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.
Of these three cities?: Boston. As others have noted the two cities (Boston & SF) are not necessarily that similar culturally, but more in terms of being well-educated, affluent, coastal, relatively compact in the city proper, etc. All of these cities share some superficial similarities to some degree, but are also radically divergent in other ways, with their own unique vibes. Difficult to measure NYC against the others, when you could combine the other three and still only have maybe only, what, a 1/3 of New Yorks population (give or take)? It's sheer scale makes it a whole different beast.
Yea, New York doesn't fit into this comparison. And I don't see see any comparison between Philadelphia & San Francisco. However, I do think that Boston compares to both Philadelphia (which can maybe be talked about in another thread) and San Fransisco.
To avoid repeating what I said in my first post on this thread, I'll post below and then expand a little bit on their similarities:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
Boston & San Francisco are very similar. The cities themselves are of small geographic size, but are very dense by US standards. They also achieve their density in similar ways: with beautiful row homes and tight streets. Beautiful architecture can be found all of the place in both cities (though this is very true for Philly and NYC too)
They've each got several very intresting cities in close proximity which complement them well (Boston:Cambridge/Brookline; SF: Oakland/Berkeley; obviously there are others, but these are the names that pop off the list).
They're both beacons for liberal America, have some of the world's finest institutions of higher education close by, which gives them a highly intellectual vibe and helps them be major players in high technology, biotech, nanotech, and life sciences. Though Boston is currently ranked higher by the GFCI, the two are pretty much interchangeable for the 3rd & 4th spots in the US for financial services.
There are plenty of other similarities too, but these are what grab my attention the most.
As I mentioned above, they've got similar bones economically/socially in the sense that they're two of the most educated major metros in the nation, and have arguably the highest concentrations of what would be considered "ultra high skill" workforces (high technology, biotechnology, life sciences & biotechnology). I also mentioned their "torch bearing" of liberal ideas--however, they're both decidedly East & West coast in their flavors. Many of their ideas & beliefs are similar politically, but the West Coast has always been a bit more...flamboyant, whereas the East Coast has been a bit more subdued.
This article from Xconomy really pounded the East/West thing home, but also reinforced their similarities. What it really does (in my opinion) is allow us to look at the real difference between the East Coast & West Coast mentalities.
I'd really recommend reading the article, but in case people decide not to read it, the writer (who has spent an equal amount of time over the last 30 years between Boston & the Bay) mentions that the free & loose San Francisco innovates by finding totally new ways of doing things, whereas the buttoned-up Boston innovates by taking established industries in new directions. Two comparisons included Trip Advisor (Boston) & Airbnb (SF) and ZipCar (Boston) & Uber (SF). The Boston companies have taken industries in cool new directions, but the SF companies completely changed how they functioned.
Similarly, while they have received the most VC of any two metros in the world since, well, forever, buttoned up Boston has always been tightly tied with academia whereas the Bay's elite dropouts have often relied on the private sector. In the past 5 years, the Bay's VC levels have racked in an astounding $68.7 billion in private funding, whereas Boston's pulled in a comparatively paltry (but second largest in the world) $17.8 billion. However during that time, Bay Area universities have put $6,000,000 into their research/venture labs ($1.5B per year) while Boston's universities have put in $20,000,000 ($4B per year).
There's no doubt that SF is the king of VC, but Boston is a worthy prince haha. Either way, I think they're very good East Coast/West Coast counterparts and have a lot of similarities.
Actually SF is not really like any of these places aside from anecdotal similarities. Boston is not weird enough, or mediterranean enough, or liberal enough, or asian enough, or mexican enough, etc
These are 2 completely different places that don't look or feel anything alike. What they are similar sizes and both are on the water but that's pretty much it. Boston is also more blue collar than SF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
I completely agree. None of them are like San Francisco. Having similar population size doesn't mean much.
San Francisco and Boston are about as alike as New York and Chicago.
Which means nothing at all.
You can probably find more similarities between the latter than the former to be honest.
Office Space 2011 Midtown Manhattan - 306,453,288
Chicago - 121,144,705
Downtown Manhattan - 86,372,50 Boston - 60,803,309
Atlanta - 49,980,62 (includes downtown, Buckhead, and Midtown)
San Francisco - 49,261,846 Philadelphia - 43,716,633
Seattle - 41,841,902
Houston - 37,875,867
Washington D.C. - 31,981,656 (CBD only).
Those numbers don't look right. Downtown SF for example has around 80 million square feet of office space. The number above for SF probably only includes the financial district.
As for what whether SF is most like Boston, NYC, or Philly, ...
