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.
Furthermore, you lumped LA and NYC in together as the two "high cost" cities. Do you not realize that the Bay Area and SF are far more expensive than LA/Greater LA? And like I said, SF is more expensive than NYC right now.
LA has far more high end real estate than SF. NYC, the difference with SF is so great, no point in even comparing. NYC has more high end real estate than any city on earth.
When comparing metro areas, you're right that there are no real affordable, non-slum areas in the SF metro, while NYC and LA metros have plenty of affordable, non-slum areas.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,175,298 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist
Aside from you Philly-centric posters, most people aren't saying "SF isn't all that". People are either saying they prefer New York, or at this point simply defending the Bay Area from odd false claims from you guys.
And this poll, for being "so lopsided" as you put it, and for many people agreeing New York might be the absolute greatest city on Earth, isn't that big of a blowout. 70-30 I've seen far worse on C-D.
Worse than 70-30 between two major cities? Please, do tell...
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,175,298 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadicalAtheist
lol NYC is only 70% better than SF! NYC isn't perfect!
I honestly don't know why they don't show C-D CvC forum polls on CNN. The people need to know the truth.
That's pretty much the argument, at this point--70% isn't THAT bad. Oh, and some crazy tangent about Tesla vs Cadillac--whatever. But, oh, both cities are great cities! We shouldn't compare! Lol. True to form, San Franciscans/boosters don't like to admit defeat. At least "Philly-centric" boosters are humble...
Hard to take those lists seriously - I've seen San Francisco rated as an unhappy city. I've seen Miami as unhappy, LA as unhappy, etc etc. Stupid stupid stupid lists
Also, you hate SF and are heaping on the praise of NYC, likening the comparison to something absolutely ridiculous, yet you just go out of your way to say that you saw some stupid list that pegged New Yorkers as the unhappiest and Washingtonians as the happiest??? Really weird. DC doesn't strike me as a particularly happy place and I've seen more unhappy places than New York, so what's the point?
In terms of expensive, what are you smoking. It costs, on average, far more to own a home throughout the entire Bay Area than in New York City, let alone New York metro. Manhattan itself may have higher housing costs (and on average we're talking by not that much - these are the two cities where it costs on average $1M+ to own the average home, eg an average 2 BR), but it has lower rental costs right now (and most New Yorkers live in Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, and Staten Island).
The point still stands, it is ABSURD to say that people are flocking to SF (and DC) from NYC to escape high cost of living. ABSURD. People don't move to SF, DC, Boston, or most large cities with the exceptions of a few of the Sunbelt cities to escape high costs of living.
Furthermore, you lumped LA and NYC in together as the two "high cost" cities. Do you not realize that the Bay Area and SF are far more expensive than LA/Greater LA? And like I said, SF is more expensive than NYC right now. Most people in either city rent. And rentals are more expensive on average in SF than in Manhattan, let alone all of New York. Sure, a microcosm like Tribeca might have higher average rents than a comparable location in SF, but on average, the 99% of Manhattanites who won't be living in Tribeca will have more options to choose from at on average lower rates. Fact, and I can provide the data, but it's a pretty big/frequent news story these days.
Your point was a little more than wayyyy off.
I never said DC was the happiest--I actually think it was New Orleans.
I also never said that LA was one of the two most expensive cities in the country; I've acknowledged many times that SF is more expensive. Learn how to read.
LA has far more high end real estate than SF. NYC, the difference with SF is so great, no point in even comparing. NYC has more high end real estate than any city on earth.
When comparing metro areas, you're right that there are no real affordable, non-slum areas in the SF metro, while NYC and LA metros have plenty of affordable, non-slum areas.
Wrong on almost all accounts. NYC is leagues beyond any other American city in terms of basic millionaires, ultra high net worth individuals, $1M+ homes, $5M+ homes, and $10M+ homes. However, the Bay Area and LA/OC are pretty neck and neck across all of these metrics (and Greater LA is over 2x the size of the Bay Area).
I think you should do some research before you spout off these incorrect statements.
