America's most overrated, overhyped, or overpriced cities to live (earthquakes, beach)

[Spade]

Originally Posted by john_starks

SF - i don't get the hype. because there's a bay?

It is overpriced. Overrated? I disagree. If anything, it's underrated.

[Billiam]

San Francisco and Underrated are two things that shouldn't be in the Same Sentence! Just like NY and Chicago, they're neither underrated nor Overrated

[Spade]

Originally Posted by Billiam

San Francisco and Underrated are two things that shouldn't be in the Same Sentence! Just like NY and Chicago, they're neither underrated nor Overrated

It's underrated in a way that people don't think it's diverse, dense, or even a large city. They look at the city size which is around 780,000 and say, this city is not really that big and shove it to the side like it's some regular mid sized city. Also, people don't really know that SF and surrounding area is an economic giant home to dozens fortune 500 companies.

[Colts]

Originally Posted by mmcgirk3

Overrated city: Chicago Illinois. Why? For a city that is supposedly so affluent and such a "great place to live", why is their murder rate consistently near the top in the country every year?

It's easier to see how smaller metro areas would have more trouble with crime, when they don't have the budgets of a New York or Chicago. But Chicago fails where New york succeeds. Oh yehhhh...a deep seated culture of corrupt cops and corrupt city officals. Almost forgot.

Other negative factors that get Chicago my vote....#1 or #2 worst traffic snarls, absolute worst parking situation in U.S., in Top Ten worst school systems, many blighted and poor areas away from downtown, poor mail delivery, #3 worst roads (construction) ...and the lists go on. These were all found searching Google News.

Underrated city? Tampa Bay.

Spot on. The core of the city is great, but once you venture outside of the downtown, Chicago simply doesn't have much, if anything, to offer. I find both L.A. and New York to be much more intriguing. Hell, even Philadelphia.

Also, I find native Chicagoans tend to have attitudes worse than people from both coasts.

[Nafster]

Originally Posted by Colts

Spot on. Once you venture outside of the downtown, Chicago simply doesn't have much, if anything, to offer. I find both L.A. and New York to be much more intriguing. Hell, even Philadelphia.

That's great. I sure as heck think that any of those cities are better than Fort Wayne

[Colts]

Originally Posted by Nafster

That's great. I sure as heck think that any of those cities are better than Fort Wayne

Thank you for reiterating my point.

[Nafster]

Originally Posted by Colts

Thank you for reiterating my point.

And what was that?

[Colts]

Originally Posted by john_starks

SF - i don't get the hype. because there's a bay?

Yeah, San Francisco's another overrated one. It's nice I suppose, but not the greatest thing since sliced bread. Also, housing prices there are insane. Like $700,000 for a 400 square foot shoebox.

Well, I guess if you're gay, then maybe San Francisco is the greatest thing since sliced bread...

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Spade

It's underrated in a way that people don't think it's diverse, dense, or even a large city. They look at the city size which is around 780,000 and say, this city is not really that big and shove it to the side like it's some regular mid sized city. Also, people don't really know that SF and surrounding area is an economic giant home to dozens fortune 500 companies.

What are you talking about? People think it's more diverse than it actually is. People always associate SF with "diversity" when it's not even that diverse compared to other cities; Sacramento, Ca is more racially diverse than SF.

It's the 2nd densest major city in the US and people tend to compare it to NYC. The density is one of the things people love and talk about with SF all the time. The density and urban feel is one of SF's best attributes and part of the reason people love it so much.

Nobody shoves SF to the side, it's around 800k and this is still fairly big. Boston and DC are both smaller in population but no one is mistaking those cities for Des Moines, IA just like SF. It's always ranked up there with cities much larger than it actually.

Being a large, dense, diverse city is what SF is known for. Most people are very much aware of how powerful it's economy is. Everyone knows what "Silicon Valley" is what it represents.

I'm sorry but your perceptions of other people's opinion of SF are way off. And yes it is overrated slightly too.

[jluke65780]

Originally Posted by sav858

What are you talking about? People think it's more diverse than it actually is. People always associate SF with "diversity" when it's not even that diverse compared to other cities; Sacramento, Ca is more racially diverse than SF.

It's the 2nd densest major city in the US and people tend to compare it to NYC. The density is one of the things people love and talk about with SF all the time. The density and urban feel is one of SF's best attributes and part of the reason people love it so much.

Nobody shoves SF to the side, it's around 800k and this is still fairly big. Boston and DC are both smaller in population but no one is mistaking those cities for Des Moines, IA just like SF. It's always ranked up there with cities much larger than it actually.

Being a large, dense, diverse city is what SF is known for. Most people are very much aware of how powerful it's economy is. Everyone knows what "Silicon Valley" is what it represents.

I'm sorry but your perceptions of other people's opinion of SF are way off. And yes it is overrated slightly too.

I agree....I wouldn't exactly label diversity as one of San Francisco's strong points.