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.
Now that I think about it, Oakland vs New Orleans would be an even better comparison. Someone should start the thread (no, not me).
Uh, no.
One is a city that people from all over visit, has copycat restaurants/bars across the country, has a vibrant lifestyle, and has a unique culture. The other is Oakland.
What are you rambling about? I said New Orleans has the highest murder rate - not that no city also has a high murder rate.
And as far as Oakland goes - to show you how bad the murder rate of New Orleans really is - a city as deadly as Oakland still had only 59% the number of murders in 2013 as New Orleans had (92 murders vs 155). And Oakland has a LARGER population than New Orleans (400,000 vs 369,000).
First of all the only reason why Oakland has LARGER population than NOLA is b/c of Katrina. Remember NOLA still has over 100,000 still displaced some trying to get back some not. And to be honest I bet CURRENT population right now is probably closer than what you posted wouldn't suprise me if NOLA is right at the 400,000 mark right now are close. But anyway I'm not rambling just trying to make you see there or other cities murder just as high. But whateva homie.
Now that I think about it, Oakland vs New Orleans would be an even better comparison. Someone should start the thread (no, not me).
^^^Yes, it would. I'd say they are on more even keel. San Francisco is leagueSSS ahead of NOLA in terms of basically everything [objective]. Oakland has a lot of similarities to NOLA and both are very interesting, very fun cities with lots to offer, not to mention high crime Similar size, feel, stats, etc.
The fact that San Francisco has several large well known cities bordering it as part of the metro alone speaks to how much larger and on how much of a higher level SF is than NOLA.
It's basically like comparing Charleston to Boston. Charleston is a GREAT city with so much to offer (one of my favorite), but subjectively discussing which one you would rather live in aside (taking into account all personal considerations like kids, money, climate, etc), Boston is several different levels beyond Charleston when you look at objective criteria.
One is a city that people from all over visit, has copycat restaurants/bars across the country, has a vibrant lifestyle, and has a unique culture. The other is Oakland.
Oakland is actually quite unique. Genres of music have come out of Oakland, which also basically has Berkeley and that "culture", which is unique Despite what people want to argue, Oakland is to SF what Brooklyn is to Manhattan, and nobody is saying that Brooklyn isn't a unique, ultra-cool city on its own. Oakland to many is actually arguably cooler than SF. It also has diverse ethnic hoods, great food, great great great creative culture and arts culture, thriving urban neighborhoods, etc.
I think Oakland vs NOLA would actually be a valid comparison.
^^^Yes, it would. I'd say they are on more even keel. San Francisco is leagueSSS ahead of NOLA in terms of basically everything [objective]. Oakland has a lot of similarities to NOLA and both are very interesting, very fun cities with lots to offer, not to mention high crime Similar size, feel, stats, etc.
The fact that San Francisco has several large well known cities bordering it as part of the metro alone speaks to how much larger and on how much of a higher level SF is than NOLA.
It's basically like comparing Charleston to Boston. Charleston is a GREAT city with so much to offer (one of my favorite), but subjectively discussing which one you would rather live in aside (taking into account all personal considerations like kids, money, climate, etc), Boston is several different levels beyond Charleston when you look at objective criteria.
This thread was about which one people prefer, which is subjective. It was never about which one is "leagues ahead" or which one is on a higher level, which is what pretty most SF boosters on this thread have been arguing about the entire time despite that really never being part of the OP.
Here's what also sets the two cities apart - convenience to activities.
NOLA - kayaking in bayous? Trips to Baton Rouge or Mobile?
You do have swimmable beaches with nice white sands(some of the best in the country) just to the east in Mississippi, Alabama, and the Florida Panhandle for one.
Overall SF has more diversity in terms of trip options obviously, as it's the west coast(every city on the West Coast basically has similar options), but all the same as much as SF boosters claim Tahoe you'd think it's right next door to them. And yeah, I grew up making that 3-4 hour drive to the Sierra as a kid(we'd usually drive back the same day, which was exhausting), though these days with weekend traffic it even takes longer.
This thread was about which one people prefer, which is subjective. It was never about which one is "leagues ahead" or which one is on a higher level, which is what pretty most SF boosters on this thread have been arguing about the entire time despite that really never being part of the OP.
There are certain criteria that are matters of fact and not a matter of opinion and your damn right we will point those out without mercy regardless if others think we should feel sorry for New Orleans because its comparatively downtrodden vs. San Francisco.
Read the thread, we have tried being nice about it but they dont reciprocate the courtesy so it is what it is.
At the end of the day, New Orleans' pluses vs. San Francisco get tiresome very quickly, quite frankly. The city provides a quick escape from responsibility, like Vegas(only far smaller and with far fewer options)which is funny cause SF is also known for being somewhat of a haven for debauchery, only SF offers so much more. A far superior quality of life, countless better opportunities for upward mobility, a blindingly diverse population, cultural, shopping, dining and recreational amenities leagues above New Orleans and an inexplicably better climate.
Those are all solid, untouchable advantages.
So yes, to each his own, but SFs list of advantages far outstrips this and 99% of other cities in the world.
You do have swimmable beaches with nice white sands(some of the best in the country) just to the east in Mississippi, Alabama, and the Florida Panhandle for one.
Overall SF has more diversity in terms of trip options obviously, as it's the west coast(every city on the West Coast basically has similar options), but all the same as much as SF boosters claim Tahoe you'd think it's right next door to them. And yeah, I grew up making that 3-4 hour drive to the Sierra as a kid(we'd usually drive back the same day, which was exhausting), though these days with weekend traffic it usually even takes longer.
I was thinking the same thing about the beaches. The water and sand along the panhandle of Florida as well as the beach culture is way better than anything near the Bay Area offers.
Some of these destinations that some people claim are to close to the Bay Area really aren't. Tahoe on a busy weekend or during bad weather can take forever. Yosemite? MAMMOTH? Very few people from the Bay Area visit Mammoth from my experience.
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.
Similar size, feel, stats, etc.
Despite what people want to argue, Oakland is to SF what Brooklyn is to Manhattan, and nobody is saying that Brooklyn isn't a unique, ultra-cool city on its own. Oakland to many is actually arguably cooler than SF. It also has diverse ethnic hoods, great food, great great great creative culture and arts culture, thriving urban neighborhoods, etc.