From Capgemini's annual report on global wealth (high net worth investors with $1M in assets to invest excluding primary residence):
New York - 894,000 - $3.24 Trillion - 68% increase since 2008
Los Angeles - 330,000 - $1.2 Trillion - 64%
San Francisco - 199,000 - $707Bn - 70%
San Jose - 122,000 - $449Bn - 83%
Subtotal - 321,000 - $1.156 Trillion
Chicago - 264,000 - $1.08 Trillion - 65%
DC - 221,000 - $886Bn - 87%
Rounding out the top 12:
Boston
Philadelphia
Houston
Dallas
Detroit
Seattle
For other sources on million dollar listings, please do some research. And Million Dollar Listing (as well as a CNBC show) are filming in SF. I know someone they reached out to to be on the show. In fact, for an episode, Kim K was going to "buy a house" in SF for the CNBC show (all staged of course), and for Million Dollar Listing, apparently the producers wanted juicy stories of hookups and they wanted gossip details about the wealthy people in town (which of course is totally NOT the SF way as everyone buys houses under maximum discretion using LLCs, and it's not as interesting as LA in which neuveau riche people are buying houses on credit and banging the hot "LA" realtor in the process...definitely more of a "boring" real estate city).
You're right in that "premium" real estate measured by size and grandeur may be more common in LA, but it's also more common in Houston where you can buy a mediterranean mansion for $500K-$1M (equivalent would cost $3M+ in LA, probably $5M+ in SF metro with none of that really even available in the city).
Also, according to source for the numbers AOL RE used (Zillow), not only do SF and SJ each have the lowest square footage, they also have by far the highest percentage of homes valued at $1M+ (33% and 23% respectively). Maybe a $1M home in Silicon Valley is a relative shack compared to a $1M home in the Central Valley of LA, and so to you LA has "far more" premium real estate, but in terms of value and price, the two metros are on par.
You'll also find similar peaks ($50M+) across NYC, LA, and SF, with a sparing super high value coming out of South FL or in Aspen or some place like that, and highest number of these super high value sales coming out of Manhattan (especially with the recent condo boom).
San Francisco Metro: 43.5%
Fairfield County, CT (Bridgeport-Stamford): 29.7%
San Jose Metro: 25.7%
Orange County: 24.4%
Ventura County, CA (Malibu is in this county): 21.5%
New York Metro (NY-NJ, excl CT): 20.8%
Long Island, NY: 20.5%
Honolulu: 19.8%
Los Angeles: 18.4%
San Diego: 18.0%
True to form, San Franciscans/boosters don't like to admit defeat. At least "Philly-centric" boosters are humble...
Philly posters are humble??? OMG have we forgotten the threads where they think practically all of Jersey is part of Philadelphia? Have we forgotten that they believe Princeton is a Philadelphia institution? Have we forgotten how many times they have delusions about how great Philadelphia is (and oddly don't get called out for it the way SF posters do)? Not to mention, they are by far (along with DC posters) some of the most active posters across all threads, spouting off fallacies and misinformation more than anyone...
All I am doing is correcting the misinformation. If you read my posts, I have both admitted "defeat" as you say, and simply called both cities great cities, two cities that many people would only be so fortunate to be able to call home at least once in their life. My posts are all in simple response to what are frequently Philly posters' horribly written, horribly contradictory, and horribly wrong posts.
I believe it was a Philly poster who said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaii4evr
I do agree that SF ain't all that.
In response to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandalorian
NYC has a lot of history and is the capitol of the World. San Fransisco is modern day Sodom and Gomorrah, beautiful city full of horrible people.
LOL...very humble, unbiased people they are
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaii4evr
I never said DC was the happiest--I actually think it was New Orleans.
I also never said that LA was one of the two most expensive cities in the country; I've acknowledged many times that SF is more expensive. Learn how to read.
