pretty far from downtown, but there are subways.

Does SF have "door to door" train service no matter where you live in the city?

 

[Eraserhead]

Nah, there's no door to door train service, but essentially door to door bus service. But if you go to UCSF you can live pretty close to the center of the city for a reasonable price.

I was much more pleased with the public transit in SF versus Chicago, and I didn't really know anyone in Chicago so that's probably why I was bored there.

There's no way you would choose Chicago over SF after visiting though.... and the reasons will not be quantifed....

 

[LoneCoyote]

I would take San Francisco in a heartbeat over any city in the country, but I am biased 🙂

We have a great arts scene here in my opinion. I grew up in the NYC area mostly so my standards are pretty high. Chicago has great museums but I think we do well here too. The new Asian Art Museum is wonderful, one of the best collections of its type in the world. SFMOMA is another great museum and we get great exhibits all the time, like the Chagall one on right now. There are also more museumsif that's your thing, and if you like public art we have some of the best examples of murals around, everything from the WPA ones decorating Coit tower, to several great Diego Rivera's in the stock exhange, the art institute and other places around the city, to the local ones decorating the Mission District.

San Francisco also has great theater. Yes, it is not Broadway and the stuff is touring productions, but we get several big name shows a year. And I think the local theater is the best. There are tons of little shows going up all the time and most of them are hella cheap. We have a great 1/2 price booth in Union Square, and many shows that start out here end up off-Broadway in New York later on. The symphony is great, there are free concerts in the park in the summer, and Michael Tilson Thomas has done a great job of attracting younger people to the audiences. This is something that has not happened in other cities, like New York. The Opera opens soon and it is a big deal here, a big social event on opening night for the city's elite. And there's also Opera in the Park next weekend which is free, a lot of fun, and onts of people fo. I could go on and on, but I really think you would not be lacking for cultural stuff to do here.

And one more thing... I think one of the best things about this city is how beautiful it is and how easy it is to leave the city and get to even more cool places if you want to hike, bike, climb, or just take road trips. So come visit and I think you will see what we all rave about 🙂

 

[28129]

Public transportation is for suckers.

Seriously though, San Fransisco is a ridiculously expensive place. In Chicago, you can live more comfortably on a comprable salary.

 

[Eraserhead]

Why is PT for suckers? Its much better for the environment and your overall living costs in SF will be cheaper if you use PT... the metro rail system in SF is great and runs right up to the UCSF door.

If you live in the Inner Sunset near UCSF, you can find a room for about 500-600 dollars a month. If you want to live in one of the "cooler" parts of the city, expect to pay more. You don't need a car really in SF at all, and that will surely save you money.

 

[drumming207]

Public transportation is the way to go in SF. It is incredibly efficient and sure beats close to $30 a day in a parking garage. I would move to San Fran just to use the many forms of public transportation. Dr. Kevin I am jealous that you live in SF.😉 Have some fun for me!😉

 

[pathstudent]

Is SF really more expensive?

Here is the list of the most expensive cities in the world as recently listed in NYT.

1 Oslo 117.8
2 Hong Kong 108.1
3 Tokyo 106.1
4 New York 104.5
5 Zurich 100.0
6 Copenhagen 98.9
7 London 97.6
8 Basel 97.5
9 Chicago 97.2
10 Geneva 95.6

 

[LoneCoyote]

Originally posted by pathstudent
Is SF really more expensive?

Here is the list of the most expensive cities in the world as recently listed in NYT.

1 Oslo 117.8
2 Hong Kong 108.1
3 Tokyo 106.1
4 New York 104.5
5 Zurich 100.0
6 Copenhagen 98.9
7 London 97.6
8 Basel 97.5
9 Chicago 97.2
10 Geneva 95.6

It is definitely expensive to live here. It is a renter's market right now so things are better then they were a few years ago. Home prices are very high however... it would be very hard to find a house under $500,000 in the city, even in a bad neighborhood. But I can tell you from comparing my life to that of my friends, it is cheaper to live here than New York, and definitely comparable to Boston or Washington, DC. I only have one friend in Chicago who lives with her parents so I cannot give you a comparison there. It really depends on what kind of a lifestyle you want to have. The $500 room is out there, though it may take some time and energy to find. If you want a really nice 1-bedroom in a super-hip neighborhood then you will pay. But if you want to live with roommates, you can find a place for under $800/month in most parts of town. And there are many things to do here that are cheap and fun, so it's not like you are going to be bored and unhappy. I live on a very low salary right now, as do many people I know, and we are all doing fine and enjoying ourselves. Besides, if you are thinking about doing residency here how much free time will you have to spend tons of $? 🙂

 

[lyragrl]

Here's one vote for Chicago.

I've lived in both cities (although I've spent more time in Chicago than SF). Both SF and Chicago are awesome, my two favorites in the U.S.

