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.
First yall create a thread deliberately skewed towards topics you *think* favors Brooklyn vs San Francisco, a far superior place...and yet 1,200 posts later, most non outer borough responses overwhelmingly favor SF.
Disclaimer: I have never been to New York so I'm probably not very informed on it. I however have lived in the Bay Area.
Food-Not sure, both have a ton of diversity. Both cities have lots of different ethnic groups meaning that there's plenty of food from different cultures available, Chinese, Korean, Mexican etc....Both have endless small and cheap restaurants and big expensive restaurants. Tie I say.
Art-Tie.
Diversity-Not sure what you mean exactly. Do you mean ethnic diversity? Then I'd say probably a tie.
Architecture-I'd give this one to San Fran. It has some interesting building designs and bungalows as opposed to the endless apartment complexes of Brooklyn NYC.
Live Music Scene-Tie I guess.
Nightlife-Brooklyn by far! Though San Francisco is no slouch.
Transportation-Not sure....Tie I guess.
Parks-I have no idea on this one.
Scenery-San Francisco. The city has amazing views! You can see the hills, the bay, the Golden Gate Bridge, it's all beautiful. I have seen pictures of New York City, I have walked it's streets via Google Earth before, it's very flat and has no impressive natural scenic backdrops.
Street Vibrancy-Tie I say.
What city would I live in? Neither would be my first choice but I kind of like the East Coast more and think New York is a more interesting city, so I'd say Brooklyn. Plus like I said I have lived in the Bay Area before and I would like to experience something different.
I also agree with others who say this is an odd comparison. I actually think San Francisco and Miami would be good to compare. They both have huge ethnic diversity, they both have two famous bridges, though obviously the port boulevard is nowhere near as scenic as the Golden Gate. They both have their artistic flares like the art deco district along Ocean Drive in Miami, they both have beautiful scenery with San Fran's hills and views and Miami's lush tropical beauty. They're both on the water. Really San Francisco and Miami are two cities that have more in common than most people realize.
[quote=West Coast Republican;35956182]Disclaimer: I have never been to New York so I'm probably not very informed on it. I however have lived in the Bay Area.
Food-Not sure, both have a ton of diversity. Both cities have lots of different ethnic groups meaning that there's plenty of food from different cultures available, Chinese, Korean, Mexican etc....Both have endless small and cheap restaurants and big expensive restaurants. Tie I say.
Art-Tie.
Diversity-Not sure what you mean exactly. Do you mean ethnic diversity? Then I'd say probably a tie.
Architecture-I'd give this one to San Fran. It has some interesting building designs and bungalows as opposed to the endless apartment complexes of Brooklyn NYC.
Live Music Scene-Tie I guess.
Nightlife-Brooklyn by far! Though San Francisco is no slouch.
Transportation-Not sure....Tie I guess.
Parks-I have no idea on this one.
Scenery-San Francisco. The city has amazing views! You can see the hills, the bay, the Golden Gate Bridge, it's all beautiful. I have seen pictures of New York City, I have walked it's streets via Google Earth before, it's very flat and has no impressive natural scenic backdrops.
Street Vibrancy-Tie I say.
What city would I live in? Neither would be my first choice but I kind of like the East Coast more and think New York is a more interesting city, so I'd say Brooklyn. Plus like I said I have lived in the Bay Area before and I would like to experience something different.
I also agree with others who say this is an odd comparison. I actually think San Francisco and Miami would be good to compare. They both have huge ethnic diversity, they both have two famous bridges, though obviously the port boulevard is nowhere near as scenic as the Golden Gate. They both have their artistic flares like the art deco district along Ocean Drive in Miami, they both have beautiful scenery with San Fran's hills and views and Miami's lush tropical beauty. They're both on the water. Really San Francisco and Miami are two cities that have more in common than most people realize.[/quote]
I don't think folks in SF would be to happy with that statement.
First yall create a thread deliberately skewed towards topics you *think* favors Brooklyn vs San Francisco, a far superior place...and yet 1,200 posts later, most non outer borough responses overwhelmingly favor SF.
LOL
Why do you think this is deliberately skewed towards Brooklyn? You've never seen the following before this topic:
-Food (includes restaurants, mom and pops stores, and street vendors)
-Art (includes museums and the more organic local art scene)
-Diversity
-Architecture
-Live Music scene
-Nightlife
-Transportation (or just ease of getting around)
-Parks
-Scenery
-Street Vibrancy (everything from outdoor cafes to graffiti to street dancers, etc)
Simply searching this forum for other topics listing these categories. I would hope your memory hasn't faded that quickly.
Also, since you're saying this is skewed towards Brooklyn, does that mean that you believe Brooklyn actually does better than SF in these categories. How interesting!
The pace of change in Brooklyn is stunning. It's not even close to being finished yet. San Francisco is a world class city and is, at this point, ahead of Brooklyn. In 15 or 20 years at the rate Brooklyn is changing, the margins between the two cities will be very close.
Brooklyn is atypical of northern American cities. It keep it's population stable for fifty years after WWII, so wide spread blight and abandonment didn't take hold, but it also didn't develop and gut itself like Minneapolis or St.Louis where much of the historic core was removed and replaced with modern boxes and endless flat parking. Therefore, it retained a great deal of it's classic late 19th century/early 20th century architecture, which people seem to adore. It's paying off for Brooklyn now.
Im sure, but San Francisco, already infintely more complete as an urban destination, is not only not standing still, but booming. Actually.
Quote:
San Francisco is a world class city and is, at this point, ahead of Brooklyn. In 15 or 20 years at the rate Brooklyn is changing, the margins between the two cities will be very close.
Until Brooklyn becomes a major corporate and employment hub, a world class destination with world class amenities, the gap will not get close at all.
15-20 years ago btw, South of Market was old warehouses and seedy streets and today is one of the trendiest and economicallt vital areas in the country.
And that was on top of SF already being near the top of the heap as far as cities go, and it hasnt stopped.
So I wish Brooklyn well, but its not SF and its actually inconceivable for Brooklyn to ever rise in stature so long as Manhattan is the center of the universe.
Im sure, but San Francisco, already infintely more complete as an urban destination, is not only not standing still, but booming. Actually.
Until Brooklyn becomes a major corporate and employment hub, a world class destination with world class amenities, the gap will not get close at all.
15-20 years ago btw, South of Market was old warehouses and seedy streets and today is one of the trendiest and economicallt vital areas in the country.
And that was on top of SF already being near the top of the heap as far as cities go, and it hasnt stopped.
So I wish Brooklyn well, but its not SF and its actually inconceivable for Brooklyn to ever rise in stature so long as Manhattan is the center of the universe.
Is that what you still think this topic was on? Why are you so oddly evasive about addressing the actual topic? You've posted so many times and yet you still seem squeamish about the whole thing.
Well if we're looking at "major corporate and employment hub", then obviously SF, because you are comparing a central city to a residential area.
But that's a very odd comparison. The most important corporate/employment hub in the Bay Area is in Silicon Valley, and I don't think too many people would agree that San Jose is a better "city" than San Francisco just because office rents are much higher on Sand Hill Rd. in Palo Alto than anywhere in SF, or because 90% of the tech giants are around San Jose, and not San Francisco.
Well if we're looking at "major corporate and employment hub", then obviously SF, because you are comparing a central city to a residential area.
Yes, Brooklyn is largely residential, like a bedroom community.
I totally agree.
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.
