Brooklyn vs San Francisco (live, state, better, compared)
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.
Then its too bad for all of you; this discussion is fictional and Manhattan is not. Case closed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
But that's just it. Its actually impossible for Brooklyn to win as an independent city as is, vs San Francisco. Without Manhattan, nobody takes you seriously. Sorry.
But that's just it. Its actually impossible for Brooklyn to win as an independent city as is, vs San Francisco. Without Manhattan, nobody takes you seriously. Sorry.
Lulz. Welp, too bad Brooklyn is apart of New York City. Your opinion is invalid. . . no it's not invalid it's just your little opinion, sorry. Do you mind sending me an Oakland postcard sometime? ::snickers::
I was going to post links to articles about Brooklyn/reputable publications but it's all tiring. Brooklyn will never be a separate city, so in short, you lose. Brooklyn is in a renaissance at the moment. The possibilities for this borough are endless.
As if population has no bearing on why Brooklyn beats SF overall - something about California makes people denser, perhaps the lack of nutrients in their 'picture perfect' produce is to blame. This whole argument is funny since it really forces the SF homers to bend and twist their reality to make it fit a narrative that is blatantly false. No point in speaking truth to the foolish, so good night.
The "truth" is that you'd be kicking and screaming if anybody ever insinuated that LA is better than Brooklyn because it's larger. We've seen you do exactly this in other threads.
The population of a city does not dictate how scenic, educated, cultured, etc. it is... using that logic, Phoenix should always be in the discussion of the top 5 cities in America.
What Brooklyn does have over SF is urbanity, transportation and size... SF, however, has more than its own fair share over Brooklyn - scenery, parks and the arts among other things - and there's a whole lot more in-between the two that is not anywhere near as black and white as you want this discussion to be.
You are the definition of a rabid homer. And the sad part is that you're not even from Brooklyn or NYC for that matter... you're from Philadelphia.
Lulz. Welp, too bad Brooklyn is apart of New York City. Your opinion is invalid. . . no it's not invalid it's just your little opinion, sorry. Do you mind sending me an Oakland postcard sometime? ::snickers::
Too bad the rest of NYC does not factor into this discussion per the premise of the thread. If you want to discuss NYC vs. San Francisco, go to the Northeast vs. CA thread and do that.
And what are you snickering about? You can pretend that there are no hellish neighborhoods in Brooklyn, but everybody and their mother would know you're just pretending.
And here's that post-card of Oakland you asked for, brought to you by yours truly:
FWIW, SF is roughly the same population as Baltimore, Brooklyn = (roughly) Chicago and L.A. = (roughly) Chicago + Baltimore
SF can and does punch above its weight but lets be real, it's out of its league compared to Brooklyn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava
The "truth" is that you'd be kicking and screaming if anybody ever insinuated that LA is better than Brooklyn because it's larger. We've seen you do exactly this in other threads.
The population of a city does not dictate how scenic, educated, cultured, etc. it is... using that logic, Phoenix should always be in the discussion of the top 5 cities in America.
What Brooklyn does have over SF is urbanity, transportation and size... SF, however, has more than its own fair share over Brooklyn - scenery, parks and the arts among other things - and there's a whole lot more in-between the two that is not anywhere near as black and white as you want this discussion to be.
You are the definition of a rabid homer. And the sad part is that you're not even from Brooklyn or NYC for that matter... you're from Philadelphia.
Too bad the rest of NYC does not factor into this discussion per the premise of the thread. If you want to discuss NYC vs. San Francisco, go to the Northeast vs. CA thread and do that.
And what are you snickering about? You can pretend that there are no hellish neighborhoods in Brooklyn, but everybody and their mother would know you're just pretending.
And here's that post-card of Oakland you asked for, brought to you by yours truly:
Its hilarious considering the terrible reputations places like Brooklyn and Philadephia have that they would try to put down Oakland just because they are losing a debate about SF.
The "truth" is that you'd be kicking and screaming if anybody ever insinuated that LA is better than Brooklyn because it's larger. We've seen you do exactly this in other threads.
Los Angeles wins by matter of size and quality in that debate-no contest.
yeah baby. Umm, except for you and a couple of your pals, everybody knows who wins this one. BROOKLYN FTW!!! SF = nice postcard, BK = nice city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Its hilarious considering the terrible reputations places like Brooklyn and Philadephia have that they would try to put down Oakland just because they are losing a debate about SF.
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.