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.
Neighborhoods: Both are very very diverse, the main comparison in my mind is SF's Chinatown & Qns's Flushing, both are among the largest Chinatowns (or Asiatowns) in North America. Flushing's population is around 80,000 which is like 1/5th of San Francisco, that shows the size differences between Queens & San Francisco. I think SF's Mission District can be compared to Northwest Queens, I think both are fairly urban and kind of artsy, I think the Mission District has a high Hispanic population and Northwest Queens does too. I don’t know too much about San Francisco’s neighborhoods to do a full comparison, I’d like to go more in depth being that I know a lot about Queens but I can’t.
Architecture: Obviously San Francisco wins in the skyline category, there’s no argument there, SF’s tallest building is about 850 feet tall whereas Qns’s tallest building is about 700 feet tall. Skyline’s aside I think Queens has this one, there’s so many forms of architecture from mansions, row homes, typical suburban homes, towering apartment buildings, European inspired houses, California/Florida inspired houses, etc.
Transportation: Overall I think Queens is the winner here although service in parts of the borough have poor service. San Francisco’s terrain would make it difficult/impossible to have a true subway system. I think the bus system in both cities really gives them a boost here. The BART is more like a Commuter Rail system than a subway (correct me if I’m wrong) and Queens has the Long Island Railroad as it’s Commuter Rail system.
Natural Beauty: This is a tough one but I think San Francisco being more mountainous gives it a slight edge. Both are almost surrounded by water, SF has water on 3 sides and Qns has water on 2.5 sides, they both sit on oceans. Despite Queens being warmer than San Francisco throughout much of the year the latter has more Palm trees because it’s warmer in the Winter. San Francisco has that large, very impressive, and unique Golden Gate Park, I think Queens has multiple answers to that though.
Climate: San Francisco is more tame compared to Queens. 50’s & 60’s in Winter and 60’s & 70’s in the Summer are typical for SF whereas Qns is typically in the 30’s & 40’s in the Winter and in the 80’s & 90’s in Summer. This is pretty much a wash here, they both have tradeoffs, SF has better Winters but Qns has better Summers in my opinion, this is very subjective though. Both cities have beaches but Queens beaches are warmed by the Gulf Stream while San Francisco’s beaches are cooled by currents from Alaska.
Music: I think Queens shines here, especially in the Hip-Hop category. I don't really associate San Francisco with music for some reason, someone can fill me in if they'd like.
Economy: San Francisco has a true Downtown area, it's a city. I think it has a stronger economy than Queens.
Anyone more familiar with San Francisco feel free to chime in. I lived in Queens for 15 years so I'm more familiar with it. I’m not too familiar with Education, Nightlife, and the other basics so someone else can do that.
Wow I thought I wrote more than that, I feel some type of way now lol.
SF does not have West Indian and Puerto Rican neighborhoods. To my knowledge, SF does not even have a middle class.
San Francisco lacking a middle class is simply untrue.
Also, I don't think lacking a caribbean population puts Queens ahead of San Francisco by a "decisive margin". There are many other positive attributes that San Francisco has, that Queens lacks. Although P.S.1 is awesome and the Queens Museum of Art (and the city panorama ) is great, I think that San Francisco has far superior cultural institutions (museums, theaters, symphony halls).
San Francisco lacking a middle class is simply untrue.
Also, I don't think lacking a caribbean population puts Queens ahead of San Francisco by a "decisive margin". There are many other positive attributes that San Francisco has, that Queens lacks. Although P.S.1 is awesome and the Queens Museum of Art (and the city panorama ) is great, I think that San Francisco has far superior cultural institutions (museums, theaters, symphony halls).
That's because it's it's own city, I bet if Manhattan wasn't right there Queens would have those things. That's the point of the thread though. The sight of Symphony Hall made me laugh and I don't know why. Maybe Raggae/Dancehall concerts at Roy Wilkins Park in Southern Queens would suffice.
San Francisco is the poster child for gentrification.
Queens, as it is much larger than San Francisco, obviously contains many more working and middle class neighborhoods. It pretty much has a reputation as the "common borough"--a reputation that has been reinforced in the popular imagination by Archie Bunker, Coming to America, Ugly Betty, the King of Queens, and Peter Parker.
That's because it's it's own city, I bet if Manhattan wasn't right there Queens would have those things. That's the point of the thread though. The sight of Symphony Hall made me laugh and I don't know why. Maybe Raggae/Dancehall concerts at Roy Wilkins Park in Southern Queens would suffice.
