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.
Haha those are cities are NOT better places to live than the Bay Area by a long shot and they all LUST after the Bay Area's tech dominance, one cringes at their desparation quite frankly. Their media outlets are on overdrive trying to create fake buzz about their tech scenes, its hilarious.
SF is small potatoes. Nice city, but will never be an alpha city.
Of course everyone would like more high-paying tech jobs. But using that logic, San Francisco wants to be San Jose, because there are like 10x more tech jobs in the San Jose area than the SF area. That doesn't mean that Cupertino is a better city than San Francisco. Detroit has vastly more engineering jobs than Paris; and I don't doubt Paris would like more high paying engineering firms; but that doesn't mean that Paris desperately wants to be Detroit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
In fact, we're suffocating with so many transplants from NYC, London and Paris that it makes one nauseated.
Yet SF has minimal population growth compared to NYC, London and Paris. Any less "suffocating with so many transplants" and you would have declining population.
But the threshold is for going from one county into another county, not necessarily downtown itself, right? How does it work if there's a large increase in commuting to and from the peripheries of the two?
There's already a Metra train line from one county to another county (MSA to MSA). Extending the train a few miles to Milwaukee probably wouldn't do a thing. Why would throngs of people start commuting somewhere else because they extended a train line?
There's already a Metra train line from one county to another county (MSA to MSA). Extending the train a few miles to Milwaukee probably wouldn't do a thing. Why would throngs of people start commuting somewhere else because they extended a train line?
It was more that people would find moving to places in-between the two more palatable as it would be fairly inexpensive to commute to either job market.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,133,609 times
Reputation: 3145
I don't understand the train of thought that suggests people are "jealous" of some larger city with more billionaires, and are all dreaming of the day they can go to NYC. Maybe that's because I'm not a billionaire and I am a transplant. I chose SF over NYC purely on its appeal. I had career connections and friends in NYC when I decided to move, but chose SF, as I have always wanted to be here. I'm also not in tech, so that wasn't a factor either. Believe me, in my line of work, my career options would be much better in NYC, but my lifestyle would suffer too much. I simply have it too good in SF.
That said, I do love London and NYC. I have visited London four times and NYC about seven times. They are among my favorite cities in the world. They are also among the four or five places I'd be okay moving to, if circumstances pushed me away. Otherwise, I wouldn't trade them for my life in SF. No way.
Perhaps if I were a billionaire or a prince, "alpha city" status would mean more to me. I'll even go so far as to say that, in my line of work, even Chicago might offer easier ways to advance my career. It certainly would offer a more favorable cost of living (which is way more important for us non-billionaires). But I know I'd miss my Bay Area lifestyle. It cant be replicated in any of the other cities mentioned.
The fact that my tiny city is the hub of this region (no, SF does not "want to be San Jose". That is the most asinine statement in the thread so far) makes it more desirable, not less so. I live in a city of 850,000 that has all the amenities of one with 8.5 million--a really rare dynamic due to a freak of geography. My daily life is within the 6-8 square miles of SF that is as "world city" as anywhere on the planet, yet I can escape to honest wilderness by bicycle in about 15 minutes. There are small towns in every direction, too, just 15 minutes by car. There are traditional suburbs, if you like that. There are 2 MLB teams, 2 NFL teams, 1 NBA team and an NHL team all within easy reach. How many cities of 850,000 have that?
And yet, SF has its own identity. It never devolves into sprawl. You have to cross a long bridge or drive around a big mountain to get to the places where the SF identity is no longer present. The weather even changes when you do that. You are completely somewhere else in this city, with an attitude, environment, and lifestyle unlike anywhere else in the country--even the "part of the country" that's 10 minutes away from it. That's not delusional. It's just cool.
To keep things on topic, I do believe the Bay Area CSA is today more important and is growing more rapidly than that of Chicago. In the future, I believe it will distance itself in importance, if not actual numbers, with regard to economic output, population, worldwide influence, etc.
I also believe none of that will matter to me any more than it does right now with regard to my feelings about living in SF.
Ever wonder why SF always tries to compare themselves to the big dogs of NYC and London? Because they know it's not as good. NYC and London don't need to prove a single thing because they ARE the elite. They have no interest in petty arguments with SF, because they know their city is better. SF is always like "Hey look at me! I can be like NYC! I'm so posh and cosmopolitan...just like NYC!" Meanwhile, NYC looks at SF like "Really? Stop. Pipe down, little one. You're embarrassing yourself. You look tacky and desperate. Anyways, London, how do we run the world today?" SF hates on every single place that's not SF. NYC doesn't care what you think because it knows it's the best. Same way that LA doesn't care what you think.
Back to the point of this thread...AGAIN! SF is more important today, but as an overall city in the larger picture, Chicago is the more important city.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,133,609 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
Ever wonder why SF always tries to compare themselves to the big dogs of NYC and London? Because they know it's not as good. NYC and London don't need to prove a single thing because they ARE the elite. They have no interest in petty arguments with SF, because they know their city is better. SF is always like "Hey look at me! I can be like NYC! I'm so posh and cosmopolitan...just like NYC!" Meanwhile, NYC looks at SF like "Really? Stop. Pipe down, little one. You're embarrassing yourself. You look tacky and desperate. Anyways, London, how do we run the world today?" SF hates on every single place that's not SF. NYC doesn't care what you think because it knows it's the best. Same way that LA doesn't care what you think.
Back to the point of this thread...AGAIN! SF is more important today, but as an overall city in the larger picture, Chicago is the more important city.
But I don't ever hear this at all, except from people on CD who do not live here. Furthermore, I don't know anyone who thinks of SF as "posh". If anything, it's self-consciously the opposite. I work in a highrise in the Financial District and wear Chucks and jeans to work. I ride my bike or a cable car to work. SF is a dive bar town, with gourmand tastes, sure, but posh? That's pretty laughable. I've eaten in James Beard winning restaurants in jeans and a T-shirt.
Last edited by dalparadise; 06-28-2015 at 10:59 PM..
This thread seems to have gotten derailed. I thought the original point made was that San Francisco is a very desirable place to live. Indeed, it is. Whether it is an "alpha" city, or even as "great" a city as NYC or London is a different question. People who can live anywhere choose places like Kauai or Montecito. Somewhere can be a more desirable place to live than a more powerful city.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,934 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by smashystyle
This thread seems to have gotten derailed. I thought the original point made was that San Francisco is a very desirable place to live. Indeed, it is. Whether it is an "alpha" city, or even as "great" a city as NYC or London is a different question. People who can live anywhere choose places like Kauai or Montecito. Somewhere can be a more desirable place to live than a more powerful city.
Ever wonder why SF always tries to compare themselves to the big dogs of NYC and London? Because they know it's not as good. NYC and London don't need to prove a single thing because they ARE the elite. They have no interest in petty arguments with SF, because they know their city is better. SF is always like "Hey look at me! I can be like NYC! I'm so posh and cosmopolitan...just like NYC!" Meanwhile, NYC looks at SF like "Really? Stop. Pipe down, little one. You're embarrassing yourself. You look tacky and desperate. Anyways, London, how do we run the world today?" SF hates on every single place that's not SF. NYC doesn't care what you think because it knows it's the best. Same way that LA doesn't care what you think.
NYC looks to LA as the West Coast alpha. SF is an important city, but nowhere close in importance to LA.
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.
