U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: San Francisco or Seattle?
San Francisco 45 54.88%
Seattle 37 45.12%
Voters: 82. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-06-2013, 08:57 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,761,585 times
Reputation: 5608

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mayhem_223 View Post
Don't people realize you can take flight? Its about 1 hour flight, with 1-1:30h for check in. All three cities are well connected by big airports.
and time to get to the airport, and time to get where you are going, and flight delays...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-06-2013, 09:05 PM
 
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
669 posts, read 690,059 times
Reputation: 264
Some people talk of flight travel as if we are all uber-wealthy and money is not an issue for any of us. Well in case you didn't know, it always costs more.

If taking a plane was so easy people won't be taking road trips and public transpiration so much now would they?

Last edited by yyuusr; 12-06-2013 at 10:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2013, 09:25 PM
 
82 posts, read 100,079 times
Reputation: 58
Smile San Francisco or Seattle?

I have been to both cities, and both have their strengths. I'm going with San Francisco because it just has that more "big city" feel to it. Also, the rain in Seattle really does start to feel gloomy after a while. San Francisco is beautiful, (although really expensive). Both cities could easily be argued as better or worse than the other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2013, 09:30 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,761,585 times
Reputation: 5608
Quote:
Originally Posted by yyuusr View Post
Some people talk as if flight travel as if we are all uber-wealthy and money is not an issue for any of us. Well in case you didn't know, it always costs more.

If taking a plane was so easy people won't be taking road trips and public transpiration so much now would they?
plus the flights are way more expensive unless you plan and search in advance, you can't really be like that wednesday and be like oh I wanna go to LA this weekend on a Friday, flying out last minute on a Friday is $$$ as are flying weekends in general. Cheap flights are usually Tuesday/Wednesday when people can't travel unless it is a long planned out vacation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2013, 09:41 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,479 posts, read 7,708,485 times
Reputation: 7295
Quote:
Originally Posted by yyuusr View Post
Some people talk as if flight travel as if we are all uber-wealthy and money is not an issue for any of us. Well in case you didn't know, it always costs more.

If taking a plane was so easy people won't be taking road trips and public transpiration so much now would they?
I've done that before, in fact Seattle was one of those trips for me.

No reason to be there, seeing as I don't know anyone there, no special purpose either, I just went out there with my roommate to see what I was expecting to be my top choice in an American city. Just general curiosity of the place.

What I saw was a practical and pretty logical place to live, a deserving anchor city for it's region, in terms of amenities, size, influence, power, and pace of life. What I didn't expect was for it to be an underwhelming place for leisure. Seattle is beautiful but it's a hassle getting out to the Cascades and Olympics and the water most of the time is more of a to look at and not go in thing. The city doesn't really have that raved about reputation for nightlife and wild all night extravaganzas, for food everything there could be had in Bay Area, Vancouver, or Los Angeles, and architecturally nothing really stands out aside from the Space Needle.

I didn't think it warranted a flight for the reason, air travel really sucks in the United States. It's a pain just getting through the airport phase and getting to your hotel, this sort of torture should only be reserved for places you really want to go or have to be at (work related).

Seattle to me, seems like the sort of place I'd be excited about seeing now as a side trip from Vancouver via car, rather than it warranting a trip of it's very own. I mean all of us are only going to live once right? Isn't there somewhere in the world, despite further, you'd be wanting to get on the plane for over Seattle?

To be honest, Seattle's not the only place like this. Much of the United States' cities are like this. I can see New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Las Vegas, even Orlando and New Orleans being outliers though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2013, 01:02 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,761,585 times
Reputation: 5608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John View Post
I've done that before, in fact Seattle was one of those trips for me.

No reason to be there, seeing as I don't know anyone there, no special purpose either, I just went out there with my roommate to see what I was expecting to be my top choice in an American city. Just general curiosity of the place.