The arts scene:
I've been involved in theater for most of my life and my husband is an actor. I can say without question that the theater scene is Chicago is amazing. There are thousands of tiny, innovative companies here doing groundbreaking work. And most off-Loop theater is cheap to boot. If you want a testament to how good Chicago theater is: There's usually one or two Tony winning shows that actually started in Chicago (like Mary Zimmerman's "Metamorphoses" and Robert Fall's "Death of a Salesman"). The improv comedy is great here, too--ImprovOlympic, Second City, Neo Futurists, etc.

The summers:
Rock. Soo much fun. It's almost worth suffering through the winters.

Also, I think Chicago is eminently livable. You can have high-rise apartment living or residential street living with single family homes and trees--all in the same place.

A couple of caveats: (1) If you prize an outdoor life that involves a lot of hiking, etc. Chicago is NOT your city. The lake is great, but it ain't exactly a hiker's paradise. (2) UChicago is pretty removed, and I'm not a huge fan of Hyde Park. So, personally, I'd choose NU over UofC for location.

PM me if you have more questions.

 

[lyragrl]

By the way, as a democratic stronghold, Chicago is very liberal. And the bar scene is great.

 

[pathstudent]

Yeah LYRAGIRL,

I have researched it further (via talking to friends of friends) and chicago it will be. SF is just too smalltownish from what people say. Bars close at 2am and my friends say on weeknights it is more or less dead by midnight even in supposedly thriving neighborhoods like the Haight and the Mission. Moreover, one friend who lives by UCSF said he went 20 straight days without seeing the Sun in the summer due to the constant fog in the Sunset neighborhood and that he had to wear a jacket or sweater out every single night during the summer. That does not sound like summer to me.

I want to live in the 100 story apartment buildings of Chicago and from what i hear the streets of Chicago are swarming with people even at 3am. Now that sounds like a city.

NY would be cool too, but the streets full of garbage kind of gross me out. People say Chicago is sooooooooo much cleaner due to the fact that the streets have alleys in the neighborhoods and that the streets have underground streets downtown for garbage and delivery.

But I am a little worried about being able to afford living in Chicago on residents pay. That one recent listing listed Chicago as the 9th most expensive city in the world (right behind London) and another I found listed Chicago as the 20th most expensive with SF being 32nd. SF might be better since it is a lot cheaper (but you get what you pay for I guess).

 

[Marooned]

Originally posted by DoctorKevin

I've visited Chicago and the advantage to San Francisco in my opinion is that you can walk everywhere (hopping quickly onto a Muni here and there if necessary) and be fine whereas Chicago is really spread out and things seemed more inaccesable. UCSF is only about 10-15 minutes away from downtown San Francisco and really close to cool-but not too much to handle- neighborhoods like Cole Valley and the Haight whereas U of Chicago was really really far from everything if I remember correctly. Chicago seemed boring and conservative to me as a 24 year old versus liberal and vibrant. I couldn't find any cool places to hang out, and its really easy in SF. I guess I didn't really know anyone in Chicago. And I don't know exactly where NW is.

Things are inaccessible in Chicago? I think buses and trains are more abundant than insects in this city. Getting to a desired destination by foot could be a problem, but getting across town for $1.80 on public transportation is darn good. Additionally, CTA is the preferred means of transportation to such destinations as downtown (where NW's medical and law schools are located--just off the Lake), Wrigley Field, and many others, as parking can be a b!tch.

Also, UofC is not "really really far from everything". Unless you consider 7 miles to be so. Hyde Park is it's own neighborhood, and it's not for everyone. If you don't feel at home around students, young professional minorities and middle-upper class minorities, then Hyde Park (UofC's neighborhood) is not for you.

Any city in the US would seem conservative when compared with San Francisco.

 

[pathstudent]

"any city would seem conservative compared to SF"

That is not really true. SF is more or less a "white collar playground". The East Village, Lower East Side of NYC is way more wild than all of SF.

And Chicago h?s far more "underground" culture and arts than SF. SF is just living off its rep from the 1960s. The underground is dead there. It is all about the yuppie, (which I suppose medical residents/medical students are, and therefore unable to see it)

 

[28129]

Underground culture? Liberal politicians? What the hell is wrong with you people.

You'll sober up quickly once you enter the medical establishment, LOL.

 

[dara678]

I'm applying to medical school now, and I specifically applied to schools that were NOT in Chicago for a couple of big reasons:

1) Winters here suck. Seriously. If you enjoy zero degree weather with freezing icy winds blowing in your face and trudging through a foot of snow just to get to class, then Chicago might be for you ... but not for me.

2) Whoever said that Chicago is pretty clean hasn't been on the el. The elevated train system is probably one of the worst I have ever seen; it's really dirty, slow, and loud. The train stations aren't kept up well, and there are a lot of sketchy people hanging around. From what I've heard, the BART is much cleaner, nicer, and faster.

