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.
My perception from the folks I've known in Chicago and NYC is that San Francisco is nice, but not to live save for some spectacular career offering. In regards to the city, it's nice, picturesque, but grimier than expected. Don't recall anyone saying anything positive about the beach scene; most spent their time in napa/Sonoma.
One person I know from Chicago moved there and loves it. Likes the weather and surrounding areas. One friend in NYC tried sf for 1 year and moved back. Didnt cared for the culture and wasn't as exciting.
I think you summed it up well. Many Chicgoans love SF but wouldn't want to live there and prob is true vice versa.
I know someone who moved from SF to Chicago, and liked Chicago but movd back to the Bay. My friend moved from Chicago to SF loves it out there but can't wait to move back to the Chi. IMO I think these three cities are the best this country has to offer. I think if you like one city from the three you will like the other two. Living in one is different as COL and weather will stir you in different preferences.
I will say out of the three I find SF to be the least exciting, but that is probably due to the fact that it is much smaller. However, in terms of natural beauty meshed with a city it's the most beautiful. I find Chicago to be the most beautiful in architecture, and has plenty of natural beauty but certainly a step behind SF in that regard but ahead of NYC. Chicagos con is the crazy weather. NYC is the most exciting and crazy, but I find it to be the ugliest of the three.
that SF is a great city. Lot's of uniqueness to it. Living in Chicago I totally love my city and would never want to move. I even like our winters. And from friends in both NY and SF I believe that Chicago is a bit less expensive.
A bit? Chicago is way more inexpensive specifically in real estate and rent. However, in terms of food, clothes, restaurants, etc, I found SF to be fairly even to Chicago. NYC on the other hand is expensive in every category.
[quote=NY Jew;23938665]I think my point was for the most part in agreement with you.
in short why would I an Orthodox Jew want to move to a city that has almost no Orthodox Jews and in addition stands for everything I'm against.
I'm sure that most of NY other minority's (I consider ethnic whites minorities) would like wise want to live near other minorities.
NY is the most neighborhood based city in America (if you ask a NYer where there from most would say either the borough or neighborhood but almost never say NY). In addition there are overlapping communities in parts of NY that know nothing about the other community (example in a article about Bensonhurst in the 50's both Italians and Jews living on the same blocks in Bensonhurst were asked about what % of there block was Jewish or Italian and both thought that there respective demographic were the supermajority) This phenomenon still exists in much of NY today.
What this leads to is a city which is really a bunch of little overlapping cities.
Therefore the fact that SF (Asians aside) has no minorities communities like LA most minorities would not want to move to SF but to LA. Not because they want to move to a diverse place but because LA is more diverse the things that they like about their little NY is more likely to be there.[/quote]
You don't seem to know much about San Francisco do you? North Beach= Italians/ Japantown=Japanese/Chinatown=Chinese/Mission District=Latinos/Bay View Hunters Point=African Americans. San Francisco has a mix of diverse communities.
Unlike SF, Manhattan has ways of avoiding those types of people because people from the other boroughs can come in and put those types in their place and remind them whose city it really is. Hell, even north of 110th Street you wouldn't find those types
SF is surrounded by areas that think like it, so it will take the rest of the country to put it in its place. Any minority who lives there is seen as a traitor to minorities everywhere else in the country.
Your numerous threads/posts on attacks against San Francisco are based off pure hate with no legit facts and a huge lack of substance. You lack credibility in your posts. I'm sure you have been exposed by most sensible ppl in this forum.
San Francisco has everything to offer that other large cities do. World famous structures, World class restaurants, a very good public transit system, a west coast leader in the financial industry, World famous tourist attractions and an urban feel that matches other reknown cities. To be second in the US in overall density I can't see how you blast this city regarding urbanism?
Also, you are so wrong! SF is the cultural and traditional heart and soul of one of our largest metros--who cares if it's legal boundaries only include 800,000. How did you spend so much time on these forums and not have that pounded into your head yet? Do you really think Jacksonville, Austin, or Indianapolis are functionally the same size? Have you ever been to SF?
Never have I seen any other city in the country rely on its metro area for importance as much as San Francisco does. Hell, the industry that the Bay Area is strongest in BARELY has a presence in the City of San Francisco.
And yes, SF MSA is 4.3 million people. Riverside MSA is about to surpass SF MSA as the 2nd most populated metro in California. So please, compared to any East Coast city, San Francisco is small time.
Quote:
Also, in terms of economic influence, SF does contend with Chicago overall, and when it comes to companies and their chief base of operations, to LA. The only one it doesn't contend with is NYC--but then again, neither LA or Chicago or anywhere close to NYC economically.
Yes, a city that relies primarily on tourism contends with one of the largest manufacturing centers in the country, or the place where the commodities trade is centered (CME).
No, San Francisco itself is even irrelevant in its own region when it comes to economic prowess. Most of Silicon Valley isn't even in San Francisco's metro.
Quote:
To some other post about all the "aside from Asians" and diversity posts--really? Why do Asians somehow count less when we're talking about diversity (especially since the category itself is the most internally diverse)? And SF is something like 15% hispanic with a 6% black population while the metro area is one of the most diverse in the US (but this is assuming that we are allowed to count Asians as people--though it actually does well even if you don't count Asians as people).
Most Asians in San Francisco (again, city itself) are Chinese. 67% of all Asians in SF are Chinese, so no, its not a "diverse group of people" when it comes to the Bay Area.
No one outside of this website associates SF with diversity: it's just a White and Asian city. Compared to the East Coast cities, it barely has any minorities.
