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.
I guess. But if you really like NYC or DC that much to visit them all the time then why not just live in one of them? San Jose has a good location 40 minutes north you're in San Francisco and go the other way then you're in Oakland. Add another 2 hours and then you will be in Sacramento. Go south and you will be in Monterrey and stay around for a bit then you can see big sur.
Or better yet, just have them as an option to visit for a day trip or weekend getaway when you want rather than uprooting your life. When I lived in SD I enjoyed visiting LA/OC for day or weekend trips every so often but I had no desire to live there at all.
SJ and Oakland are part of the same metro, not really what I'm talking about. For me, Oakland really doesn't offer anything compelling to where I'm gonna spend the day except for an A's game. Sac? Not really worth a visit unless you're seeing friends or a relative.
Quote:
I know I want HSR to happen to and it will. Then what?
It's not guaranteed to happen and IF it does it's at least 20 years away.
Quote:
Look how beautiful that is, there is nothing like it anywhere close to Phily.
If all you care about is nature then probably not. To me, NorCal is very scenic but it's not very user friendly with the climate and cold ocean. I think Hawaii has scenery just as stunning, if not more so, but it's much more user friendly. East Coast lacks such dramatic scenery but makes for it in other ways imo.
Quote:
Some places are just plain better than others and San Francisco is better than Phily
Maybe for some, the Bay Area is an amazing place but if I wasn't from here and have all the family and friends that I do in the area, I wouldn't pay the astronomical prices to live here. A tad overrated imo.
Lets stop pretending that the only history this country has is back east and that California has no history. I find California's history better because it touches up on indigenous settlement of over 70 different Native American tribes, British settlement, Russian, Spaniards, Mexican, and then the manifestation settlement from "America".
I hate America and that includes its history, its a terrible country but that's just my opinion. History aside why don't you show us what Phily has over San Francisco. Use pictures, links, what you can to prove it because I'm not buying it.
If you'll re-read the original post, that's explicitly NOT the issue in this thread. Which city is "better" is purely subjective, ultimately a matter of ones own personal taste. The question under discussion is whether or not a reasonable comparison can be made between the two cities....regardless of which you prefer personally. In rather elegant rhetorical terms, and using flawless logic, you've made your case that such a comparison is inaccurate. Thank you for your contribution. I'm sure a first-class thinker and debater such as yourself has other pressing matters to attend to in the vast World of Ideas. Please, by no means let us deter you from them. Good day, Sir or Madam.
Or better yet, just have them as an option to visit for a day trip or weekend getaway when you want rather than uprooting your life. When I lived in SD I enjoyed visiting LA/OC for day or weekend trips every so often but I had no desire to live there at all.
That's because you lived in San Diego! Its the finest city in the continental US IMO and its got so many great things going on. Perfect weather, safest big city in the US, perfect landscape, perfect scenery, perfect location, hot and sexy women, California's most underrated elite school UCSD, comic con, zoos, sea world, legoland, Hotel del Coronado, such a great city!
Quote:
SJ and Oakland are part of the same metro, not really what I'm talking about. For me, Oakland really doesn't offer anything compelling to where I'm gonna spend the day except for an A's game.
Actually downtown Oakland reminds me of downtown Phily, the grit and activity is similar but Phily is a bigger denser city so it has more going on but if it had a mini version that would be Oakland.
Quote:
Sac? Not really worth a visit unless you're seeing friends or a relative.
Tower bridge, cathedral of Sacrament, Zuggurat, California state capitol are worth visiting and a Kings game is always nice but this is just my opinion.
Look how beautiful that is, there is nothing like it anywhere close to Phily.
Some places are just plain better than others and San Francisco is better than Phily.
The problem with that photo of the SF coast is its also fairly inaccessible. Other than die hard surfers in wetsuits what kind of fun can you have on that northcoast?
The Philadelphia area obviously doesnt have the iconic landscape of Bay Area but overall you could probably make the argument that it is more livable. For every neat, interesting, desolate, mountain top in SF there is a pleasant, emerald green, valley in the Philadelphia region.
The barrier islands of South Jersey like Wildwood,Ocean City,Cape May have summertime population density numbers off the charts. Like 50,000 ppsq.m.
Actually downtown Oakland reminds me of downtown Phily, the grit and activity is similar but Phily is a bigger denser city so it has more going on but if it had a mini version that would be Oakland.
Never been to Oakland. Can anyone who has been in both downtowns(Philly-Oakland) verify this assertion please. That sounds like an untrue statement.
I was in Vegas recently talking to a couple who had just visited Philly and they raved about it, especially Rittenhouse Square. Everybody has there own personal taste and perhaps the dudes you overheard-Philly wasnt their thing.
i wouldnt get too worked up over it.
Yeah, that's more or less my take, too. I don't really take stuff like that personally, and in fact one of the reasons I hang out on City-Data sometimes is get over the last vestiges of my own East Coast bias. All different kinds of cities have outstanding qualities about them if you give yourself a chance to experience them. It's just that I had noticed that some of the City-Data exchanges about Philly/San Fran get way more nasty, way more quickly than I would have otherwise expected. (I've noticed the same thing on some sports message boards as well.) It seems really strange to me, because like I said while I think they're natural cities to compare, a legit case could be made for either so I don't quite get the hostility that you sometimes encounter between the two camps. In any case I have NO disparaging words about SF. It's clearly a remarkable city, to suggest otherwise is just foolish.
Very nice pics of the Philly area, maybe not as dramatic and stunning as Ca's scenery but still scenic and more user friendly.
Never been to Downtown Philly but I have a very hard time believing Oakland is comparable at all. Most people who have visited SF have never been to Downtown Oakland because there isn't a whole lot to see and do there.
Yeah, that's more or less my take, too. I don't really take stuff like that personally, and in fact one of the reasons I hang out on City-Data sometimes is get over the last vestiges of my own East Coast bias. All different kinds of cities have outstanding qualities about them if you give yourself a chance to experience them. It's just that I had noticed that some of the City-Data exchanges about Philly/San Fran get way more nasty, way more quickly than I would have otherwise expected. (I've noticed the same thing on some sports message boards as well.) It seems really strange to me, because like I said while I think they're natural cities to compare, a legit case could be made for either so I don't quite get the hostility that you sometimes encounter between the two camps. In any case I have NO disparaging words about SF. It's clearly a remarkable city, to suggest otherwise is just foolish.
Ive always said that on a per capita basis SF blows Philly out of the water. That being said because Philadelphia is 3x the geographical size of the city of SF, there is actually a greater number of phenomenal areas to live in Philly.
As far as the overall region? Philaldelphia to live. Bay Area to sightsee.
If they're sporting SF Giants gear then they're more likely to act like an arrogant douche, so that should have been your first clue there.
As for the thread subject, I think it's a pefectly fine comparison but there are several homers on each side that just get out of hand.
So if you like the Giants and wear their gear you are arrogrant douche? Please explain.
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.
All different kinds of cities have outstanding qualities about them if you give yourself a chance to experience them. It's just that I had noticed that some of the City-Data exchanges about Philly/San Fran get way more nasty, way more quickly than I would have otherwise expected. (I've noticed the same thing on some sports message boards as well.) It seems really strange to me, because like I said while I think they're natural cities to compare, a legit case could be made for either so I don't quite get the hostility that you sometimes encounter between the two camps. In any case I have NO disparaging words about SF. It's clearly a remarkable city, to suggest otherwise is just foolish.
