Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder
If you have a personal axe to grind with Philadelphia, just admit it.
|
I kind of do, lol, for various reasons. And I think it should be much easier to shut them down than it is, but they never let facts get in the way of a good argument (that goes for DC posters, as well, I think).
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder
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?
|
I know who you're referencing, but I don't think there is a lot of discussion here that SF is somehow superior to NYC in some sweeping victory (as you pointed out, look at the poll). My argument all along is that they are pretty good complements to each other, with lots of similarities, and complimentary differences. Not hard to imagine that many people want to do both at least once in their lifetime - for me, and as I said before, I would do NYC while younger and SF while a little bit older, and perhaps neither if you're married with kids.
Philly, and most cities in this country, would never ever make MY (or probably most people's) list of cities to try to live in and experience at least once (if I could live forever and try them all? Well then that's a different story and I'd be working on plans to get myself to a laundry list of places before returning back to the states). NYC and SF? Sure. NYC and LA? Perhaps. Chicago? Sure. NYC + Boston? Too many similarities without complimentary differences...I don't see a list where those are the absolute 2 cities one must experience. NYC/Philly? Even moreso...just no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuddedLeather
Nope.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/ny...ates-show.html
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. |
I'll let your personal insult to me slide (I believe my reading comprehension is a bit better than most posters on this site, and delusions? No...I like to face reality). And I seem to recall you have some beef with San Francisco...
But I'll agree with you, er, or the facts themselves, that NYC is actually growing in population/economy/etc. Manhattan has never had more people than it has now. And the boroughs have seen even more growth. Same goes for LA. Immigration certainly helps...immigration fuels the Bay Area's growth, as well.
In terms of rental prices and home prices, there are a plethora of little neighborhoods in Manhattan and a couple in Brooklyn (DUMBO for instance) that are pricier than just about anything you'll find in San Francisco. But considering in both cities a "neighborhood" is about 5-10 square blocks, overall, where most people live, SF is right now more expensive. And as I've argued before and as people argue in reality, there is NO reason that it should be more expensive than New York. People are clamoring for more housing here, which New York at least builds a lot of, while typically SF/Bay Area does not. And New York metro (and with Queens/much of Brooklyn/Jersey/Westchester/LI) you can find a decent, urban walkable place on a subway/commuter line for a pretty decent price. In the greater Bay Area, you face fewer transportation options, fewer living options, at least as many people looking for housing, etc etc. Aside from the roughest parts of the East Bay/E Palo Alto, you can't find decent rental or housing prices ANYWHERE, and you'll have to own a car most likely. These facts alone make the whole area more expensive (and SF city all that more desirable right now, with fewer options to live).
If you were to search for housing in the Bay Area right now, this is what you'd encounter:
Decent pretty spacious studio or 1BR in vintage 60s/70s building somewhere in the Peninsula or SJ or E Bay for $2300-2600 (often much more if in a "cool" area like DT Palo Alto, and Berkeley is just as pricey as SF), but need for a car, which could cost another $300-600 depending. All-in for $2600-$3200 on rent + car for a studio or 1BR that is a little more spacious than what you'd find in the city, but nothing fancy or modern like you'd get in DC. And that commute. And that location in the burbs.
or
Studio in the city in a neighborhood you don't have to have a car in for $2700-$4500++ depending ($2000-$2700 for 250-400 ft studio in the infamous Tenderloin). It will be small and won't come with any amenities, unless you can spring for one of the few newer, larger complexes. Then you've sold your soul by that point.
About the cheapest you can get is either
$1600 for 300 sf in the Outer Sunset, which is akin to living in a car-centric part of Queens or
$1875 for 334 sf in a refurbished building in the heart of the Tenderloin.
So as you can see, it becomes worth it to live in the city, and everyone knows it, and so you show up to an open house thinking you've done your research and you've found a relative deal and you'll take it, and 20-30 other people show up with blank checks offering whatever it takes to nab it on the spot (however many months security deposit, higher rent, etc). That $2700 studio listing in that cute Hayes Valley neighborhood location just turned into a $3200 studio overnight. That $4500 studio in that newer building might require several months' security deposit if your parents aren't co-signing and an income of at least $180K to live there (30% rent:income rule).
