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 never said that New York was deviod of cafes..sheesh. But lets just say that Sf has quite a few areas that look similar to Greenwich Village in terms of style and feel. Also I have been to Manhattan several times and most of it is not posh. The streets and subway are dirty..and dangerous. Many of the people are raggedy looking, even the cops..lol. Sorry. And as far as architecture, I guess it just comes down to subjective opinion. I just happen to prefer bright colors and eloborate designs to cold gray buildings and staid looking brownstones..but that's just me.
Me too .
Not all NYC buildings are cold and gray or brownstones though, the subway isn't really dangerous in Manhattan (maybe in Harlem at night but I doubt it), its more dangerous (crime-wise) in the outer boroughs (The Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens) because its not as busy as Manhattan, the subway tends to be dirtier in the outer boroughs in my experience.
I never said that New York was deviod of cafes..sheesh. But lets just say that Sf has quite a few areas that look similar to Greenwich Village in terms of style and feel. Also I have been to Manhattan several times and most of it is not posh. The streets and subway are dirty..and dangerous. Many of the people are raggedy looking, even the cops..lol. Sorry. And as far as architecture, I guess it just comes down to subjective opinion. I just happen to prefer bright colors and eloborate designs to cold gray buildings and staid looking brownstones..but that's just me.
When is the last time you've been to Manhattan? 1970?
Most of SF is not posh, most of it looks seedy and dirty and the people in Manhattan were significantly better dressed than the ones I saw in SF. Don't even get me started on the bums on the streets. Also, SF is more dangerous than New York so I'm not sure if you've really been to NY or know what you're talking about.
The world renowned and landmarked limestone "grey cold buildings" look better than purple and yellow buildings made out of wood.
I don't know, but it seems like on this forum when people compare DC or Boston to New York, or god forbid, actually prefer DC or Boston to NYC, that's okay. It's just their preference. DC/Boston are great cities and while they may not offer nearly as much as NYC, they still have attributes that can be appreciated. We can agree to disagree without resorting to mudslinging.
However, whenever someone says they prefer San Francisco, there must be something terribly wrong with that poster. Now we must insult San Francisco and try to open that poster's eyes to how incredibly inferior San Francisco is. I see that more with SF than I do with DC, Boston, Philly, or Chicago. If someone prefers Boston to DC.., the Boston poster will write, "That's fine, they're both great cities and I love them both!". But if someone prefers SF to DC/Boston/NYC..."What's wrong with you? That Victorian architecture is so tacky! SF can't hold a candle to the East Coast!"
That's just what I've noticed on this forum. Why are Boston and DC allowed to just exist and excel at what they do, and those who prefer them to NYC are allowed to do so without ridicule, while SF must constantly be brought down?
Most likely because people from the East Coast are more predominant in this forum. I'm originally from the DC area myself. And while I give props to DC as being a great city, I still would have to say that San Francisco appeals more to my taste in terms its style..not to mention the scenery. NYC has a different appeal.
I don't know, but it seems like on this forum when people compare DC or Boston to New York, or god forbid, actually prefer DC or Boston to NYC, that's okay. It's just their preference. DC/Boston are great cities and while they may not offer nearly as much as NYC, they still have attributes that can be appreciated. We can agree to disagree without resorting to mudslinging.
However, whenever someone says they prefer San Francisco, there must be something terribly wrong with that poster. Now we must insult San Francisco and try to open that poster's eyes to how incredibly inferior San Francisco is. I see that more with SF than I do with DC, Boston, Philly, or Chicago. If someone prefers Boston to DC.., the Boston poster will write, "That's fine, they're both great cities and I love them both!". But if someone prefers SF to DC/Boston/NYC..."What's wrong with you? That Victorian architecture is so tacky! SF can't hold a candle to the East Coast!"
That's just what I've noticed on this forum. Why are Boston and DC allowed to just exist and excel at what they do, and those who prefer them to NYC are allowed to do so without ridicule, while SF must constantly be brought down?
Stop crying.
I was just reading through a California vs New York State thread, and it was landslide California. I was just looking at a Philadelphia vs SF thread and it was landslide San Francisco. I was looking at an East vs West Coast vs South thread and I believe the West Coast or South was winning.
I don't think there is bias, people just like New York. It seems people like New York, SF, Seattle and hate Houston, Atlanta, Miami and for some strange reason...LA. It's fine..I don't really care.
Yea, because we all know Manhattan is devoid of cafes and little boutiques.
I'm not really looking to get into an argument w/ someone who lives in SC , but you must have skipped over the Gramercy Park, the Upper East/West Sides, Tribeca, West Village, NoHo, SoHo, Greenwich Village, Turtle Bay, etc if you think SF's city is more "posh". SF feels more blue-collar and downmarket, and that's what I actually like about SF. It is more of a carefree luxury. Manhattan neighborhoods seem more in-your-face upscale. For instance, I've never seen a street in SF as distinctively posh as Park Avenue. SF is posh, but not Manhattan posh. Also, SF's architecture just does not compare to NY's.