Its a cute town, but again, it is only 46 square miles and has 800,000 people. Its metro is only 4.3 million people.
Again, I've never seen any other city rely on things outside of its own legal boundaries to claim some sort of importance. That is purely pathetic IMO.
Never have I seen any other city in the country rely on its metro area for importance as much as San Francisco does. Hell, the industry that the Bay Area is strongest in BARELY has a presence in the City of San Francisco.
And yes, SF MSA is 4.3 million people. Riverside MSA is about to surpass SF MSA as the 2nd most populated metro in California. [b]So please, compared to any East Coast city, San Francisco is small time.
Yes, a city that relies primarily on tourism contends with one of the largest manufacturing centers in the country, or the place where the commodities trade is centered (CME).
But you'll plug Philly, who primarily relies on NYC's runoff these days. SF never had a massive population dropoff
Quote:
No, San Francisco itself is even irrelevant in its own region when it comes to economic prowess. Most of Silicon Valley isn't even in San Francisco's metro.
Totally untrue, no matter how you try to swing it.
Quote:
Most Asians in San Francisco (again, city itself) are Chinese. 67% of all Asians in SF are Chinese, so no, its not a "diverse group of people" when it comes to the Bay Area.
What percentage of Asians in NYC and Philly are Chinese?
Besides, "Chinese" can mean any one of a number of different ethnic backgrounds - there are many different cultures within China.
Quote:
No one outside of this website associates SF with diversity: it's just a White and Asian city. Compared to the East Coast cities, it barely has any minorities.
That's totally untrue and you know it. The right wing media dumps constantly on SF due in part to the fact that it is diverse.
It's like back when another poster with similar motivations made the claim that "when they were in China, no one had ever heard of San Francisco, but they were all asking about Philadelphia:" such a patently wrong and untrue thing to say that it beggars logic.
Quote:
Its a cute town, but again, it is only 46 square miles and has 800,000 people. Its metro is only 4.3 million people.
Again, I've never seen any other city rely on things outside of its own legal boundaries to claim some sort of importance. That is purely pathetic IMO.
I dunno man, devoting so many hours of your life into coming onto an internet forum to go on and on about how much you hate a place you've never been to and have nothing to do with isn't exactly admirable...
Most of the people I got to taking about the West Coast with when I was in NYC, as well as my friends who live there, have a pretty positive opinion of SF. You regularly hear comments like, "if I were going to move to the West Coast, I'd pick San Francisco."
He is. San Francisco has a very good opinion amongst NY'ers.
We see it as a bastiin of civilization on the West Coast
He is. San Francisco has a very good opinion amongst NY'ers.
We see it as a bastiin of civilization on the West Coast
Yep! And as a Bostonian who also lived in NYC and Albany, this is exactly what I know: people back east generally have a positive opinion of San Francisco - usually moreso than LA! I heard way more people bemoan LA for being "fake" than I ever heard anything negative about SF, many times over.
What our two resident SF-haters keep repeating is basically that people in NY, Philly, and to a lesser degree Boston are somehow impervious to SF's charm and harbor nothing but contempt and disgust for such a little, shrimpy, homogenous city (neener neener booboo, stick your head in doo-doo!!!!11!!). The only problem is that
1) it's not true that people there "hate" it or "want to put it in its place"
2) it's not true that it's tiny
3) it's not true that it's not diverse
4) most of the people who are backing SF in this argument are people who are either from the northeast originally, or have lived out there, and many of them are also people who are from the NE or Chicago and have never lived there but think fondly of it!
Bottom line is, its not HOT on the SoCal coast like what Oy Crumbler says and any suggestion that its normal for temps to be hot or even uncomfortable ANYWHERE on the California coast during the summer is a fabrication.
You all might be able to pretend for the out-of-staters but give me a break.
In this thread we've seen SoCal coastal areas compared to Hawaii as far as warmth.AS IF.
Please stop talking.
lol
There wasn't really a comparison to Hawaii for warmth--only that both Hawaii and the socal coast are hot enough for skimpy clothing. Hawaii has it more year round (that being said, Hawaii isn't hot so much as it is nicely warm and is so pretty much throughout the year). You misunderstood what the guy was saying, but it seemed obvious to me.
Why does it have to be uncomfortably hot for a beach scene anyhow? The idea is that in some months it does get hot enough often enough to sustain a beach scene. It's not just the slightly warmer water and ambient temperature, but that there isn't much cloud cover or fog in the latter parts of summer--it's the sun shining more directly and longer that along with the slightly warmer temperatures that allows people to comfortably sunbathe in socal and go around in tank tops, bikinis, or shirtless. That is something really rare in the Bay Area beaches.
Unlike SF, Manhattan has ways of avoiding those types of people because people from the other boroughs can come in and put those types in their place and remind them whose city it really is. Hell, even north of 110th Street you wouldn't find those types
SF is surrounded by areas that think like it, so it will take the rest of the country to put it in its place. Any minority who lives there is seen as a traitor to minorities everywhere else in the country.
and despite it's rep Manhattan has many non liberals under 110th street there are
for a few examples around 5,000-10,000 Orthodox Jews on the Upper West Side and many of the apartment building there are owned by them (they bought when the land was cheap in the 50s and 60s)
Chinatown and the Lower East Side (at least the part that's still called the Lower East Side) are majority non white liberal. (diffrent types of Asians, and Hispanics, plus Orthodox Jews)
there are still some Irish left in Hells Kitchen.
this is meant to be an addition to what you said.
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.
AS IF.
