New York City Vs San Francisco with Poll (live, best, cost)

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

If you notice, they dont want to get into specifics. It's just like the SF vs LDN thread except now, insert New York.

This is the thread in a nutshell:

Any NYC booster: New York BY FAR.

18Montclair: How so?

Any NYC booster: Because New York
competes with London and Paris and
Tokyo.

18Montclair: And how does that make
New York 'better' than SF?

Any NYC booster: Because New York is an
Alpha+++++++++++ Primate, MegaBot,
UberPower, DemiGod, Horse hung, Imperial
SUPER DUPER TROOPER(pooper) City.
Period. End of story.

18Montclair: Okay but how does that make
New York 'better' than SF?

Any NYC booster: Because Alpha++ is
higher than Alpha-(SF)

18Montclair: But the Bay Area is wealthier,
better educated, has a much stronger
economy, has great career opportunities,
has more racial diversity AND integration on
a regional level, has an immeasurably
superior climate and unspeakably more
breathtaking natural beauty and recreation,
toss in the urban core of SF itself and I don't
think New York is really better at all, actually.

Any NYC booster: You fool! New York is
dripping in diamonds and is an
ALPHA++++++++++++++++ city. Mods,
please close the thread before 18Montclair
gets the last word. (walks off huffing and
puffing)

lol

I will agree, it seems to always revert to a holier than thou NY is just to big to lose any argument,

To me San Francisco isn't trying to be NY in any way but gives a great urban experience combined with charm and natural beauty that is very rare. SF doesn't have to be as big to compete on many fronts.

[qworldorder]

Please, let's you see spin this.

Median Household Income
Hunterdon County: $105,880
Morris County: $97,979
Nassau County: $97,049
Putnam County: $95,259
Suffolk County: $87,778
Bergen County: $84,225
Fairfield County: $82, 614
Westchester County: $81,093

Marin County: $90,962
San Francisco County: $73,802
San Mateo County: $87,751
Santa Clara County: $90,747
Contra Costa County:$78,187
Alameda County: $71,516

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by slo1318

I will agree, it seems to always revert to a holier than thou NY is just to big to lose any argument,

To me San Francisco isn't trying to be NY in any way but gives a great urban experience combined with charm and natural beauty that is very rare. SF doesn't have to be as big to compete on many fronts.

Is it really holier than though? Again, what is the basis for comparison here? There is certainly one end, in terms of overall clout and influence where there one is flatly ahead of the other and by a massive margin. For the subjective or personal level, you can either for or against for either depending on one's preferences.

And why would you agree with a summary of the discussion that is so obviously inaccurate?

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by slo1318

I will agree, it seems to always revert to a holier than thou NY is just to big to lose any argument,

To me San Francisco isn't trying to be NY in any way but gives a great urban experience combined with charm and natural beauty that is very rare. SF doesn't have to be as big to compete on many fronts.

No, it just reverts to everything SF can do, NYC does bigger and often better. Has nothing to do with 'holier than thou'. These are the two most pretentious cities in the country lol. SF just doesn't have an answer for a lot of what NYC provides. I know you don't think size matters, but it does.

"And even then, there are higher earning counties/zip codes in the Tri-State area. In raw numbers of both education and wealth, NYC trounces SF. For political engagement, NYC trounces SF. For entertainment and sports options, NYC trounces SF. For media influence and clout, NYC trounces SF. For fashion, NYC trounces SF. For diversity, it's closer, but NYC is the bigger immigrant hub, has a larger variety of races, and is more racially balanced. For public transportation, NYC trounces SF. For architecture/skyline buffs, NYC trounces SF. For international flights, NYC trounces SF. I could keep going, but he's just going to revert back to the one leg up SF has over NYC, per capita wealth and education. Awesome. As I've said earlier, this is a fight between a welterweight at best and a heavy weight--no competition."

I'll give that SF has charm, a beautiful natural setting, less seasonal variation and a more human scale. I can see how that is appealing to some folks. If that's a preference, I can respect that. But on all the objective criteria (see the above on politics, entertainment, media, fashion, diversity, architecture, international connectivity, sports, gdp) that matters in determining superiority, NYC wins. Plain and simple.

