New York City Vs San Francisco with Poll (market, expensive, live)

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by anonelitist

Who wants to walk around a very large portion of Philadelphia, though? I'll stick to CC, parts of South Philly, and maybe venture into U City (which is pointless for non-workers/residents/students), but all else is pretty much pointless for a visitor or middle/upper class professional to wander around in.

I'd argue that even central Boston has a larger footprint worth exploring or living in than Philadelphia (I think you're confusing residual street grid for redeeming factors). I think Boston also has superior regional transit and at least equivalent little walkable nodes around the greater area.

With wealth generally comes safety and clean, comfortable environments. Philly can neither compete with the city of SF for overall safety/walkability nor can greater Philly compete with the Bay Area. And virtually all walkable areas in the Bay Area are connected by some form of transit, as well (i.e. Caltrain hits DT Burlingame, DT San Mateo, DT Palo Alto, BART hits Oakland, Berkeley, Walnut Creek, etc etc).

No city comes close to touching on what NYC or greater New York region offer in terms of walkability, connectedness, urbanity, "life", etc. But Chicago, LA, and SF are certainly in the #2-4 position if you ask me "on the whole".


I could go for either one. NYC has more going on, is much larger, and is probably a must on anyone's "to live" list if you are a go-getter. I see doing NYC first while young and then "retiring" to SF, but there's a lot of cross traffic either way. I'd say they are different/complimentary in all the right ways, but also similar in all the right ways. Best to try experience them both at least once in a lifetime (definitely a privilege to be able to do so rather than a right - both come with a high price tag and for good reason).

so would you say a place like Ardmore or Wayne or Haddonfield or Chestnut Hill or Media etc are not walkable and connected by good transit, or even wealthy? Do you really know these areas and have spent time there. I agree Philly has more poor areas in the city but also has about 600-700K living and non poor areas within the city. In all honesty one thing Philly has is walkable and PT connected wealthy burbs - I really don't think you know Philly well at all TBH

And nothing in U City? would you say there is nothing in Berkeley or Cambridge as well worth seeing?

I mean DT Burlingame etc? really is this somehow a stronger more walkable area than those I mentioned and with better transit connections? I mean the whole main line is strung along a great rail line and walkable DT after walkable DT, and among the wealthiest zips in the country. I think you really don't know Philly all that well. Was just in Burlingame in September for like the 40th time and while I had really great Afghani food not sure I can see where is more walkable and especially better connected by PT

[tocoto]

SF is a great city but it is so much smaller than NYC that it is not an easy comparison. SF is quite a bit smaller than Chi and that is also a difficult comparison. Boston is the closest to SF in terms of greater DT size, gentrification and safe walkable areas. SF and Boston also have big tech, R&D, financial service and creative industries, elite universities, good transit, and ocean front location. Both cities are surrounded by large/medium sized cities that are outside their official MSAs.

[anonelitist]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

1. so would you say a place like Ardmore or Wayne or Haddonfield or Chestnut Hill or Media etc are not walkable and connected by good transit, or even wealthy? Do you really know these areas and have spent time there. I agree Philly has more poor areas in the city but also has about 600-700K living and non poor areas within the city. In all honesty one thing Philly has is walkable and PT connected wealthy burbs - I really don't think you know Philly well at all TBH

2. And nothing in U City? would you say there is nothing in Berkeley or Cambridge as well worth seeing?

3. I mean DT Burlingame etc? really is this somehow a stronger more walkable area than those I mentioned and with better transit connections? I mean the whole main line is strung along a great rail line and walkable DT after walkable DT, and among the wealthiest zips in the country. I think you really don't know Philly all that well. 4. Was just in Burlingame in September for like the 40th time and while I had really great Afghani food not sure I can see where is more walkable and especially better connected by PT

Let me preface by saying a good chunk of my family is from suburban Philadelphia, and no, I am not with them this Thanksgiving. Beautiful areas, along the Main Line (candidly, I don't know SW Philly burbs like Chester or Darby, or the Jersey side, or the northern side very well aside from driving through or taking the train).

1. I never said they were not walkable and not connected by PT. I never even technically said that the Bay Area has more of such places that are walkable or connected by PT, however, I did imply it (and you interpreted it as such) and I do mean it.



2. Correct. There is nothing really worth seeing in U City if you don't live, work, or go to school there. Maybe some of Philly's better restaurants are there? But then we're still talking Philly's fine dining scene...

As far as Cambridge - there are two parts to it, and it offers more than U City (not to mention it is MUCH larger in person). There's the research/office part near MIT/Kendall Square, which imo isn't worth seeing, but then there's the "town" part that is, closer to Harvard (i.e. Harvard Square, Inman Square, etc etc). U City isn't directly comparable, except for the fact that it has universities (incl an Ivy) and lots of research companies. It isn't built in the same way, nor is it nearly as interesting (or as connected via transit imo).

