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 can't decide between san fran and nyc. In your opinion which city is better and why? I'm not interested in economy, housing prices, rent, jobs, cost of living, all that jazz i already know about. I need some input into the entertainment both cities offer outside of drinking, aka. bars and clubs. I'm big into being active and playing sports. So which city has more recreational opportunities? Is it easy to find some nice parks, an open tennis court, a pick up game of street hockey or a softball league etc. in either city, or is that not really the vibe there? Another question is do people go swimming alot at the beaches because i'm under the impression that the water is cold in both cities. What do people in their 20's do for fun in these cities? Also i have a car but would i really need it or use it if i lived in either city, with the traffic, parking issues and mass transit available or is the mass transit unsafe? Thanks for any help.
They're both great cities. I wouldn't want to own a car in either city, at least not in many neighborhoods. Have you spent any time in either place? I'm getting the sense you haven't; while it's certainly possible to make a move sight-unseen, you might want to do so first if possible.
The reality is, though, that it in this economy you should go where you can get a job. I know a lot of unemployed people in San Francisco, and I doubt NYC is doing all that much better. As far as cost of living goes, those are the two most expensive cities in the country, although it sounds like you know that. If you don't have a particular passion for either place you might want to expand your job search to include other cities as well, as there are plenty of other places that also offer a big city experience but possibly with more jobs and at a lower price tag. And as far as swimming goes, you can swim in both places, but I wouldn't say either is really known for its swimming culture. I'd give the edge to NYC, though, as San Francisco's beaches, while beautiful, are cold and often have dangerous swimming conditions. NYC or NYC-adjacent beaches are perhaps a bit nicer from the in-the-water standpoint. Both cities have great parks, lots of recreational options, and enough options for fun to keep you busy for years, assuming you have some free time and you're not working three jobs to pay the rent.
Personally, I probably prefer NYC because it's bigger (I don't really think SF and NYC are all that similar, although I know others disagree) but San Francisco has an amazing setting, many nice neighborhoods, and certainly offers a compact urban experience, too.
^^^
Excellent advice by uptown_urbanist. Can't emphasize enough that you should visit both if possible as it is difficult to just move to a place you have never been and trust other people's opinion.
SF has a much milder climate that is more friendly to outdoor activities and recreation year round. So if you want to be outside year round and be able to play sport then I think SF might be a better choice.
As far as the beach, virtually no one goes swimming in SF as the water is too cold and dangerous. NYC has much warmer water during the summer and a more traditional beach scene as far as I know.
anywhere in coastal california if you find yourself an outdoors person... sf will offer you a city life for sure but it isn't Manhattan... but then again you probably don't make enough to lead the Manhattan life ... if you aren't doing that there are plenty of other cities which can offer similar lives for cheaper. I'd probably keep the car in SF and use it occasionally, ditch it entirely in NYC.
swimming is not going to be great in either, uc an do it more around nyc... around sf if you surf well, obviously that is going to be better.
I have lived in both cities. SF has a milder climate than NYC which is good for outdoor activities all year long. But NYC has winter outdoor activities such as ice-skating in Rockerfeller Center or Bryant Park. Both cities have large city parks (Golden Gate Park in SF & Central Park in NYC). NYC has a beach scene between Memorial Day & Labor Day where you can take the subway to Coney Island or Rockaway, Queens or drive out to Jones Beach in Long Island or to the New Jersey Shore. NYC has Flushing Meadows (park) which includes the tennis courts used during the US Open. NYC also has some indoor city pools that you can go to during the winter months.
In SF & NYC you really don't need a car in the city. You might need a car if you are interested in going outside the city.
I have lived in both cities. SF has a milder climate than NYC which is good for outdoor activities all year long. But NYC has winter outdoor activities such as ice-skating in Rockerfeller Center or Bryant Park. Both cities have large city parks (Golden Gate Park in SF & Central Park in NYC). NYC has a beach scene between Memorial Day & Labor Day where you can take the subway to Coney Island or Rockaway, Queens or drive out to Jones Beach in Long Island or to the New Jersey Shore. NYC has Flushing Meadows (park) which includes the tennis courts used during the US Open. NYC also has some indoor city pools that you can go to during the winter months.
In SF & NYC you really don't need a car in the city. You might need a car if you are interested in going outside the city.
Pretty much any city has this these days... SF has outdoor ice skating as well in Union Square and the Embarcadero, but obvoiusly doesn't have the snowing aspect, but will be rather chilly come dec/jan, this isn't San Diego.
I think they are both big enough cities to easily cater to all age groups...
First of all, you have to compare San Francisco with Manhattan (and the nice parts of Brooklyn). Oakland might be similar to The Bronx, but Oakland is not San Francisco.
I've lived in both cities, even in similar neighborhoods (Lower Height and the East Village) and, in my opinion, they're completely different.
It's about vibe, more than anything else. If I had to oversimplify: SF is about being whereas Manhattan is about doing. SF is much more relaxed. NYC is all about education and career. You sound like a laid back kind of person; SF may be a better choice.
To use a crude example, it's Sex and the City vs. Tales of the City. Yes, they're both fiction, but (the original books, not the TV shows) were based on real people. I think they capture the essence of trendy life in their respective cities very well, or at least the life that trendy people wish they had.
The young people who move to New York are very well educated and very ambitions. Yes, they like to hang out and party, etc., but they also want to "make it" in a high-status, competitive career. I never got that feeling from the 20-somethings I knew in San Francisco.
Well NYC of course NYC is a very fast-paced city in every sense. So if you are okay with that then I say NYC.
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.
NYC is a very fast-paced city in every sense. So if you are okay with that then I say NYC.