And I don't think you've seen elaborate architecture if you think SF's somehow tops Manhattans. Those Victorian homes look cheap and crass when you compare them to what you can find in Manhattan.
Well I disagree with some of what you said here (nothing really important though), but those are awesome pics of Manhattan!
Most likely because people from the East Coast are more predominant in this forum. I'm originally from the DC area myself. And while I give props to DC as being a great city, I still would have to say that San Francisco appeals more to my taste in terms its style..not to mention the scenery. NYC has a different appeal.
You're not the only one who finds SF more appealing than Manhattan, but you should get your facts straight next time. For example, you said that NY is more dangerous than SF. Wrong. You also said SF has more elaborate architecture than NY. Hopelessly wrong.
It's kind of hard to take you serious when you are so wrong on so many things.
Those are probably the most beautiful pics of NY I've ever seen!!! I can't believe someone said SF is more elaborate. LOLLLLLLL. I prefer the views of those beautiful NY buildings! You will never find buildings as pretty as this in SF. SF city is crappy and blue collar but I like some of the outer neighborhoods. Thank God the nice surroundings of SF Bay make up for the crap buildings though!!!!! I think my work here is done! Back to the DC thread.
Ahh the selective perceptions of the stereotypical critic from the NE. This never gets old.
So NOW we're blue collar?? Will you East Coast critics ever, EVER, make up your minds on what our flaws are? When we're being compared to Philly we're too soft, uppity and elitist b/c Philly is just "SO REAL" and we're too white collar. Now we're crappy and blue collar LMAO. You critics from the NE are nothing but comedy, and you guys contradict yourselves so often that I can't ever take anything you guys say seriously lol. I can spot one of you critics the second you post just by the ridiculous hyperbole you guys often use to draw comparisons. Rational posters like 14thandYou stand out I actually appreciate their opinions b/c they can look at things objectively without being unrealistic, rude or offensive. But you should really compare notes with your fellow NE critic compadres, b/c you guys just make yourselves look ridiculous.
I don't know, but it seems like on this forum when people compare DC or Boston to New York, or god forbid, actually prefer DC or Boston to NYC, that's okay. It's just their preference. DC/Boston are great cities and while they may not offer nearly as much as NYC, they still have attributes that can be appreciated. We can agree to disagree without resorting to mudslinging.
However, whenever someone says they prefer San Francisco, there must be something terribly wrong with that poster. Now we must insult San Francisco and try to open that poster's eyes to how incredibly inferior San Francisco is. I see that more with SF than I do with DC, Boston, Philly, or Chicago. If someone prefers Boston to DC.., the Boston poster will write, "That's fine, they're both great cities and I love them both!". But if someone prefers SF to DC/Boston/NYC..."What's wrong with you? That Victorian architecture is so tacky! SF can't hold a candle to the East Coast!"
That's just what I've noticed on this forum. Why are Boston and DC allowed to just exist and excel at what they do, and those who prefer them to NYC are allowed to do so without ridicule, while SF must constantly be brought down?
Other than the one of Fifth Ave, the Manhattan pictures posted are nothing special. Hunter College? Come on. There are hundreds of better examples of Gothic revival architecture on Manhattan Island than that.
New York beats San Francisco in architecture, no doubt. But SF offers a different stageset--pastels, more harmony in the streetscape, more sky, the fabulous views and incredible hills. I wouldn't rather live in SF b/c I prefer the east coast. But I've always thought SF was by far the more beautiful of the two cities.
Ahh the selective perceptions of the stereotypical critic from the NE. This never gets old.
So NOW we're blue collar?? Will you East Coast critics ever, EVER, make up your minds on what our flaws are? When we're being compared to Philly we're too soft, uppity and elitist b/c Philly is just "SO REAL" and we're too white collar. Now we're crappy and blue collar LMAO. You critics from the NE are nothing but comedy, and you guys contradict yourselves so often that I can't ever take anything you guys say seriously lol. I can spot one of you critics the second you post just by the ridiculous hyperbole you guys often use to draw comparisons. Rational posters like 14thandYou stand out I actually appreciate their opinions b/c they can look at things objectively without being unrealistic, rude or offensive. But you should really compare notes with your fellow NE critic compadres, b/c you guys just make yourselves look ridiculous.
SELECTIVE READING IS NOT A GOOD THING JMAN!!!!! SF bay area is not blue collar at all but SF itself is crappy blue-collar **LOOKING. It's probably not but its not spiffy" or upscale looking ...it doesn't look gentrified or something..something is wrong i just dont like it.
I dont hate SF my grandparents live outside SJ in Los Gatos and i've been there lots of times but the city of sf is not good at all. posh is the last thing that i would describe it as. I do like it, union square used to be my hangspot but I just dont think highly of the city itself. its not manhattan level. if i lived in SF i would live on the outside. SF is wayyy better than most NE cities but I like DC better..is that a crime? im not a NE booster, fool.
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.
.