As far as Berkeley, again, not truly similar to either U City or Cambridge except for the fact that it has a university. Berkeley is a different beast altogether and functions more like a dense small town with a large university presence, rather than a major "university center with a research presence". Berkeley gave birth to CA cuisine and has a restaurant scene that's unmatched imo in either Philly or Boston, and that alone makes it worth it. It's also 13 miles from the central city, as opposed to adjacent. Berkeley's walkability bleeds into northern Oakland's walkability. Totally different feel.



3. Yes, downtown Burlingame as a random example of one of many many equivalent stops on the Caltrain line between SF and SJ.

Downtown retail map/directory showing layout

DT Burlingame is a random small place with an automall in the Bay Area, but also surrounded by greater wealth than in the Main Line and has a very very walkable downtown area right on Caltrain with lots of restaurants and boutiques, but also enough foot traffic to support:

Anthropologie
Apple
Banana Republic
Bare Necessities
Gap/Baby Gap/Gap Kids
Gymboree
J Crew
Janie and Jack
Loft
Lululemon
Paper Source
Papyrus
Pottery Barn
Sephora
Sunglass Hut
Sur la Table
TRINA TURK
Yves Delorme

Additionally, the even larger downtown San Mateo is about 1-2 miles away, also with a stop on the line. The built/residential density in the area is FAR Greater than what you find in suburban Philly. It would be a pleasant, relatively urban walk from these points to each other.

I see in that list the Afghan restaurant, but there's enough in little ol' DT Burlingame to fill a mall. Or 10-15 Ardmores, which is smaller (I've been to Ardmore as it's a stop between where my folks live and the city).

I looked up Wayne, PA and Haddonfield. Both wouldn't even be large enough for Caltrain/BART stops in the Bay Area. Those are your examples??



4. If you've been to Burlingame, then surely you saw the downtown, with all of those stores, restaurants, etc. I'm guessing you drove down, but there is a Caltrain stop adjacent to downtown. That makes it equivalently connected as your PA examples, and none of your PA examples are near the size of Burlingame, which is considered a blip/common pase place in the Bay Area radar.

[RadicalAtheist]

Originally Posted by anonelitist

Burlingame, which is considered a blip/common pase place in the Bay Area radar.

While true, I was still a little surprised he singled out Burlingame of all places though.

[anonelitist]

^^^I think he dug himself a hole by doing so. I originally called it out as a purposely random, small place that few or none outside of the Bay Area would have even heard of (I guess similar to the townships he listed), but anyone who wants to see all of the towns he or I listed would immediately be able to tell that Burlingame, while random and small, is FAR larger and more comprehensive than any example he has provided.

Google Maps, Google research, etc.

The 4 best metros for decently large and cute walkable townships, by far, are NYC (its metro is as far ahead of others as the city itself is as far ahead of other cities), LA (because all of what you would put in an 18 million person global powerhouse city is spread out in a wealthy metro area with wonderful [relatively] connected towns), and Chicago and Bay Area, both of which imo are pretty equivalent in terms of metro "township points of interest". Then I'd say Boston/Philly are 5/6 in no particular order.

[nephi215]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

so would you say a place like Ardmore or Wayne or Haddonfield or Chestnut Hill or Media etc are not walkable and connected by good transit, or even wealthy? Do you really know these areas and have spent time there. I agree Philly has more poor areas in the city but also has about 600-700K living and non poor areas within the city. In all honesty one thing Philly has is walkable and PT connected wealthy burbs - I really don't think you know Philly well at all TBH

And nothing in U City? would you say there is nothing in Berkeley or Cambridge as well worth seeing?

I mean DT Burlingame etc? really is this somehow a stronger more walkable area than those I mentioned and with better transit connections? I mean the whole main line is strung along a great rail line and walkable DT after walkable DT, and among the wealthiest zips in the country. I think you really don't know Philly all that well. Was just in Burlingame in September for like the 40th time and while I had really great Afghani food not sure I can see where is more walkable and especially better connected by PT

Don't even bother responding to that guy. He has no idea what he is talking about.

[anonelitist]

^^^That's a new argument from you!

Somewhere along the line I am failing to see any facts or anecdotes or any bits of knowledge that disprove the theory that there are more/larger/equally connected by PT suburbs/towns in the Bay Area as in Greater Philly.

Only a typical Philly poster (such as Kidphilly, who also typically can't even use proper grammar or spell correctly) would jump from this:

Originally Posted by anonelitist

Philly can neither compete with the city of SF for overall safety/walkability nor can greater Philly compete with the Bay Area.

To this:

Originally Posted by kidphilly

so would you say a place like Ardmore or Wayne or Haddonfield or Chestnut Hill or Media etc are not walkable and connected by good transit, or even wealthy? Do you really know these areas and have spent time there. I agree Philly has more poor areas in the city but also has about 600-700K living and non poor areas within the city. In all honesty one thing Philly has is walkable and PT connected wealthy burbs - I really don't think you know Philly well at all TBH

Going from super high level claim to 20 ft view of very specific unheard of townships. A sign of incoherent thought process...

Also, I think it shows ignorance to directly compare U City, Cambridge, and Berkeley. All 3 are pretty different, and for purposes of random visitation (by say me, a visitor to the area from outside the area), I'd say U City indisputably comes in last place for reasons to go.

