New York City Vs San Francisco with Poll (Atlanta, living, best)

[OyCrumbler]

I do like Boson. Kind of.

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

SF pound for pound, is better than all of them and going from SF to any of them is generally a downgrade.

As far as wealth and lifestyle, they wish.

NYC > SF. Pound for pound. No downgrade.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by qworldorder

NYC > SF. Pound for pound. No downgrade.

Yawns and Nope. Bubble bursting time. New York is largely working class compared to SF. There's nothing wrong with that btw, but it's true.

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Yawns and Nope. Bubble bursting time. New York is largely working class compared to SF. There's nothing wrong with that btw, but it's true.

You contradict yourself. If there's nothing wrong with working class, no point in bringing it up... yawn.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by qworldorder

You contradict yourself. If there's nothing wrong with working class, no point in bringing it up... yawn.

The point is to tear down your argument. Mission accomplished.

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

The point is to tear down your argument. Mission accomplished.

How so? You bring up working class, insinuating as if its a bad thing, then promptly agree that it's not. You didn't tear down a thing.

Just admit it, NYC is the one city in the country that unequivocally hands San Francisco...my bad, The Bay Area, its lunch. No debate, check the poll

[compactspace]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

SF pound for pound, is better than all of them and going from SF to any of them is generally a downgrade.

As far as wealth and lifestyle, they wish.

I gotta hand it to you, that's a deep love of SF. Holy smokes.

I'm interested. Why would you rate SF (and presumably the Bay) over, say Milan? Is it purely economic?

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Northeast Uber Urbanist

He's delusional. He actually thought of SF as the alternative to Paris, NYC, Tokyo. SF is not in those cities league and should be left out of being in the same sentence. Those are the best cities in the world, SF isn't the best city in California yet.

Apples vs Oranges. Mercedes SLR vs Minicooper.

Yeah, SLR's are wayyy out of NYCs range.

Median Annual Earnings, Full Time Employed Males, 2013
San Francisco, CA $71,902
New York, NY $49,011

Median Annual Earnings, Full Time Employed Females, 2013
San Francisco, CA $60,859
New York, NY $46,036

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by compactspace

I gotta hand it to you, that's a deep love of SF. Holy smokes.

I'm interested. Why would you rate SF (and presumably the Bay) over, say Milan? Is it purely economic?

Here's what I said in another thread. Applies here as well.

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

[i]
Ultimately it all boils down to what I said
earlier,

You can add as many pluses(++++++) to
your middle class Alpha City as you like
darling, to me it's **always** been about
being richer, better educated, being more
racially diverse, having a more robust
economy, having a superior climate and
unquestionably better natural setting and
the Bay Area is all of that compared to
London.

AFTER ALL OF THAT, throw in The City. San
Francisco itself, with its postcard perfect
views at every turn, with it's vibrant city
center, with it's world class amenities,
iconic streetscapes, wonderful
neighborhoods, and booming development,
and what one finds when combining all
these factors is a region that is just about
unparalleled.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by qworldorder

How so? You bring up working class, insinuating as if its a bad thing, then promptly agree that it's not. You didn't tear down a thing.

Just admit it, NYC is the one city in the country that unequivocally hands San Francisco...my bad, The Bay Area, its lunch. No debate, check the poll

haha@"check the poll"

You need a reality check if you think poll results are more accurate than statistics that prove which city's residents are healthier, wealthier, better educated and have a higher quality of life overall.