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.
SF/Bos are known for their similarities (dense, physically small, liberal, well educated, scenic,expensive, tech/financial hubs, etc)
However, does anyone feel that SF is pulling away from Boston and moving to the next level? IMO in 20 years comparing Boston and SF could be like comparing SF and Seattle today. Similar, but with one clearly a level above. I'm not implying Boston is declining, far from it. But, it seems SF is advancing at a faster pace.
Economically, SF is rising as a "Silicon Valley" gradually shifts from the office parks of SJ to SF proper. Boston's economy is plugging along, but it’s more of the steady as she goes Eds/Meds and R&D. It’s easier to imagine the next Amazon or Facebook in SF than Boston.
Architecturally, SF is building more "star-architecture" highrises and "world class" projects like the Central Subway and SF MoMa. In 20 years, SOMA could be as vibrant as Chicago's River North, while the South Boston Waterfront looks like Arlington, Va. SF also seems more likely to put 5-7 story tall buildings in 3/4 story areas,whereas Boston is more likely to insist on conformity.
Culturally, SF seems to be transitioning from a NIMBY hippie oasis to a dynamic global tech hub. While Boston remains a more tradition bound, ho hum education/research hub.
Just curious what other feel? Don't mean this as an attack on Boston, just seems that SF is a city that is really rising in the world.
I talked about this a little in the hypothetical "If NYC didn't exist, what would the premier US city be" or whatever thread. Neither Boston or SF are remaining stagnant or getting complacent obviously, but I do think SF is running at a different / faster speed. The country (private sector) is putting all its money on SF (almost literally putting all its money into SF) to be one of the places of the future but to also get things back on track. I think SF (and DC) is gonna play the role of spoiler in the "Big 5" hierarchy. I think the 2 through 5 spots will be much more of a crapshoot when people list the 4 most important areas after NYC in the future. Like in the other thread, I will admit to possible brainwashing from local publications.
I talked about this a little in the hypothetical "If NYC didn't exist, what would the premier US city be" or whatever thread. Neither Boston or SF are remaining stagnant or getting complacent obviously, but I do think SF is running at a different / faster speed. The country (private sector) is putting all its money on SF (almost literally putting all its money into SF) to be one of the places of the future but to also get things back on track. I think SF (and DC) is gonna play the role of spoiler in the "Big 5" hierarchy. I think the 2 through 5 spots will be much more of a crapshoot when people list the 4 most important areas after NYC in the future. Like in the other thread, I will admit to possible brainwashing from local publications.
Agreed.
At this point it's less about size, more about the power of production. Bay Area has about 8.3 million people as of now, even adding in an economically worthless Stockton which gains it more people than quality production has still left it with the third largest economy in the country while only fifth largest population. Not to mention, the second or third fastest growing economy in the country (I believe second) by both GDP growth and per capita income.
Then there's also the fact that in raw numbers only five places in the country are gaining more population annually at this point.
I am pretty familiar with both of these cities, having lived in Boston and having family in the Bay Area.
Economically, San Francisco may have some advantages that Boston does not, namely being the major urban center near Silicon Valley. However, (as my brother in law is discovering), it is starting to become a Manhattan-esque playground exclusively for six-figure earners. In Boston, you can still live in a fairly interesting, urban neighborhood without dropping 2-3k for a one-bedroom. For that to be possible in San Francisco, your options are basically Hunter's Point (dangerous and isolated) or the East Bay (not even in the city).
Personally, it seems like Boston sees gentrification that does not totally wipe out the existing character of entire neighborhoods. This isn't the case in San Francisco's gentrification, where it is getting tons of suburban-minded tech geeks from San Jose in its most interesting neighborhoods.
Also, I disagree with you on South Boston waterfront vs. SOMA, I think they both have interesting contemporary architecture. I do think that South Boston is still a few years away from being where SOMA is - though it seems to me the waterfront is more of a ground-up neighborhood being built from nothing while SOMA at least has some existing infrastructure.
The issue about Boston is there are other cities within close proximity vying for new economic horizons while the Bay Area is more isolated. Both cities are about even but it's the surrounding CSA that puts SF over the top.
There are too many chiefs and not enough indians so to speak on the east coast. Put it this way. You have four MAJOR metros with NYC being one of them in a stretch of just over 400 miles (From Boston to DC 436 miles).
Now that's a distance equal from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Can you imagine a New York City and a Philadelphia added in between? Those two metros would cannibalize SF and LA. Sure there is more money/people on the East Coast overall to spread the wealth, but not enough to sustain growth at a pace with the Bay Area when you have three other cities to contend with. Except NYC of course.
Doesn't this question assume that SF is even past Boston? That's kind of a jump at this point.
yeah, I guess I start from the assumption that SF is either marginally ahead or it's basically even.
Objectively, I find it hard to argue that OVERALL Boston is ahead of SF in any sizable way. Yes, Boston may have some advantages over SF (maybe better pub transit), but SF also has many things over Boston. I think the general consensus is that it's either a draw or a slight advantage SF.
But how is SF more advantaged than Boston? In what ways?
Well from an urban perspective looking at the urban core, which is what I'm more interested IN (i.e. "the actual city")
SF is denser and has a larger residential population. It is generally considered to be more vibrant over a larger sustained area than Boston. SF's urban amenities (restaurants and shopping) are more extensive than Boston.
Boston is pretty good in all these areas, but overall I would say advantage SF.
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.
