NYC/LA/Sf-Oakland?

[UpsonDowns]

Originally Posted by weitau

This is very good! can I quote you?

I didn't come up with it, someone said it to me and I think she heard it from someone else. Use it as you would like.

[rico33]

LA is where I was born but NYC is where i grew up, dont know about SF but I feel that LA is a great place to live then NYC. SF is a nice place but only been there a couple of times, so couldnt help you there

[18Montclair]

Ive lived in all three and think they are all swell.

The City of San Francisco is much smaller than the other two, but the Bay Area is quite vast. SF is the best of the three as far as livability. The people overall are more sophisticated imo. They really know how to live.

New York is extremely exciting and you could spend everyday of you life getting to know the place and still only scratch the surface.

Los Angeles is a city of many contradictions and that makes it very interesting. Sometimes it seems ghetto and other times its ultra chic.

I could easily live in any of the three and be content but choose to divide my time between SF and Sao Paulo.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by whitechocolate86

Bro, I guarantee you that the NY Humidity can't be nearly as savage as Texas' is...I think I can take the cold...the thing is...I assume that if you complain about summer humidity...

well, nyc is definitely humid in the summer, but you're right, i highly doubt the combination of heat + humidity here compares to many parts of texas. that said, uncomfortable is uncomfortable no matter what. and don't get me started on the subway platforms in the summertime - it feels at least 10 degrees hotter down there, and with the stifling humidity, it literally feels like your face is melting.

there are certain days that are so muggy that it feels like you're walking through split pea soup. i'm not discounting the discomfort level of texas summers by any means - just stating that it's no walk in the park here, either.

i agree with the other poster who said that ny summers are more uncomfortable than winters. but this is purely a matter of preference, as i know many people here who are extremely sensitive to the cold and so they strongly prefer ny's summers, humidity and haziness and all.

the winter is wet too...kinda why I wouldn't wanna go to Chicago...I'm sure NY isn't near as bad, but it repeatedly freezes and simply is wet and miserable here in North Texas during the winter time...hardly ever any snow...which would be cool to see snow in NY, but still the wet cold is what I am concerned about because I know that it does get colder up there than here...

as someone else said, you can't really compare the winters of chicago and ny. chicago is on average far colder and gets much more snow than nyc; even though i'm not a fan of our winters, they're really much milder than in chicago or even boston. the main thing that all three have in common, though, are the relentlessly gray, overcast skies during the winter. that, much more than the cold, is what i don't like about nyc winters - if it were just as cold all winter long, but the sun came out more often, i don't think i'd mind it as much. our winters are also pretty damp; usually precipitation is in the form of rain (envision gray, rainy skies in low-to-mid-30s weather for the month of january) and there are many winters (including this past one) where it hardly ever snowed. but every once in a while we'll have a monster winter with major snowstorm after major snowstorm - the winters of '94 and '95 come to mind - but as bad as it was here, the snow was far worse those years in chicago, boston, buffalo, etc.

let's put it this way: weather in the nyc area is nothing if not unpredictable. unlike LA, where it's 72 and sunny for much of the year, you just don't know in ny - we've had freak days in february where it gets up to 70 degrees and everyone busts out their shorts and flip-flops, only to return to 27 and miserable for the next three weeks.

one thing i've noticed - and it could just be me - is that springtime in ny seems to have gotten a little shorter in recent years. that's not to suggest that it goes from 20 degrees to 80 degrees overnight, but rather that the damp, chilly (40s) weather typical of march seems to be extending further into the spring months in recent years, followed by a couple of weeks of truly beautiful weather (sunny and in the 60s to 70s with relatively low humidity) followed by the brutal humidity of summer. then again, you just never know with weather around here - any given year, we could have an extended period of perfect springlike weather, but it's not something you can count on. if anything, i think early autumn has had more uniformly nice days in recent years (tropical storm season in mid-late sept notwithstanding).

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by whitechocolate86

All Three of these cities are known to be enormously expensive...I have family in NYC...so scoping the place out for job and entertainment opportunities would be easier...than they bay or la in California...I assume there are a lot of people from new york who have been all over the country...and I was wondering, if I (someone from Texas)...was looking at a big city (that could offer many opportunities) on either coast, between NYC or la and the bay...do you think NYC would be better even though it is by far the costliest...well maybe it is slightly cheaper than sf...I don't really know...NYC's weather is probably less agreeable for me than Texas (as it gets much colder there); however, the public transport is an argument over Los Angeles hands down...
Thanks

i don't think you can go wrong in any of these cities/metro areas. it really depends what kind of lifestyle you're looking for and where you can get a job. all three cities/regions have plenty of jobs in certain industries and not so many in other fields.

and as for cost - those stats that tell you that sf or even la are more expensive than nyc are misleading. believe me, there is NO city or metro area on the entire continent that's more expensive than nyc.

those figures you might've seen about how sf has higher rents than nyc don't tell the whole story. first of all, sf is much smaller, land-wise and population-wise, than the five boroughs of nyc. so even though it still has a few seedy pockets such as the tenderloin, it doesn't have the large swaths of poverty that still exist in nyc's outer boroughs (esp. brooklyn, bronx, queens) and upper manhattan. and because of this fact, you're not going to find as many cheaper apartments in sf, which in turn keeps their median prices higher than the five boroughs of nyc.

but it's a different story if you're comparing neighborhoods of similar desirability in sf and nyc.

which leads me to my second point: most of those stats you've seen don't compare MANHATTAN ONLY with sf. that would be a better apples-to-apples comparison. this isn't to suggest that the outer boroughs don't have expensive, highly desirable neighborhoods - they do - but manhattan is by far the most expensive place in the entire nyc metro area for housing, cost of living, eating out, buying groceries, and so on.

third point: the average apartment in sf is a lot larger than the average apartment in nyc, esp. manhattan, which generally has some of the oldest and most cramped housing stock in the city. those stats you've seen often don't point out price per square foot, which is a much more useful indicator of how much you're getting for your money.

so while in sf, you might struggle to find an apt less than $2000/month, chances are you'll have a little more breathing room to split the pad with a roommate - which in turn will reduce your per-person costs. conversely, in nyc you might be paying, say, $1750 for a ratty walkup studio that's not even 400 square feet and is completely unshareable unless you live there with a girlfriend - meaning that even though the apartment in nyc technically has lower rent, your per-person costs are far higher.