So if I were an average well paid renter, or home buyer, I'd rather face New York's real estate market right now than the Bay Area's (especially considering employers in New York have a longer history of understanding and accepting the fact they need to pay their employees more - it's still an ongoing debate with employers, especially those not in tech, for SF). If I were looking for an $11,000 2 BR luxe rental, I can find that in both, but yea, you're right, there will be more of that in Manhattan than San Francisco. If I wanted a $60M penthouse condo, you're right, there won't be any of those in SF (they can be had for $10-30M instead) and there will be plenty right now in Manhattan with all of those new towers and refurbished buildings, such as the Woolworth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
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.
|
Agree generally. SF doesn't have a Penn, or Temple, or Drexel comparison "in" the city.
In terms of "claiming" Princeton - the analogy to Stanford is not really apples to apples, for a variety of reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
UGH this again?! "Sphere of influence" might be my favorite term, btw.  Pathetic. Princeton is a NJ school, it stands alone from either city. It's prestigious, old, and famous enough to not be connected to either. |
Really, this is more accurate. However, as with many elite schools (especially those in the vicinity), most Princeton grads migrate to New York City. I'd argue most Penn, especially Wharton, grads do, too, for obvious reasons as NYC is the country's largest financial center.
Philly retains a lot of college grads, and clearly a pretty large share of its most elite university, Penn. However, overall, Philly is not a bastion of elite school grads the way NYC, Boston, DC, or SF are.
Far more Stanford grads end up in SF (literally just up the road) than Penn grads stay in Philly, and I have seen data before, so I'm sure with digging I can get that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadicalAtheist
I realize it's a grad school but how is UCSF not "elite / world class" exactly?
|
Yes, UCSF is the #4 med school (and only a med school), and UC Hastings is a pretty good law school in the city, as well (by no means "elite" though). However, he's right in that SF city limit doesn't have any elite wide-bodied research universities that compare to Penn.
Few cities really do, though. We could say Atlanta has Georgia Tech (but do we exclude Emory because it's about 5 miles east of the city in Decatur?). Do we not say Chicago has Northwestern and U Chicago because they are 13 and 8 miles N and S of the city, respectively? I suppose we give Boston a break because even though Cambridge is technically a separate city, MIT and Harvard are right across the river from Boston (but it's a little disengenuous to use technicalities when referring to the Bay Area, separating SF and SJ as if they completely separate and calling Stanford an SJ institution because *most* but not entirely all of the campus is in Santa Clara County...the county line runs through and along the campus as a matter of fact).
Giving credit where credit is due, Philadelphia's "University City" really is as the name suggests, and they are right in town. Few cities offer that pretty amazing setup, especially with a top tier university such as Penn.
But going back to universities overall, SF as a city attracts elite grads in greater numbers/concentrations than Philadelphia. It's up there with Boston and DC, and obviously New York City, in this regard. Wharton opened a large W Coast campus right in the city in the financial district. And for good reason considering SF is one of the top 4 financial centers, and the financial center of the west, and tech companies like Google are still looking to Ivies and other elite schools for grads (
Top 20 Schools that Google hires from - Penn makes list).
Even Carnegie Mellon, PA's other elite school, has a campus in the Bay Area at Mountain View. And relative to many schools in the NE that aren't Boston-centric, the Bay Area retains its own elite school grads much better than a Philly does (Stanford and Berkeley, UCSF). Not to mention, I wouldn't be shocked if ironically more graduates of Penn (undergrad or grad) ended up in the Bay Area than in the host city itself.
But yea, all SF city has is a top tier med school, a law school, a Jesuit school, a mediocre state school, some well known arts programs, and a couple of branches of universities back east. It doesn't have a Temple, Penn, or Drexel equivalent right in the city.
When you think about it, though, it's not like NYC is a dominant leader here, either. For being as #1 as it is across the board (as some have said), and as large, powerful, and influential as it is, it's lacking in intown universities. It has Columbia, NYU, and perhaps Barnard/Yeshiva/Pace and a few others if you want to list them all out, but like most cities in America, it doesn't have so much right in its central bounds.
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.