What I saw was a practical and pretty logical place to live, a deserving anchor city for it's region, in terms of amenities, size, influence, power, and pace of life. What I didn't expect was for it to be an underwhelming place for leisure. Seattle is beautiful but it's a hassle getting out to the Cascades and Olympics and the water most of the time is more of a to look at and not go in thing. The city doesn't really have that raved about reputation for nightlife and wild all night extravaganzas, for food everything there could be had in Bay Area, Vancouver, or Los Angeles, and architecturally nothing really stands out aside from the Space Needle.

I didn't think it warranted a flight for the reason, air travel really sucks in the United States. It's a pain just getting through the airport phase and getting to your hotel, this sort of torture should only be reserved for places you really want to go or have to be at (work related).

Seattle to me, seems like the sort of place I'd be excited about seeing now as a side trip from Vancouver via car, rather than it warranting a trip of it's very own. I mean all of us are only going to live once right? Isn't there somewhere in the world, despite further, you'd be wanting to get on the plane for over Seattle?

To be honest, Seattle's not the only place like this. Much of the United States' cities are like this. I can see New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Las Vegas, even Orlando and New Orleans being outliers though.
If you are on the East Coast you can fly to Europe for about the same price as West Coast Destinations so it's always a weighing out. And even then, I think the nature options of the West Coast might be more warranted. I would probably fly to go out to Yellowstone probably before I went to Seattle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2013, 07:53 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,945 posts, read 3,594,755 times
Reputation: 3248
Before moving to Seattle from LA, I made a trip here and toured the city for 3 days. By the third day, I was actually a little bored. Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful and wonderful place to live, but it's just not as exciting or as fascinating as SF/LA/NYC/Chi/Boston/Philly/NO. The vibrancy, "size," and things to see and do are inferior to SF.

Furthermore, the Bay Area totally creams the Seattle metro area. Outside of the city of Seattle, the suburbs are quite sprawling, not dense, and in some parts appear pretty rural. Beautiful natural scenery in the metro area, but the suburbs have a lot less going on (feels rural) than the Bay Area's suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2013, 08:09 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,479 posts, read 7,708,485 times
Reputation: 7295
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz View Post
Before moving to Seattle from LA, I made a trip here and toured the city for 3 days. By the third day, I was actually a little bored. Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful and wonderful place to live, but it's just not as exciting or as fascinating as SF/LA/NYC/Chi/Boston/Philly/NO. The vibrancy, "size," and things to see and do are inferior to SF.

Furthermore, the Bay Area totally creams the Seattle metro area. Outside of the city of Seattle, the suburbs are quite sprawling, not dense, and in some parts appear pretty rural. Beautiful natural scenery in the metro area, but the suburbs have a lot less going on (feels rural) than the Bay Area's suburbs.
I think you're cutting Seattle a bit short. I agree with 90% of what you said but the only cities I would say are better leisure experiences are New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, Las Vegas, New Orleans, and if you have a family then Orlando. Maybe Boston too but it really depends on how history obsessed you are to take full appreciation of it, just like the nature aspect to Seattle. Same go with Washington, this tier of cities is not for the majority but rather those into specific things.

I think it's a great place to live and call a home, leaves much to be desired for leisure however.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2013, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,945 posts, read 3,594,755 times
Reputation: 3248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John View Post
I think you're cutting Seattle a bit short. I agree with 90% of what you said but the only cities I would say are better leisure experiences are New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, Las Vegas, New Orleans, and if you have a family then Orlando. Maybe Boston too but it really depends on how history obsessed you are to take full appreciation of it, just like the nature aspect to Seattle. Same go with Washington, this tier of cities is not for the majority but rather those into specific things.

I think it's a great place to live and call a home, leaves much to be desired for leisure however.
I should have emphasized that, thanks. Seattle is a fantastic place to live, but not as "exciting" for leisure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2013, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,479 posts, read 7,708,485 times
Reputation: 7295
By the way, those pictures of Seattle earlier. Looks a lot like a Cascadian version of (and clearly smaller than) Chicago.

That's not bad at all. The new supertall, 1,000 foot building will do great work with the skyline, considering Seattle is filling in with several other talls at the moment. A nice and symmetrical skyline.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top