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.
No, not really. They are in different metro areas.
I already wrote that Philly is obviously a much better university town than SF, owing to Penn and Temple. There are no equivalents in SF. Philly is probably one of the best big city university towns on the planet, and is probably second to Boston in the U.S. in university town feel among big cities. (NYC may have more but the city is too gigantic to have a university feel; even Columbia and NYU feel integrated into the city instead of a distinct "campus feel".)
I love how a New York poster is consulting a Philly poster on Stanford's relationship to the Bay Area. So C-D
Yes, Philly is a better "university town" in that it has several universities in/near its downtown in an area aptly named University City. And FTR, I strongly considered Penn, and Carnegie Mellon, and ended up elsewhere (CM was my #2 for the specific program...but Pittsburgh). At the time, U City was not something to brag about when I was looking and buddies who were at Penn told me the area "sucked". Obviously, it's different now.
But, it's not like Philly is where Penn grads even matriculate to in the greatest numbers, even though that is where the school is. I wouldn't be shocked if more Penn grads ended up in the Bay Area. I bet I could dig that stat up.
And in terms of Stanford's "relationship" to the Bay Area? You're delusional if you think it's a) either a "San Jose" institution (as if Northwestern is an "Evanston" institution), b) Stanford grads don't largely remain in the Bay Area (it's heavily catered to Bay Area business after all), c) THIS: is what you're using to base your biases off of
The Bay Area was set up from the start such that its universities were scattered. Stanford's location predates "Silicon Valley" as an idea/location, and had everything to do with a railroad (now operated as commuter rail...but once the rail line into SF...the land and original grant was supplied by Leland Stanford, then president of Southern and Central Pacific railroad).
It was founded in 1885 before San Jose even really existed. It didn't even become known as a major tech affiliate until tech "came to it" from NJ in the 50s/60s (and there again, it was all about cheap, open land available for constructing manufacture facilities...which is why tech didn't come to SF...SJ was mostly ag land at that point still).
So Stanford is by no means historically, or even now, a "San Jose" institution even though it is right on the border of San Jose's county. It's a Bay Area institution, like Berkeley is. Bay Area universities do much more for the Bay Area economy than Philly's intown universities do for it.
SF also has Golden Gate University (law school), though no where near UC Hastings level.
Obviously SF, like all big cities, has various institutions of various caliber. But SF doesn't have any elite, or even prestigious, comprehensive universities, nor does it have any particularly large universities of any type.
UCSF is really the only prestigious university within SF, and that's a niche grad-only health sciences university. It isn't a comprehensive university. The closest U.S. analogy would be the grad-only Rockefeller U.
I love how a New York poster is consulting a Philly poster on Stanford's relationship to the Bay Area. So C-D
I hope you aren't referring to me, because I'm not a New York poster, I'm not consulting a Philly poster, and never said a thing about Stanford's relationship to the Bay Area.
I'm a Southern CA poster, and I was referring to Stanford's (non) relationship to San Francisco. I live in Orange County, BTW.
^^^OMG. This is literally turning into Philadelphia is a better "university town" than San Francisco because its one elite/a few other universities are "in the city limits". Lol
Ok.
Moving back on to NYC vs SF, neither city can compete with Philadelphia's "university town" status. ok. But both cities steal Philly's university grads and stomp on the "eliteness" of Philly's workforce overall. So what?
I hope you aren't referring to me, because I'm not a New York poster, I'm not consulting a Philly poster, and never said a thing about Stanford's relationship to the Bay Area.
I'm a Southern CA poster, and I was referring to Stanford's (non) relationship to San Francisco. I live in Orange County, BTW.
Oh, and I thought the saying was that while NorCal people "hated" SoCal, SoCal people simply "didn't care one way or the other about NorCal". Well you defy that stereotype because you are always trying to find ways to discredit northern CA/San Francisco.
And why are you so active on every Philadelphia-centric thread (now that this has become one)? lol
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.
No that quote wasn't intended for you but for Montclair. He loves NY so much but he's missing a few screws. It's one thing to be a homer and back his city and then it's another thing when he posts useless "stats" and act like his links are gold yet they add no substance or relevance.
Manhattan actually hasn't reached its peak yet. In 1910 it was 2.3 Million.
Regarding rental again yes, if you're talking about the average sure, SF takes the cake. New York is extremely bigger and accounts for multiple income ranges so that's reflected which is fine. However, what I was alluding to is that by neighborhood New York still dominates the top 10 (and beyond most likely). With 8 neighborhoods in the top and two belonging to SF.
Lastly I don't have any beef with SF. In fact I've even said I loved my visits and would live there if I had to leave New York for any reason. It reminded me of Park Slope, Prospect Heights, etc in areas outside of the Downtown area. Sure I may be a little biased because I'm from Brooklyn, but SF just isn't in the same league as New York and it certainly isn't above it.
The dollar is high, gas prices are low, we have the greatest army in the history of mankind, the list goes on.
Our education system isn't top of the list. Neither is our quality of life, public transportation, or health care. SO while we do have best of the best of SOME things, certainly not all.
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.