[Euroboy1]

New York, definitely.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by whitechocolate86

The platforms don't have climate controls?

unfortunately not!

some of the newer subway stations/platforms around the world do have amenities such as climate control, but nyc's system is so old that i don't think it's feasible to install at this point. just something we all have to deal with in the summertime.

then there's the flooding that happened last year on certain subway lines following heavy rains - that was fun!

Originally Posted by whitechocolate86

...my relatives...who recently moved here from NYC...they lived in Manhattan, Queens, and New Jersey while there...said that if I do go out there...It might be best to try a Jersey suburb (or city I don't know whether y'all call them suburbs or not)...because the rent would be much lower than a burrough...is there a lot happening on the Jersey and Long Island beaches during summertime?

nj is heavily suburban, so it's generally cheaper than nyc proper. but as a newcomer to the area - esp. as a younger guy (which i assume you are) - i think it would be better to live in the city proper or an urban area just outside of it for any number of reasons - culture, partying/bar-hopping, great food, chilling in the park, and just walking around and soaking up the energy of the city. that's something you can't replicate in the burbs. sure, you can commute or drive in from suburban jersey anytime, but it's not the same as living in the city.

after living in the city for a few years and becoming more comfortable/entrenched in the area, then i might recommend finding a place in the burbs if you want to cut down costs or are getting tired of living in an busy, noisy, urban area. but when you're new to the region, i think you're doing yourself a disservice by not living in its core city.

and by "city", i don't mean just manhattan; i'm including the outer boroughs (in particular western queens and northwest brooklyn, since they're closest to manhattan) and the urban areas of northeastern nj that are directly across from manhattan (jersey city, hoboken, and weehawken). mass transit from nj, even the urban areas, can be a bit spotty at times, though, so as much as i like nj, i'd probably recommend brooklyn or queens if manhattan's too expensive for you. the reason i say this is b/c manhattan, queens, brooklyn, and the bronx are all linked by the same system (MTA) of buses and subways; but nj uses a different subway to get to the city (the PATH, which in my experience is somewhat less reliable and slower than the nyc subway), and once you get off the PATH stop in manhattan, you still have to pay a separate fare to switch to the NYC subway, which is annoying. there are also buses and ferries from those urban nj areas to nyc, but again, if i were you i'd rather just live somewhere (nyc proper) where i only have to deal with the nyc subway.

Originally Posted by whitechocolate86

If I may ask, the climate has been portrayed to me by residents on this site in NYC as downright miserable...why did so many people settle in a poor climate...history tells us that dc was settled because the founding fathers didn't want career politicians wanting to stay in a nice environment...but NYC is the center of everything american...is it possible to live in a jersey town and have access to public transport while being able to own a car for when I want to have a little joyride?

people come to nyc for the jobs/career opportunities, school, culture, nightlife, and other offerings. the weather is definitely NOT a reason why people come here, but everyone learns to just deal with it. i'd actually say that nyc's weather is one of the city/region's biggest negatives, as most nyc/nj natives i know who've left the region, or are planning to do so, cite weather and cost of living as their two biggest complaints. but there are plenty of others who don't mind it b/c the positives outweigh the negatives, even on the lousiest of days.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by holden125

People are here because there's a lot to offer here and nobody's all that worried about the climate.

i agree with the first half of your sentence but disagree with the second part. many people i know hate the weather here and grouse about it on a daily basis for 8-9 months out of the year. this isn't a universal sentiment, but even though people learn to deal with it, doesn't mean that "nobody's all that worried" about it.

many of my friends from california - in particular the LA-area natives - have returned or are planning on returning to so cal for weather (and family) reasons, even if they love it here and are doing well in their careers.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by whitechocolate86

...is it possible to live in a jersey town and have access to public transport while being able to own a car for when I want to have a little joyride?

yes, absolutely. but again, i think you'd be better off living in the city proper (or urban nj) at first, which pretty much necessitates ditching your car. you can always rent a car through zipcar for shorter errands and such.

then if you get tired of urban living and/or miss driving your car, you can do the suburban thing; there are many suburban areas of nj with ample free parking and commuter rail lines to the city. that's one of the best things about nj - even though it's a mostly car-dependent area, it's nice to be able to drive around freely, not worry about circling the block for parking or paying for parking tickets, and just cruise around for a while. believe it or not, i actually have a car in manhattan (though i wouldn't recommend a newcomer to the area to do so) and drive into nj frequently to do bulk shopping (at costco and ethnic supermarkets), eat at the many great korean, portuguese, and brazilian restaurants there (since the ones in manhattan are not the best), visit friends, and just cruise around if i have time. i also take the car when i need to go deep into brooklyn, queens, or the bronx for similar reasons, although i'll take the subway to shea stadium or within manhattan. depends on the situation, i guess; i take whichever mode of transportation is more convenient at a given time.

parking in manhattan (and in many areas of the outer boroughs, jersey city, and hoboken) is the biggest pain, of course, and is the main reason you should leave your car in texas if you move here and live in an urban area. i've been dealing with nyc/urban nj street parking for over 15 years, yet i still consider it a major hassle (although worthwhile for my needs) and i still get the occasional ticket.