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.
I've been following this Boston vs. San Francisco thread closely this week and realized that I couldn't vote because I truly love both places for different reasons. The poll literally indicates a 50/50 split amongst voters. The question I have asked myself,"What large metros are better than Boston and San Francisco, pound for pound?" When determining the following factors: QOL, COL, Access, Sports, Culture, Cuisine, Economy, Education, are they the cream of the crop?
I say, yes if NY is your version of "too over the top". - which I don't believe by the way
I say, yes if LA is your idea of "too spread out". - which I do agree
I say, yes if Chicago is "too isolated in the midwest". - which I don't believe by the way
I say, yes if Seattle is "too weather adverse". - which I'm in the middle
I say, yes if Atlanta/Dallas/Houston are "too conservative". - which I do agree
I say, no only if your profession of choice is not high-income generating and you want a large residential space that cannot be acquired in these metros with a marginal annual salary. - which I could understand/respect
I say, no if you fear earthquakes and northeasters lol. - which I could care less
I say, no if you dislike liberal politics that some suggest are "too far". - which I could care less
I say, no if you feel that your minority group is under represented in those metros and you need more diversity. - which I could care less
I don't get the obsession with comparing San Francisco to Boston. They are both geographically small very urban cities whose Metros pack a much larger economic punch and they have a very noticeable white/asian aspect. But Boston the city and Metro are infinitely more comparable to New York (Tri-State) and especially Philadelphia (Delaware Valley) and DC/Baltimore in more ways than not-everything from topography, weather, demographics, history, architecture, the streetcar suburbs, the formerly industrialized towns, poor highway infrastructure, good public transit, etc.
I love San Francisco the city. I'm pretty sure I would like Oakland as well but San Jose and I'm sure many other parts of The Bay are simply way too different to compare to anything on the East Coast. I find it hard to compare Metros anyway because there is usually so much variance found within each area.
Besides, Metros are considered better than other Metros for many different reasons by many different people.
I mentioned in another thread these are two of my top five. I prefer the LA metro, these two cities and NYC, probably in that order though I really like NYC so maybe it is above SF / Boston. I have no idea what my fifth would be, I like Chicago and New Orleans, didn't see enough of Philly to really give it a fair shake.
I mentioned in another thread these are two of my top five. I prefer the LA metro, these two cities and NYC, probably in that order though I really like NYC so maybe it is above SF / Boston. I have no idea what my fifth would be, I like Chicago and New Orleans, didn't see enough of Philly to really give it a fair shake.
@munch, I like your style. I feel the exact way about LA as you do about Philly. I have done LA or more than one occassion in different parts (downtown, Hollywood, Griffith Park, Marina del Rey, etc). It's something about the more compact places that I gravitate toward. I heart New Orleans in ever since of the word. I just don't like the politics of the South nor the humidity; go figure because I grew up in the South and played ball at LSU lol.
I'd say only NYC, pound for pound SF, Boston are better and enough to bring them in with discussions with Chicago, DC and LA. LA is huge, but pound for pound not that much. It gets a lot from it's size, much like Chicago does, just more of it.. NYC is the only city that exceeds both in size and uber high quality.
Seattle is another good pound for pound city, but it's on a lower tier.
I'd say only NYC, pound for pound SF, Boston are better and enough to bring them in with discussions with Chicago, DC and LA. LA is huge, but pound for pound not that much. It gets a lot from it's size, much like Chicago does, just more of it.. NYC is the only city that exceeds both in size and uber high quality.
Seattle is another good pound for pound city, but it's on a lower tier.
Do you mean in terms of GDP? Or some sort of city-feel?
Other than those two more controversial topics I think it is safe to say LA holds its own in most other categories, pound for pound (though SF and Boston do well for their size).
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.