I also think it shows ignorance to choose Ardmore, Wayne, and Haddonfield as proper examples to compare against the least of the cities I listed (Burlingame). If Kidphilly had truly been to Burlingame

Originally Posted by kidphilly

for like the 40th time

, then he wouldn't be so ignorant to the fact that Burlingame is exponentially LARGER than anything he provided, has more retail (as evidenced by my link and short list of stores that are commonly found in busy upscale malls), more residents, greater density, and is equivalently connected on a commuter rail line with a stop right downtown.

A quick trip to Wiki shows a brilliant picture of Burlingame:

Burlingame, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mean, people, do some research. I make claims based on my experiences, but then I back these things up with actual facts and sources.

FTR, I was only even responding to Grapico's opinion that Philly is #3 most walkable behind NYC/Chicago (which in the same quote, he then said that he can't really back it up because he doesn't know Philly well enough):

Originally Posted by grapico

I can agree with that. NYC for instance has quite a bit better scenery than Chicago right out of the city. And yes SF esp if you include it's extensive urban areas is probably the 4th largest almost completely walkable cohesive easy to get around urban area in the country, or 3rd, behind NYC, Chicago and Philadelphia. I don't know enough about Philly to say whether SF is larger or not.

So I'll wait for evidence, rather than "he's a Philly hater; don't listen to him!"

I'll still peg NYC as #1, LA as #2, and a toss up between SF and Chi, and then a toss up between Philly and Boston (though I'm biased towards Boston as I think it's a nicer place overall).

[anonelitist]

And furthermore, the Bay Area has in addition to SF, which is arguably more walkable and more urban than Philly itself (people can make either argument, though my consistent argument is that while Philly has a larger grid, I wouldn't care to walk around or visit 90% of the gritty city whereas a huge chunk of SF is a literal and interesting tourist trap worth exploring and with no reason to fear one's safety), the area has Oakland and SJ, which don't have equivalents in Greater Philly. These are well connected by both commuter and heavy rail.

Bay Area then has a hierarchy of very walkable suburbs that don't have equivalents in Greater Philly:

Palo Alto
Berkeley
Walnut Creek
San Mateo

Then a literal plethora of walkable "nodes" with imo inferior (for reasons that can be easily backed up by fact - eg "smaller", fewer shops/restaurants/points of interest, more unkempt appearance, etc) equivalents in Greater Philly:

Burlingame (as referenced)
Alameda
Menlo Park
Cupertino
San Leandro
Pleasonton
Concord
Milbrae
South SF
Daly City
San Bruno
San Carlos
Mountain View
Livermore


Then in the N Bay you have a separate plethora of small towns (many of which are "larger" than Philly equivalents) that millions of tourists deem worth visiting:

Sausalito
Tiburon
San Rafael
Napa
Sonoma
Santa Rosa
Petaluma
Sebastopol
Stinson Beach
Healdsburg
St. Helena

MUCH of this is connected by PT, heavily used bike trails, ferries, tourist shuttles, friggin wine trains, etc etc.

Then you can't forget towns like Santa Cruz! Heck only an hour further and you hit Carmel and Monterrey...CA towns in general, whether they are suburbs in the middle of a large urban metropolis, exurban bedroom communities, or isolated coastal towns, are pretty unbeatable.

I invite any Philly homers to try to compete with this. I'll still peg my list of "Greater Areas" of walkability/connectivity as:

NYC
LA
Chi/SF
Boston/Philly

In terms of what makes the Bay Area a competitive alternative to New York? Easier to have a car and abundance of alternative activities not offered so much in the NE (i.e. parking in the best parts of the city for "only" $250-350 versus 2-3-4x that for equivalent in Manhattan/Brooklyn, and ability to genuinely and QUICKLY leave city life and head up to Napa or Sonoma on a whim on any given weekend...or down to Carmel or Yosemite).

In Philly, no offense, what are you going to do on your day trips to "suburban/exurban" areas that can compare? Not saying there is nothing, but there is no Napa/Sonoma/Big Sur/Tahoe/Yosemite nearby for day/weekend trips. And what would possibly bring someone to an Ardmore out from the big city? There are reasons for residents of SF to head down to Palo Alto. I did a few weekends ago, on the Caltrain. Hit up downtown with a group then went to a Stanford game (walked of course). On the train back to the city later that night, the cars were full and everyone popped bottles and created a party. That's the Bay Area in a nutshell.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by anonelitist

In Philly, no offense, what are you going to do on your day trips . . .

There are reasons for residents of SF to head down to Palo Alto. I did a few weekends ago, on the Caltrain. Hit up downtown with a group then went to a Stanford game (walked of course). On the train back to the city later that night, the cars were full and everyone popped bottles and created a party. That's the Bay Area in a nutshell.

Personally, I'll take my day trips to NYC or DC over one to Palo Alto, TBH. May be an east coast v a west coast thing - dunno?

[qworldorder]

Love how this has turned into Philly vs SF...