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.
Smith Street is nice...draws more of a sophisticated crowd.
well sophisticated, not sure but my days of hanging with 20 somethings is over, still enjoy the 30 something females however being just past the next mark (luckily aged well and as a friend told me being 40 gives you a large age range these days )
am more chill these days and nights out or more focused on the wine and food then bridge and tunnel crowd
will check it out next time up there if I get the chance but am likely in Philly for the haul, my daughter is here
oddly some days I realize I have a life (actually a good one) outside of this silly blue screen that mostly gives relief from conference calls that never end
with that am heading out is an absolutely gorgeous August night, truly this summer has been awesome weather wise
heading to night market with lots of great food trucks - just mostly happy to head out and be outide its gorgeous today here today/tonight; hope the same for BK (imagine so)
If you live in one of the outer, non-trendy, non-hip neighborhoods of San Francisco, would you not have to travel outside of the neighborhood to more lively areas?
Yes and no. People in the Inner Richmond for example often move/live there because they like the more laid back pace compared to the Mission, Fillmore, etc. and they're content with the sizeable bar and lounge scene in the Richmond. Those bars get filled up every night because the entire Richmond area uses them, they're just as packed as the ones down the street in downtown. The Inner Sunset and The Haight both get a boost from UCSF and USF being next door along with the crowd that The Haight pulls on its own weight. 24th street in Cole Valley gets a lot of spillover from The Castro and the Castro is a major destination in and of itself. The Excelsior has a quieter but lively bar scene on Mission Street that get fueled by the late night clientele of the taquerias and pupusa joints next door that pull in people from around the southern area of SF. The Marina gets a lot of clientele from across the Golden Gate Bridge (Marin County). There's Dance clubs all up and down Mission Street (which cuts through the entire City). The Fillmore has some of the best music venues in the City and as a result gets sizeable crowds coming in from all over the Bay Area every day of the week.
BK transit is designed to get people over the bridge, SF transit is designed to get people to and around SF. SF is the final destination in the Bay Area the same way that Manhattan is the final destination in NYC.
but I have trouble comparing a part of something larger to something that includes all
BK is like the population of Chicago let alone SF and does offer a ton and some things SF does not, as is the opposite
at times this thread has been fun to watch as its two places in SF and NYC that have trouble with reality on some levels my biggest issue was using yelp which I don't think does a good job at quantifying
on bars I actually do think BK has more, that is based on my experience but an area neither is lacking in and anyone has an issue finding nightlife in either (neighborhood by neighborhood) I would question it
end of the day BK has areas that are better and areas that are worse so to speak but many places in BK would chic places if they were in SF and I don't see that coming across quite honestly - also many of these places (not all ) in BK have easier access to Manhattan than many places being discussed have to the core of SF
NYC is a beast in the end and SF is a great city - just a far different scale - I like both very much for what they are and could see myself living in either
Yep, and depending on what measure one dominates the other, folks on both sides will try to change the argument back to "why is one part of a city being compared to a whole city anyway" or "of course this city has more of X than the other, its the larger of the two".lol
In fact its the dead opposite, only more like 3x instead of 2x.
Again, your individual neighborhood numbers are clearly wrong. All you have to do it divide the total number of bars by the total number of neighborhoods and it clearly shows you are off by a factor of 10 for Brooklyn.
It didn't make any sense because NOLA 101 was talking about something completely different. He was talking about pedestrian traffic (meaning the number of people you see on the street) and then you swerve and steer the conversation towards bars and nightlife. It's a silly thing to compare Borough Park on because it's a neighborhood dominated by Orthodox Jews. Why would you expect there to be a bunch of dive bars there?
Besides, a bar is not the only thing that can make a neighborhood exciting/interesting. I wouldn't hang out in Borough Park on a Saturday night, but it is fun to see the level of street activity as well as a culture that's not seen in too many U.S. cities outside of NYC. It would be like dumping on Jackson Heights or Flushing because you can't get bottle service there. Different neighborhoods for different things.
I steered the convo towards amenities in general, not just bars and nightlife. Yes, it can be interesting/exciting to observe and people watch in an ethnic hood like Borough Park, same could be said for the many ethno hoods in SF, such as Japantown, Filipinotown, Chinatown, The Mission(Mexicans), etc. With The Mission specifically, you have the combo of nightlife, and cultural people watching. In this regard(people watching) I could see what would make Borough Park, a superior neighborhood to Western Addition, since the foot traffic is higher. But outside of that.........wouldn't the next comparison be amenities? Or is it too apples and oranges to compare borough park to Western Addition or The Mission, or Fillmore? In that case, my bad.
Again, your individual neighborhood numbers are clearly wrong. All you have to do it divide the total number of bars by the total number of neighborhoods and it clearly shows you are off by a factor of 10 for Brooklyn.
If you live in one of the outer, non-trendy, non-hip neighborhoods of San Francisco, would you not have to travel outside of the neighborhood to more lively areas?
I mean, what city on earth has night clubs and poppin' bars in every damn neighborhood? Go to Paris and tell me what's cracking around Montmatre. What's going down in Montparnasse? Hell, what's going on on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. The notion that every neighborhood needs to have dives and a megaclub with bottle service to compete with the likes of San Francisco is beyond ridiculous.
The good thing about Brooklyn, though, is that it's very easy to get from one place to another on transit compared to SF.
That was never my notion. My notion was, a neighborhood has to have SOMETHING, besides the general necessities(bodegas, cornerstores, pharmacies, churches, synagogues, botanicas), and high density. The SF neighborhoods that I was using in comparison had activity, beyond the basic necessities. My point was, while BP is a lovely historic hasidic neighborhood, what would be the point in going there vs going to The Castro, or The Mission, or Fillmore, that offer things beyond the basics. But, it was a bad Apples to Oranges comparison onn my part. My bad. I just saw other posters using Borough Park to show the overall superiority of BK neighborhoods, so I latched to Borough Park. Maybe I should compare Borough Park, to Chinatown, and other SF ethnic hoods.
Yes and no. People in the Inner Richmond for example often move/live there because they like the more laid back pace compared to the Mission, Fillmore, etc. and they're content with the sizeable bar and lounge scene in the Richmond. Those bars get filled up every night because the entire Richmond area uses them, they're just as packed as the ones down the street in downtown. The Inner Sunset and The Haight both get a boost from UCSF and USF being next door along with the crowd that The Haight pulls on its own weight. 24th street in Cole Valley gets a lot of spillover from The Castro and the Castro is a major destination in and of itself. The Excelsior has a quieter but lively bar scene on Mission Street that get fueled by the late night clientele of the taquerias and pupusa joints next door that pull in people from around the southern area of SF. The Marina gets a lot of clientele from across the Golden Gate Bridge (Marin County). There's Dance clubs all up and down Mission Street (which cuts through the entire City). The Fillmore has some of the best music venues in the City and as a result gets sizeable crowds coming in from all over the Bay Area every day of the week.
BK transit is designed to get people over the bridge, SF transit is designed to get people to and around SF. SF is the final destination in the Bay Area the same way that Manhattan is the final destination in NYC.
That's what I was thinking, as I was comparing the residential areas of South SF, and Southeast SF to like areas in Brooklyn. I think Excelsior, Crocker-Amazon, Potrero Hill, Glen Park, measure up well to like areas in Brooklyn.
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.
