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.
For example, Manhattan is one thing, but the outer boroughs are not appealling to me at all.
To each his own, but the East Bay(Oakland-Berkeley area) is just as diverse, but much classier overall, and is visibly wealthier, more posh, more sophisticated, less gritty and really more pleasant.
There are perks to not being forced to accomodate millions of middle to lower income people) into such a small area. NYC can have that. I dont have the patience to live like that.
Nah. The wealthy portions of the outer boroughs might not be a huge percentage, but in terms of absolute numbers of people and wealth, it's pretty great even within the city itself. I understand you might not be personally interested, but I also remember that you seemed to think it was still the 80s in the outer boroughs.
One can also live in Greenwich, Westchester, Long Island, etc. Pricy, perhaps, but fairly good transit network.
That makes no sense. Philly is in the same general class as Chicago, SF, and Boston.
None of those listed cities are remotely in the same class as NYC. LA comes closest but is still a long ways off.
Yea, it's sort of funny talking about NYC as the undisputed king of the east coast and some crown being passed between SF and LA on the west coast. It's nonsensical because NYC is simply the undisputed king for the US. Again, it's like talking about being 2nd place for so and so, which obscures the fact that there is so little difference between 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. place when you're comparing it to the difference between any of these and 1st place.
Yea, it's sort of funny talking about NYC as the undisputed king of the east coast and some crown being passed between SF and LA on the west coast. It's nonsensical because NYC is simply the undisputed king for the US. Again, it's like talking about being 2nd place for so and so, which obscures the fact that there is so little difference between 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. place when you're comparing it to the difference between any of these and 1st place.
Another way to look at it is to compare all the cities of the world. Even then NYC has a good argument for being #1. And there are quite a few spots taken by other global cities before you reach the next US city.
Another way to look at it is to compare all the cities of the world. Even then NYC has a good argument for being #1. And there are quite a few spots taken by other global cities before you reach the next US city.
"But it's a pointless argument because Paris, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong". I think wrong forum to discuss those cities? And anyways, San Francisco's most common nickname is the Paris of the West Not to mention, size/global prominence isn't *everything*. For instance, I'd choose Paris over New York and SF and both New York and San Francisco over London, and Hong Kong over Tokyo but NYC, SF, London and Paris over both Hong Kong and Tokyo (in fact no matter how large and prominent, I have NO desire to ever live in Tokyo, but I once tried to land a job in Hong Kong and even have family there and Paris is my favorite city in the world).
There are many people in this country who would love a chance to build a career and live/work in both NYC and SF. There are also many people who are repulsed by both cities. There is a reason this thread exists.
Size is only so relevant. As far as US cities go, to many, perhaps most, NYC and SF represent both the best and the worst the country has to offer (depending on who you ask of course).
"But it's a pointless argument because Paris, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong". I think wrong forum to discuss those cities? And anyways, San Francisco's most common nickname is the Paris of the West Not to mention, size/global prominence isn't *everything*. For instance, I'd choose Paris over New York and SF and both New York and San Francisco over London, and Hong Kong over Tokyo but NYC, SF, London and Paris over both Hong Kong and Tokyo (in fact no matter how large and prominent, I have NO desire to ever live in Tokyo, but I once tried to land a job in Hong Kong and even have family there and Paris is my favorite city in the world).
There are many people in this country who would love a chance to build a career and live/work in both NYC and SF. There are also many people who are repulsed by both cities. There is a reason this thread exists.
Size is only so relevant. As far as US cities go, to many, perhaps most, NYC and SF represent both the best and the worst the country has to offer (depending on who you ask of course).
SF isn't on those other cities level. Delusional much?
Yea, it's sort of funny talking about NYC as the undisputed king of the east coast and some crown being passed between SF and LA on the west coast. It's nonsensical because NYC is simply the undisputed king for the US. Again, it's like talking about being 2nd place for so and so, which obscures the fact that there is so little difference between 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. place when you're comparing it to the difference between any of these and 1st place.
Exactly.
When it comes to these cities, the difference between #1 and #2 is much bigger than the difference between #2 and #5 (or #10 for that matter). So saying "City A is #2, so better than City B at #5" is kind of silly.
There's not a huge difference in urbanity, amenities and general desirability between Chicago, SF, DC, Philly, and Boston. Some differences, yes, but not enormous differences, like comparing NYC to any of these cities.
Chicago is the most "big city, downtown" feel, SF is the highest priced and most desirable, DC has the most international, cosmopolitan feel, Boston and Philly have the best street-level urbanity, etc. But all these cities are in the same general ballpark.
"But it's a pointless argument because Paris, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong". I think wrong forum to discuss those cities? And anyways, San Francisco's most common nickname is the Paris of the West Not to mention, size/global prominence isn't *everything*. For instance, I'd choose Paris over New York and SF and both New York and San Francisco over London, and Hong Kong over Tokyo but NYC, SF, London and Paris over both Hong Kong and Tokyo (in fact no matter how large and prominent, I have NO desire to ever live in Tokyo, but I once tried to land a job in Hong Kong and even have family there and Paris is my favorite city in the world).
There are many people in this country who would love a chance to build a career and live/work in both NYC and SF. There are also many people who are repulsed by both cities. There is a reason this thread exists.
Size is only so relevant. As far as US cities go, to many, perhaps most, NYC and SF represent both the best and the worst the country has to offer (depending on who you ask of course).
Yea, and Pittsburgh is the Paris of Appalachia. Kansas City is the Paris of the Plains. Asheville is the Paris of the South. There are a lotof Paris's out there which is much more a testament to Paris than anything else because Paris actually can be argued about in regards to clout, influence, and urbanity compared to NYC whereas SF simply does not belong in those ranks.
I understand having a desire to live in one place over another, and there's not much to argue on those grounds. You like what you like. I like Kyoto and Osaka more than I like Tokyo. Hangzhou and Suzhou are way better than any of the Chinese megacities. I like Montreal way more than I like Toronto. I definitely prefer Philadelphia over SF. So yea, I get that.
Yea, it's sort of funny talking about NYC as the undisputed king of the east coast and some crown being passed between SF and LA on the west coast. It's nonsensical because NYC is simply the undisputed king for the US. Again, it's like talking about being 2nd place for so and so, which obscures the fact that there is so little difference between 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. place when you're comparing it to the difference between any of these and 1st place.
New York is the biggest, but it's far from the best place overall to live in, and definitely beneath SF at any level, be it city, msa or csa, as far as livability.
I mean really, let's not kid ourselves.
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.
Not to mention, size/global prominence isn't *everything*. For instance, I'd choose Paris over New York and SF and both New York and San Francisco over London, and Hong Kong over Tokyo but NYC, SF, London and Paris over both Hong Kong and Tokyo (in fact no matter how large and prominent, I have NO desire to ever live in Tokyo, but I once tried to land a job in Hong Kong and even have family there and Paris is my favorite city in the world).
