Washington DC VS SF Bay Area (rates, moving, downtown, economy)
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.
Elaborate , in detail, why SF is not culturally vibrant and what Dc offers culturally over SF? My guess? Nothing. On a city -city basis or a metro basis SF crushes Dc on culture.
Diversity
Music
Dining
Festivals and events
Local bar and club scene
Museums
I don't think SF crushes DC in any of those categories, but is definitely ahead. Except for museums. You're way off when it comes to museums. Also, DC does a lot of lounge-y stuff, so DC wins on that if that's what you like. DC hardcore was also pretty fun for a while (if you're into it).
Columbus;15415737]bay area the financial hub of the[/b] west coast; LA is. By a matterfact if it were not for Las vegas and LA than the west coast would just be like any other coast. The two that puts a shine on the west coast is LA and Las Vegas
LA is the financial hub of the West Coast? And where did you get this information. According to the Global Financial Centres index San Francisco is currently ranked 15th in the world, LA doesn't even make the top 20. San Francisco has always been a big player in the banking and finance world. San Francisco is older and more established than LA, SF became the principal finance center in the early 20th century. Market st. in SF is often called the "Wall Street" of the West Coast. SF is also home to one of the National Reserve Banks. The Pacific Coast Stock Exchange hq's were in SF before it was shut down. Bank of America was also founded in SF and Wells Fargo hq's are still located in SF.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,987,122 times
Reputation: 4047
I don't get this, how is that I make a thread comparing overall importance of Los Angeles to Washington DC and Los Angeles loses in a much larger margin where as Bay Area does better?
I'm convinced the polls on this site are popularity contests more than anything else.
I don't get this, how is that I make a thread comparing overall importance of Los Angeles to Washington DC and Los Angeles loses in a much larger margin where as Bay Area does better?
I'm convinced the polls on this site are popularity contests more than anything else.
Except people have explicitly cited their reasons for why the respective areas are important, so it's a bit disingenuous to say it's just a popularity contest.
I don't get this, how is that I make a thread comparing overall importance of Los Angeles to Washington DC and Los Angeles loses in a much larger margin where as Bay Area does better?
I'm convinced the polls on this site are popularity contests more than anything else.
This thread seems a little muddled (at least to me). The poll says which is more important. But, the original question asks which is better and then gives a few categories to compare. Looks like people are voting based on different criteria.
I think you're not very intelligent if you believe that there's nothing of importance in DC other than the government. If you think that, you obviously know nothing about the city and haven't been to DC in the past few years. There are A LOT of great things about the city. It has some of the best neighborhoods in the city, much better nightlife than SF in my opinion, has great parks, some of the most urban suburbs in the country, top tier colleges and more culture than most cities. There are people here from all over the world.
Everything you cite (the neigborhoods, the nightlife, the parks and suburbs) all stem from the presence of the federal government and its awesome payroll being located here. Take away the government and what do you have? A hot fetid swampland basically, where few in their right mind would choose to live.
Everything you cite (the neigborhoods, the nightlife, the parks and suburbs) all stem from the presence of the federal government and its awesome payroll being located here. Take away the government and what do you have? A hot fetid swampland basically, where few in their right mind would choose to live.
We've already covered this ground. Scroll up. The bottom line is that the federal government's there.
Elaborate , in detail, why SF is not culturally vibrant and what Dc offers culturally over SF? My guess? Nothing. On a city -city basis or a metro basis SF crushes Dc on culture.
Diversity
Music
Dining
Festivals and events
Local bar and club scene
Museums
Diversity: They are about the same to me. Granted, SF has more Asians and Hispanics, but most of the area feels very J-Crewish to me. DC has a similar feel, but not nearly to the extent SF does. Many parts of DC still feel very edgy and volatile.
Music: Not sure about this one, but I guess it depends on what you like. Since DC has such a large and affluent black population, you get a lot of acts here very frequently that many parts of the country rarely see. Maxwell and Alicia Keys, for example, may have one show in the Bay Area but have three in DC and one in B-More. There's also a relatively affluent Caribbean population, which gives you a lot of soca, calypso, chutney, zouk, and dancehall, and a large Ethiopian and West African presence, which gives you coupe decale. I'm not an authority on the San Francisco music scene, so you could give me a better idea of what's popping out there. My guess is that the black, Caribbean, and African music scenes aren't as strong, but that there's something else to make up for it (bhangra, Asian music scene?).
Dining: Not really impressed by DC. Though I love the hell out of some crabcakes, but that's really more a Baltimore thing. I'd give it to SF on fine cuisine.
Festivals and events: Definitely DC. Only NYC beats DC in this regard. DC has every type of stupid, half-stupid and not-so-stupid festival imaginable. I think there are too many festivals actually and they just add to our traffic problems.
Local bar and club scene: Uhhhh...not so sure. Depends on your tastes and demographics, honestly. My white friends from the Bay Area love the club scene there. My black friends from the Bay Area hate it and have vowed to never live there as singles.
LA is the financial hub of the West Coast? And where did you get this information. According to the Global Financial Centres index San Francisco is currently ranked 15th in the world, LA doesn't even make the top 20. San Francisco has always been a big player in the banking and finance world. San Francisco is older and more established than LA, SF became the principal finance center in the early 20th century. Market st. in SF is often called the "Wall Street" of the West Coast. SF is also home to one of the National Reserve Banks. The Pacific Coast Stock Exchange hq's were in SF before it was shut down. Bank of America was also founded in SF and Wells Fargo hq's are still located in SF.
Everything you cite (the neigborhoods, the nightlife, the parks and suburbs) all stem from the presence of the federal government and its awesome payroll being located here. Take away the government and what do you have? A hot fetid swampland basically, where few in their right mind would choose to live.
Can you not read anything? That's the stupidest way to look at something. Take away all of the tech stuff and SF is nothing. Same with pretty much every other city! There's much more than government. There are plenty of other things that contribute to DC having such a great economy. The area keeps on growing in many areas other than the government. Get a clue.
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.