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.
If and when the day should arrive that anywhere in the outer boroughs can top Downtown San Francisco as far as being a single hub of major corporate headquarters and thousands of businesses, shopping, entertainment, hotels, conventions, museums, art galleries, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, theater, skyscrapers, tourist attractions etc, then we'll talk about their vibrancy rivaling SF--in the meantime, they all fall short, miserably.
Manhattan beats SF, the rest most definitely don't. Sorry.
So are you saying DT SF beats these boroughs or SF as a whole, like the Presidio is more urban than Park Slope?
Its an undeniable FACT. SanFrancisco blows all of the outer boroughs out of the water when it comes to vibrancy as far as concentration of amenities.
Dont agree? Prove it.
Name a single Downtown area ANYWHERE in the outer boroughs that beats 8 fortune 500 companies, 300,000 workers, 11 departments stores, 100+ hotels, 500+ stores, 1,000+ restaurants, 29 movie theater screens, a MLB Baseball stadium and so on?
Please, Im dying to hear of this place in the 718 Ive never heard of.
Its an undeniable FACT. SanFrancisco blows all of the outer boroughs out of the water when it comes to vibrancy as far as concentration of amenities.
Dont agree? Prove it.
Name a single Downtown area ANYWHERE in the outer boroughs that beats 8 fortune 500 companies, 300,000 workers, 11 departments stores, 100+ hotels, 500+ stores, 1,000+ restaurants, 29 movie theater screens, a MLB Baseball stadium and so on?
Please, Im dying to hear of this place in the 718 Ive never heard of.
The stores and restaurants can probably be matched (not department stores though) and even beat. It does depend a lot on the criteria you're using, and there are a pretty good number of them you can use that would put Brooklyn in pretty good standing.
Anyhow, this is all besides the point.
That's your metric that you want to go by (Fortune 500, number of workers, department stores, hotels, etc.). On those and those kinds of terms, Manhattan completely obliterates San Francisco on the kind of scale that SF is has to any outer borough--and this topic is about Manhattan versus San Francisco.
The stores and restaurants can probably be matched (not department stores though) and even beat. It does depend a lot on the criteria you're using, and there are a pretty good number of them you can use that would put Brooklyn in pretty good standing.
I eagerly await the name of the outer borough DOWNTOWN that is as vibrant and amenity rich as Downtown San Francisco and can rival DT SF in all of the criteria already mentioned.
Montclair are you saying that DT SF is more urban or the city as a whole as to me this doesnt hold up, there are far more urban neighborhoods in the whole of NYC and the outer boroughs than the majority of SF.
That's your metric that you want to go by (Fortune 500, number of workers, department stores, hotels, etc.). On those and those kinds of terms, Manhattan completely obliteratesSan Francisco on the kind of scale that SF is has to any outer borough--.
Yes, I agree. Completely.
But to say that San Francisco is 5th or 6th among all of NYs boroughs in 'vibrancy' which is what Gateway Region did, is one of the most easily debunked and squashed statements ever in the history of C-D because vibrancy can mean all sort of things.
Its an undeniable FACT. SanFrancisco blows all of the outer boroughs out of the water when it comes to vibrancy as far as concentration of amenities.
Dont agree? Prove it.
Name a single Downtown area ANYWHERE in the outer boroughs that beats 8 fortune 500 companies, 300,000 workers, 11 departments stores, 100+ hotels, 500+ stores, 1,000+ restaurants, 29 movie theater screens, a MLB Baseball stadium and so on?
Please, Im dying to hear of this place in the 718 Ive never heard of.
I definitely don't agree that SF "blows away" any of the outer boroughs in most categories, but i agree that it does have some distinct advantages, and downtown size/vibrancy/amenities is by far and away one of the biggest ones. Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and the Bronx obviously can't compare to SF in terms of downtown areas, yet some of these blind/rabid NYC boosters can't seem to accept that. Brooklyn's Downtown is pretty beefy and impressive in its own right though, don't get me wrong. But it's still no DT SF.
I eagerly await the name of the outer borough DOWNTOWN that is as vibrant and amenity rich as Downtown San Francisco and can rival DT SF in all of the criteria already mentioned.
Look up downtown Brooklyn and its surrounding environs (often considered downtown). There is a large qualitative difference there in it being host to a lot of tertiary education centers there. It is not on the scale of downtown San Francisco by your criteria, but has some of everything you stated and continues to expand (as there has been and still has a lot of investment pouring in).
However, that's besides the point. You made it very clear what your criteria is, and this topic is about Manhattan versus San Francisco. Obviously, Manhattan blows San Francisco away in your opinion, right? Complete shut out on all accounts and it's ridiculous that anyone even tries to make this topic and it's foolish for anyone to boost SF when Manhattan (and even more so, New York as a whole) is mentioned, right?
I definitely don't agree that SF "blows away" any of the outer boroughs in most categories, but i agree that it does have some distinct advantages, and downtown size/vibrancy/amenities is by far and away one of the biggest ones. Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and the Bronx obviously can't compare to SF in terms of downtown areas, yet some of these blind/rabid NYC boosters can't seem to accept that. Brooklyn's Downtown is pretty beefy and impressive in its own right though, don't get me wrong. But it's still no DT SF.
Downtown Brooklyn is a big Downtown Oakland with more retail. Decent with a good amount of activity and 'up-and-coming' but its not even on the same planet as Downtown SF. Not at all.
If SF is 5th or 6th in 'vibrancy' relative to other boroughs as is claimed by some forumers here, then they need to prove it by beating Downtown SF.
I definitely don't agree that SF "blows away" any of the outer boroughs in most categories, but i agree that it does have some distinct advantages, and downtown size/vibrancy/amenities is by far and away one of the biggest ones. Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and the Bronx obviously can't compare to SF in terms of downtown areas, yet some of these blind/rabid NYC boosters can't seem to accept that. Brooklyn's Downtown is pretty beefy and impressive in its own right though, don't get me wrong. But it's still no DT SF.
I think these are fair points. DT SF does have more than any single nabe in the outer boroughs yet nabe by nabe many areas in the outer boroughs go more than toe to toe with the majority of SF hoods. While all this in isolation, life isnt that way, manhattan does exist, one could argue Hoboken offers greater urbanity in the city sense than many places in either BK or SF for that matter.
Saying SF beats all the other places because of the DT is appropriate in one sense and all at once not in a real life experience aspect.
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.
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.
