3 ms·
Having lived in Chicago and SF, one big difference is how the problem areas are distributed geographically. In Chicago, the high foot-traffic areas (eg the Loop
by eindiran 6y ago
Having lived in Chicago and SF, one big difference is how the problem areas are distributed geographically. In Chicago, the high foot-traffic areas (eg the Loop, Logan Square, Wicker Park) where tourists are likely to end up are very nice; you only end up in problem territory if you go wandering off into the Westside or Southside. In SF, the problem areas are the high foot-traffic areas where tourists are generally going: Union Square, anywhere touching Market, etc.
In the past, I probably would have still felt safer walking around eg the Tenderloin than some areas of Chicago's South/Westside. But beginning a few months after the pandemic began, the streets in SOMA/FiDi/Union Square emptied out (no more tourists or commuters) and SF has started to feel much, much less safe in those areas. In the last few months, my partner has been attacked on the street twice, and I narrowly avoided being mugged with a screwdriver in Union Square itself. That is much worse than anything I ever experienced in the Southside of Chicago.