3) Michigan Avenue dies when it's about 9 P.M. That's where you'll be if you go to NU.

4) Cultural/ethnic life here DOES NOT compare to SF. San Francisco's Chinatown is a much more vibrant community compared to the Cermak/Chinatown area here.

Those are just a couple of reasons I didn't want to stay in Chicago for medical school ... For the one thing, Chicago may have a lot of skyscrapers and whatnot, but it doesn't really matter because you'll never go in them anyway. I can't say much for the bar/club scene (not 21 yet) but other than those activities, there seriously isn't very much to do, unless you go out to the 'burbs.

 

[Marooned]

Originally posted by dara678
I'm applying to medical school now, and I specifically applied to schools that were NOT in Chicago for a couple of big reasons:

2) Whoever said that Chicago is pretty clean hasn't been on the el. The elevated train system is probably one of the worst I have ever seen; it's really dirty, slow, and loud. The train stations aren't kept up well, and there are a lot of sketchy people hanging around. From what I've heard, the BART is much cleaner, nicer, and faster.

Of course it's dirty, slow, and loud. It's one of the oldest in the country. Anyone should feel honored to be in the presence of a public transportation relic. The system has improved a lot since I left high school. They actually have better security and schedules now.

3) Michigan Avenue dies when it's about 9 P.M. That's where you'll be if you go to NU.

Working people do need to sleep during the work week. 9pm is when all the shops close. Other than restaurants and hotel bars, there is not much of a night life on north Michigan Avenue.

4) Cultural/ethnic life here DOES NOT compare to SF. San Francisco's Chinatown is a much more vibrant community compared to the Cermak/Chinatown area here.

Comparing Chinatowns does not provide an adequate measure of a city's culture.

Those are just a couple of reasons I didn't want to stay in Chicago for medical school ... For the one thing, Chicago may have a lot of skyscrapers and whatnot, but it doesn't really matter because you'll never go in them anyway. I can't say much for the bar/club scene (not 21 yet) but other than those activities, there seriously isn't very much to do, unless you go out to the 'burbs.

Being born and raised, until the age of 14, in a suburb of Chicago, I have learned that there is not a single thing to do except throw rocks at speeding cars from the overpass.

If you are of clubbing age, you would find a much better nightlife on the near north/northwest side of Chicago than on north Michigan Avenue. There is more to a night/social life than bars/clubs. Movies, ice skating, skateboard park, Lake Michigan, bike paths that go on forever, the world-class symphony and theatre (previously mentioned), and etc.


Climate and gut feeling seem to be the deciding factors in choosing. That, and the fact that Chicago has many more teaching hospitals (NW, UofC, Rush, UIC, Loyola) of high quality than does SF. Oh, and Chicago doesn't have earthquakes or the Incredible Hulk rumbling through the city.

 

[lyragrl]

The el is slow and loud. But anyone who thinks that the cleanliness of any city is represented by its public transportation system isn't thinking very broadly.

I live IN Chicago, in a beautiful, tree-lined, mixed ethnicity neighborhood. Walking home just now, I saw two girls in head scarves playing on a skateboard, a group of Latino boys playing a yard, and a white couple walking their dog. Not all of Chicago is as well-integrated as my neigborhood, but to say that there isn't a rich cultural and ethnic scene in Chicago is just ridiculous. Chinatown isn't the only example of ethnicity.

And pathstudent, in answer to your earlier question, Chicago real estate has gotten more expensive in recent years. You'll pay a lot to live in a high rise--although you'll pay less than in NYC, if that's any consolation. Personally, I'd recommend one of the awesome neighborhoods that aren't quite as pricey: Lincoln Square (some expensive parts, some less expensive), Logan Square, Ukranian Village, Ravenswood Manor, and Albany Park. You'd probably want a car to get to work from any of these places, but they're more affordable.

 

[28129]

"Being born and raised, until the age of 14, in a suburb of Chicago, I have learned that there is not a single thing to do except throw rocks at speeding cars from the overpass."

Does it hurt to be that stupid? I can't believe you ended up in med school.

 

[Lab-Rat21]

So this insult at another poster has what to do with the purpose of this thread? I believe the expression he used was a "cliche." Another example is like having nothing to do but "watch paint dry."

Shanta Klaus you need to chill, it is not always correct to jump on others for no apparent reason. Now back to the PURPOSE of this thread: another reason to go to Chicago is the lower cost of living compared to the Northeast (and LA area)...I am thinking about that come residency time for sure.

😎

 

[NYGirl12]

Originally posted by Marooned
Any city in the US would seem conservative when compared with San Francisco.

I most definitely agree. No place is more vibrant, exhilirating and diverse than San Francisco. Maybe new york city but still SF has this "charm" that makes it the most appealing among big cities. and don't forget the t-shirt/sweatshirt &jeans weather all-year round. 🙂