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 agree. Comparing NYC to the entire Bay Area is sort of like bear-baiting, as strange as the analogy sounds. Sure the bear would win every time when it's a fair match-up, but when you pigeon-hole or chain it up and have it fight against multiple animals at one time, it becomes a misleading comparison as the bear is in a serious disadvantage from the start. That's how I feel about this thread topic when comparing only one city(NYC) against the entire Bay Area which consist of 7 different metro areas. It's just not fair.
The Bay Area may have 9 different metro areas, but NYC has 5 different boroughs. Brooklyn alone dwarfs San Francisco in population; as a matter of fact, so does Queens and Manhattan. If SF was located in NYC it would be the second smallest borough (only Staten Island has a smaller population).
I chose to make the comparison because the sheer size of NYC makes it difficult to compare to a city with such a substantially smaller population. In fact, NYC has approximately 10 times the population of San Francisco (8.4M/.83M). On the other hand, the population of the 9 county metropolitan area (of the SF Bay Area) is much closer to that of NYC (the region has approx. 7.44M people).
I'll give you that it is a difficult comparison, because, geographically, the Bay Area is so much larger than that of NYC (6,984 sq mi vs. 468.9 sq mi – almost 15x difference in land mass) and that throws off the comparison in a different way. But, people on this forum have compared cities of substantially different geographic size in the past (for example: LA vs Boston, with LA having almost 6 times the land mass of Boston). Actually, many cities in California have been politically designated with substantially more land mass than those on the east coast, for example: San Diego (372.40 sq mi), Los Angeles (503 sq mi), San Jose (176.526 sq mi); compared to Boston (48.42 sq mi), Philadelphia (134.1 sq mi), Washington D.C. (159.0 km).
No matter how we slice it—trying to equalize population or land mass—the comparison is going to be questionable at best. Just because it isn't a perfect comparison, doesn't mean its not worth making.
Maybe a better comparison would have been:
Brooklyn (land:182.9 km, pop. 2,592,149) vs SF (land:231.89 sq mi, pop. 837,442).
I didnt create this thread nor did I decide on it's parameters, sweetie.
As usual, you fly off the handle for nothng, but what else is new? This thread, that I didnt create btw, is specifically comparing NYC vs the entire bay area.
Why the OP would severely handicap NYC that way is beyond me.
Even worse for NYC, he's comparing quality of life no less.
LOL the Bay takes NYC to the cleaners. Period.
1. Don't call me sweetie.
2. The OP says NYC, SF, "and surrounding regions" so I'm still not sure why your post was relevant. I took that to mean surrounding regions of both because that would make the comparison fair.
Why does it make it fair? Because for example, NYC city proper has beaches but they have nothing on LI and NJ beaches. Just miles northwest of the city are mountains. Whatever the Bay Area has, NYC area also has for the most part in its own region yet that all gets left out. Then of course "Bay Area" wins in terms of scenery and such based just on the NYC city proper comparison - annoying and predictable.
I would pick the Bay over NYC for a number of reasons. Climate, culture and overall Economy. NY is no slouch for careers but I feel it is way to congested and the weather isn't that fantastic. Also, that California lifestyle and housing is more appealing to me than NYC.
The Bay Area may have 9 different metro areas, but NYC has 5 different boroughs. Brooklyn alone dwarfs San Francisco in population; as a matter of fact, so does Queens and Manhattan. If SF was located in NYC it would be the second smallest borough (only Staten Island has a smaller population).
I chose to make the comparison because the sheer size of NYC makes it difficult to compare to a city with such a substantially smaller population. In fact, NYC has approximately 10 times the population of San Francisco (8.4M/.83M). On the other hand, the population of the 9 county metropolitan area (of the SF Bay Area) is much closer to that of NYC (the region has approx. 7.44M people).
I'll give you that it is a difficult comparison, because, geographically, the Bay Area is so much larger than that of NYC (6,984 sq mi vs. 468.9 sq mi – almost 15x difference in land mass) and that throws off the comparison in a different way. But, people on this forum have compared cities of substantially different geographic size in the past (for example: LA vs Boston, with LA having almost 6 times the land mass of Boston). Actually, many cities in California have been politically designated with substantially more land mass than those on the east coast, for example: San Diego (372.40 sq mi), Los Angeles (503 sq mi), San Jose (176.526 sq mi); compared to Boston (48.42 sq mi), Philadelphia (134.1 sq mi), Washington D.C. (159.0 km).
No matter how we slice it—trying to equalize population or land mass—the comparison is going to be questionable at best. Just because it isn't a perfect comparison, doesn't mean its not worth making.
Maybe a better comparison would have been:
Brooklyn (land:182.9 km, pop. 2,592,149) vs SF (land:231.89 sq mi, pop. 837,442).
Okay...so what does any of this have to do with QoL, which is what you asked about in the OP?
2. The OP says NYC, SF, "and surrounding regions" so I'm still not sure why your post was relevant. I took that to mean surrounding regions of both because that would make the comparison fair.
Why does it make it fair? Because for example, NYC city proper has beaches but they have nothing on LI and NJ beaches. Just miles northwest of the city are mountains. Whatever the Bay Area has, NYC area also has for the most part in its own region yet that all gets left out. Then of course "Bay Area" wins in terms of scenery and such based just on the NYC city proper comparison - annoying and predictable.
1. Sure thing, hun.
2. The OP has already clarified what he means and your usual moaning about pertinence contributes nothing btw. And in case you were yet unaware, seldom is life 'fair'.
2. The OP has already clarified what he means and your usual moaning about pertinence contributes nothing btw. And in case you were yet unaware, seldom is life 'fair'.
In case you were unaware, sweetheart, your blatant bias towards the "Bay" (what an adorable name for a CSA) is pathetic. If you need to compare an entire CSA to one city just so your beloved can "win," by all means do so. The majority of us know how ridiculous and pathetic it is. Have fun arguing using your usual billionaire and wealth arguments while I move on out of the territory of the delusional. Hun.
The Bay Area may have 9 different metro areas, but NYC has 5 different boroughs. Brooklyn alone dwarfs San Francisco in population; as a matter of fact, so does Queens and Manhattan. If SF was located in NYC it would be the second smallest borough (only Staten Island has a smaller population).
I chose to make the comparison because the sheer size of NYC makes it difficult to compare to a city with such a substantially smaller population. In fact, NYC has approximately 10 times the population of San Francisco (8.4M/.83M). On the other hand, the population of the 9 county metropolitan area (of the SF Bay Area) is much closer to that of NYC (the region has approx. 7.44M people).
I'll give you that it is a difficult comparison, because, geographically, the Bay Area is so much larger than that of NYC (6,984 sq mi vs. 468.9 sq mi – almost 15x difference in land mass) and that throws off the comparison in a different way. But, people on this forum have compared cities of substantially different geographic size in the past (for example: LA vs Boston, with LA having almost 6 times the land mass of Boston). Actually, many cities in California have been politically designated with substantially more land mass than those on the east coast, for example: San Diego (372.40 sq mi), Los Angeles (503 sq mi), San Jose (176.526 sq mi); compared to Boston (48.42 sq mi), Philadelphia (134.1 sq mi), Washington D.C. (159.0 km).
No matter how we slice it—trying to equalize population or land mass—the comparison is going to be questionable at best. Just because it isn't a perfect comparison, doesn't mean its not worth making.
Maybe a better comparison would have been:
Brooklyn (land:182.9 km, pop. 2,592,149) vs SF (land:231.89 sq mi, pop. 837,442).
So going by those numbers, uh, which one has the better quality of life.
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.