Then what was THIS all about? I think I must be reading your own posts better than you... ::
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaii4evr
I agree with what you're saying. NYC, and to a lesser extent, LA, are losing their power/influence, and population. The high COL in both cities is driving people away to smaller cities like Atlanta, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Houston, and San Francisco. A lot of business is flooding those regions and giving them more influence and popularity in the US and the world than they once had before. NYC and LA are both very large and influential still, but not as much as they once were. People are realizing that unless they're wealthy, it's unrealistic to live there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaii4evr
SF is not more expensive than NYC, and neither is DC. Both are expensive, yes, but far more affordable than NYC. And Washington DC was rated as one of "America's happiest cities". NYC, on the other hand, was number one on the list of "unhappiest cities in America".
The point is, you gave credibility to some [probably Forbes] list that ranked DC as a happy city and New York as an unhappy city (and if New Yorkers are so unhappy there, why are people voting for it??) And I simply called you out on the ridiculousness of it (not to mention you are saying SF is FAR MORE AFFORDABLE than New York. No, if anything, right now it is more expensive. Atlanta is far more affordable than New York. )
Philly posters are humble??? OMG have we forgotten the threads where they think practically all of Jersey is part of Philadelphia? Have we forgotten that they believe Princeton is a Philadelphia institution? Have we forgotten how many times they have delusions about how great Philadelphia is (and oddly don't get called out for it the way SF posters do)? Not to mention, they are by far (along with DC posters) some of the most active posters across all threads, spouting off fallacies and misinformation more than anyone...
All I am doing is correcting the misinformation. If you read my posts, I have both admitted "defeat" as you say, and simply called both cities great cities, two cities that many people would only be so fortunate to be able to call home at least once in their life. My posts are all in simple response to what are frequently Philly posters' horribly written, horribly contradictory, and horribly wrong posts.
)
Impressive with the poll stats--I'll give that you know how to back an argument. As far as Princeton, that school is within the Philly sphere of influence, despite state lines. It's no different than SF claiming Stanford. And if SF can claim the Bay Area for interconnectivity, Philly gets South Jersey. Same deal, just different states.
As far as the humility of Philly posters, that's up for debate, no different than the humility of SF posters. Have we forgotten how many delusions about how great SF is, andhow it is superior to NYC?
If you have a personal axe to grind with Philadelphia, just admit it.
I thought this was evident about our friend on the West. He's most likely illiterate as well as bi-polar and delusional but don't tell him because he'll refute and talk about useless stats of some sort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Europe and the Northeast are both yesterday's news. This is now our world, you just live in it.
Of course, New York attracts tacky, trashy drama queens-that makes for great tv.
Envy much?
If that helps you sleep at night, sure. The Little Engine that Could - San Francisco. Adorable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaii4evr
I agree with what you're saying. NYC, and to a lesser extent, LA, are losing their power/influence, and population. The high COL in both cities is driving people away to smaller cities like Atlanta, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Houston, and San Francisco. A lot of business is flooding those regions and giving them more influence and popularity in the US and the world than they once had before. NYC and LA are both very large and influential still, but not as much as they once were. People are realizing that unless they're wealthy, it's unrealistic to live there.
Nope.
Quote:
Every borough registered a gain in population. Even the Bronx, a traditional laggard, recorded a rate nearly as high as top-ranked Brooklyn and Manhattan.
Definitely the world is becoming more and more aware of other US cities, as a whole we're a wonderful country. But NYC is still tiers ahead of the rest and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Even if NY slips in a category (like rental prices, lol) NY by the numbers still has way more neighborhoods that are more expensive than the 5-6 (being generous) SF most likely has.
Impressive with the poll stats--I'll give that you know how to back an argument. As far as Princeton, that school is within the Philly sphere of influence, despite state lines. It's no different than SF claiming Stanford. And if SF can claim the Bay Area for interconnectivity, Philly gets South Jersey. Same deal, just different states.
Princeton is in the NYC metro, not the Philly metro.
Stanford is in the San Jose metro, not the SF metro. But at least SF can claim Stanford is part of the "Bay Area", if not part of the metro area.
But Philly is a much better university town than SF. There are no elite universities in SF, Philly has world-class Penn. And Temple is a bigger and better comprehensive university than anything in SF.
I realize it's a grad school but how is UCSF not "elite / world class" exactly?
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.
)