In many ways it's most like Boston. Similar city-proper size and CSA population, some similar density and architecture in many neighborhoods, and both have hills (though SF is obviously more extreme there). SF is less white than Boston and has fewer WASP types, and has significantly more Asians, more blacks in the MSA/CSA but fewer in the city-proper, and a larger latino population that's mostly Mexican/central american rather than mostly Caribbean. SF's public transit seems somewhat comparable to Boston too, in terms of the total size, the fact that they have light rail acting as subway systems, and in terms of the percentage of residents/commuters who use it.
There are some ways SF is like NYC too. There's some architecture, population density, and a level of activity in parts of downtown SF and surrounding neighborhoods that are reminiscent of parts of lower Manhattan and Brooklyn...obviously in a comparatively tiny area though, and it's not like it's a mirror image of NYC. It's one of just a few US cities that can provide some small level of "NYC feel", which is pretty cool (Boston and Philly also do this in their own ways). SF can also say it has the most densely populated census tracts of any big city other than NYC, though that area is only several square blocks. There's also the often made comparison where SF = Manhattan, Oakland = Brooklyn, etc...which is somewhat accurate (SF is the main CBD of the metro, a financial center, expensive, multiple large bridges, densely populated), but maybe not entirely. Parts of SF proper could also be compared to Brooklyn or Queens. The entire city isn't quite at Manhattan levels of gentrification yet, and it certainly isn't all at Manhattan levels of activity.
I'd say of the three choices, SF has fewer similarities to Philly though....they both have tons of rowhouses and somewhat similar sized CBDs, and similar density in many of the neighborhoods surrounding their respective downtown areas...but Boston and NYC seem to also have those similarities, plus a few more.
Of course all these cities are their own things first and foremost though. SF has a very distinct vibe and look, mostly its own, partly like the other west coast cities, and in some ways reminiscent of cities in the east.
When it comes to the people, I find the most similarities to New Yorkers. When it comes to nightlife and cultural offerings, again, similar to New York. Architecturally more similar to New York.
This... well. No. On every single count. SF approaches Boston when it comes to nightlife and cultural amenities. Not New York. The people are nothing alike. Nothing. Except for the transplants who moved there with MBAs chasing tech cash. Architecturally similar? On what planet?
Boston has a HUGE Asian pop and tight lil streets like S.F. Very sim in vibe. San Fran is more transient and outwardly hip,but Boston's hard-core lib/Democratic Kennedy loving politics with the huge Irish pop is very influential. They both feel like smart cities and are very clean,(aesthetically). I am in old Beantown typing this and came upon this page googling key words to see what people think specifically of these two towns because I could think of no other city to compare to here. Ive lived in Philly,( and love it). I love the Northeast and the Northwest. San Luis Obispo to Seattle is a great lil chunk of our Country, but I LOVE Massachusetts, especially the Pioneer Valley in Western-Mass. We have a beautiful spread coast to coast , but it is less hip in the middle. I dont fit in in Scotia Cali by the rednecks the same way the kids in the 'Hill-Towns" in Mass can be abrasive. God I love this country, we kick ****in' Ass!!!!!
I didn't feel any similarity at all between San Francisco and New York City. New York City is an extremely fast-paced hyper-city, a monster-sized, frantic, sensationalistic urban treadmill where anything can and will happen given time. San Francisco, by complete contrast, has a way more easy-going and laid-back California vibe, and it's much smaller of course. Compared to New York, San Francisco is practically pin-drop silence (which can be good in some ways).
Have you ever been to Downtown SF and the inner neighborhoods? They are packed with people and very frenetic. Second most foot traffic in the country after NYC. So it's clear you've never been there if you suggest it has "pin-drop silence".
There's definitely a lot of townies in Boston, but i still tend to doubt the breakdowns between the two cities differ much.
In an MSA vs MSA comparison it's not too different, but in a city vs city comparison, there is a noticeable difference:
Median Household Income, 2014
San Francisco City, CA $85,070
Boston City, MA $56,902
Median Family Income, 2014
San Francisco City, CA $100,850
Boston City, MA $61,714
The stat below has an eyepopping difference:
Median Income of Families with own children under 18 years
San Francisco City, CA $121,413
Boston City, MA $43,300
In an MSA vs MSA comparison it's not too different, but in a city vs city comparison, there is a noticeable difference:
Median Household Income, 2014
San Francisco City, CA $85,070
Boston City, MA $56,902
Median Family Income, 2014
San Francisco City, CA $100,850
Boston City, MA $61,714
The stat below has an eyepopping difference:
Median Income of Families with own children under 18 years
San Francisco City, CA $121,413
Boston City, MA $43,300
Never would have guessed such a big gap. Curious as to where you found these stats. Thank you.
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.