[StuddedLeather]

Originally Posted by slo1318

I will agree, it seems to always revert to a holier than thou NY is just to big to lose any argument,

To me San Francisco isn't trying to be NY in any way but gives a great urban experience combined with charm and natural beauty that is very rare. SF doesn't have to be as big to compete on many fronts.

Yeah but your pal Montclair would LOVE it if it were though. He loves New York unconditionally of course. Hence why he posted from this New York Magazine article (withholding this jab at his beloved city)

Of course, San Francisco won’t truly become New York, and not just because New York’s economy is nearly twice as big as the country’s next biggest (that’s L.A.’s, not San Francisco’s, which ranks eighth). San Francisco is too earnest, too eager to be liked, to truly wallow in its wealth like Bloomberg’s New York.

He quoted from this article I guess to "prove" that SF influence is growing. You just gotta' love it when NY Magazine use hyperboles . . .

Is San Francisco New York? -- New York Magazine

Wealth this. Wealth that. Billionaires. Let's give the money argument for times sake to the bay. So let's move on to another category San Francisco (or The Bay, not sure which one we'll use because people flip-flop ) will "dominate" in. Technology. Sure another one. What's next? Film? Nope. Advertising? LOL. Urbanity? HA. Transportation? This is becoming "unfair" for SF =/

Natural scenery and weather are subjective. Just like Food so I didn't include it. . . Let's move on. SF is a beautiful town but New York pats the city on the head. So adorable.

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Is it really holier than though? Again, what is the basis for comparison here? There is certainly one end, in terms of overall clout and influence where there one is flatly ahead of the other and by a massive margin. For the subjective or personal level, you can either for or against for either depending on one's preferences.

And why would you agree with a summary of the discussion that is so obviously inaccurate?

I agree because I see that from the NY posters. It all reverts back to bigger is bigger.

Also see the criteria from the OP, most ignored this:

Which one do you prefer to live in? In terms of everything: quality of life, jobs, family, eating out, recreational, scenery, culture, transportation, traffic, costs, attractions, and you know the rest. You don't have to type out reasons if you don't want to (as I have seen plenty in other threads). A simple vote will suffice.

Under this criteria, San Francisco easily competes and thrives against New York...

[LiveFrom215]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

You fool! New York is
dripping in diamonds and is an
ALPHA++++++++++++++++ city[/color]

The unintentional irony here is that this is your consistent rationale for why San Francisco is superior to any other city. You constantly toss around GDP figures and corporate HQ's and Michelin ratings ( ad infinitum/ad nauseum), whenever they're in the Bay Area's favor, and suit your agenda. It's only when NY (or LA or Chi) clean your clock on sheer volume that you start parsing data 'til you find some neurotically specific criteria where the Bay has some rough parity ("The income level in this particular eight block zip code in the wealthiest part of San Francisco is three times as high as the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the Greyhound station in Newark!!! This proves the Bay is far more affluent than New York!!! Everything outside of Manhattan is a giant slum!!!") Then you declare victory and run away. Meanwhile, back on Earth, NYC continues being one of the two or three most important cities on the planet, and San Francisco continues to be very nice. Which pretty much everyone on City-Data seems to understand is the order of things....except you.

It's very entertaining, though. Keep re-arranging those deck chairs.

[nslander]

The forced condescension from the NY fanboys is revealing.

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by slo1318

I agree because I see that from the NY posters. It all reverts back to bigger is bigger.

Also see the criteria from the OP, most ignored this:

Which one do you prefer to live in? In terms of everything: quality of life, jobs, family, eating out, recreational, scenery, culture, transportation, traffic, costs, attractions, and you know the rest. You don't have to type out reasons if you don't want to (as I have seen plenty in other threads). A simple vote will suffice.

Under this criteria, San Francisco easily competes and thrives against New York...

Under that criteria, Boise, ID easily competes and thrives against New York. OP only asked for personal preference, and even that without rationale. Yawn. Boring. This is City vs City--let's get down to business with the objective stuff.

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by nslander

The forced condescension from the NY fanboys is revealing.

As are the blatant delusions of Bay area boosters.