Obviously. But isn't the point of this thread to ignore surroundings to see if the boroughs can stand on their own?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Really? Where is it? This article suggests otherwise.
San Francisco is the poster child for gentrification.
Southern and western parts of San Francisco - like the Sunset District, Lake Merced, etc. Cities directly to the south of San Francisco (Daly City, South San Francisco, etc) are largely middle class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Queens, as it is much larger than San Francisco, obviously contains many more working and middle class neighborhoods. It pretty much has a reputation as the "common borough"--a reputation that has been reinforced in the popular imagination by Archie Bunker, Coming to America, Ugly Betty, the King of Queens, and Peter Parker.
I definitely agree that Queens has a huge middle class population (larger than San Francisco).
I don't think Queens outranks San Francisco by a "decisive margin" at all. Its funny - because aside from the U.S. Open Complex, the bolded text basically just described San Francisco too.
San Francisco:
Beaches: Great Beach, Baker Beach
Baseball Stadium: AT&T Park
Film Studio: Lucus Films
Diverse neighborhoods: everywhere
That said, I live in NYC now, and I do think the boroughs can hold their own agains other U.S. cities.
Lol I was just about to say the exact same thing. Except its Ocean Beach (along the Great Highway).
And let's not forget that SF still (at least for the time being ) has a football stadium as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn
San Francisco lacking a middle class is simply untrue.
Also, I don't think lacking a caribbean population puts Queens ahead of San Francisco by a "decisive margin". There are many other positive attributes that San Francisco has, that Queens lacks. Although P.S.1 is awesome and the Queens Museum of Art (and the city panorama ) is great, I think that San Francisco has far superior cultural institutions (museums, theaters, symphony halls).
Agreed. The Asian Art Museum for one is a strong point for SF. It hosts the largest collection of Asian Art outside of Asia.
SF does not have West Indian and Puerto Rican neighborhoods. To my knowledge, SF does not even have a middle class.
Not trying to go into this argument with you again, but how big of a Hawaiian, Samoan, Burmese or Tibetan presence does Queens have? SF may not have a neighborhood you would single out as "Puerto Rican," but there are Puerto Ricans here.
And diversity shouldn't always mean that a particular population has its own segregated enclave, should it? Just because there is not always a separate neighborhood for all ethnic groups that have a significant presence here does not mean they are not well-represented here. Although I am not even trying to imply that SF's diversity is at Queens' level, b/c I know that Queens is the clear winner in that comparison. But I do think your "decisive margin" is quite a bit overstated (although you are entitled to your opinion and I don't have beef with you feeling that way).
As for the middle class comment, I have to respond with a , but I'm not directing that at you. That is a common misconception, and although the middle class is depleting, its not like its non-existent. There still is one here, its just been weakened by gentricide and a major douchebag/hipster transplant invasion.
To be fair, the NYC boroughs (excluding Manhattan) were not designed to be complete cities like SF, Philly, or Chicago. New York's CBD was Midtown and Lower Manhattan. Brooklyn has its own pseudo downtown (not bad, but minor compared to Manhattan, and SF, Philly, and Chicago for that matter). All of the other boroughs (not Manhattan) were designed as lower density, primarily residential (and not commercial) retreats. While there are very dense, older parts of Brooklyn (NW), Queens (Western), and the Bronx (South), much of the boroughs' neighborhoods date back to the birth and growth of the first suburbs (30s-50s).
not trying to go into this argument with you again, but how big of a hawaiian, samoan, burmese or tibetan presence does queens have? Sf may not have a neighborhood you would single out as "puerto rican," but there are puerto ricans here.
And diversity shouldn't always mean that a particular population has its own segregated enclave, should it? Just because there is not always a separate neighborhood for all ethnic groups that have a significant presence here does not mean they are not well-represented here. Although i am not even trying to imply that sf's diversity is at queens' level, b/c i know that queens is the clear winner in that comparison. But i do think your "decisive margin" is quite a bit overstated (although you are entitled to your opinion and i don't have beef with you feeling that way).
As for the middle class comment, i have to respond with a , but i'm not directing that at you. That is a common misconception, and although the middle class is depleting, its not like its non-existent. There still is one here, its just been weakened by gentricide and a major douchebag/hipster transplant invasion.
lol.
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.