New York vs San Francisco (Paris, Florida: neighborhood, to buy, organic)

[KYLE1]

San Fran is really dirty. I have no idea why.

NYC was much cleaner from what I saw.

[NooYowkur81]

Maybe some of you are focusing too much on Downtown Manhattan which is extremely clean. But A lot of NYC, I would say most of it actually is pretty dirty, especially if you factor in the subways, and the air quality. SF overall is cleaner, well IMO at least.

[NYCBoy1212]

PLANYC 2030 - Download Report

[john_starks]

Originally Posted by liberal elite

San Francisco is just another small, provincial, non-cosmopolitan town.

There are "other" cities and then there is New York City. No comparison.

i agree. i seriously do not understand the hype of SF. i was extremely underwhelmed when i went there. the architecture is interesting and the bay is cool. nice drive to the wine country i guess....otherwise, its just a regular 2nd tier city. about the same amount of nightlife as boston.

[Rachael84]

I've never been to SF, but from what I've seen/heard from people, it sounds really nice. Sounds like somewhere I'd like to live someday, like near retirement. The weather there is perfect in my opinion.

[Hyun-Soo]

I would choose somewhere in the New York metropolitan area! You don't necessarily have to live in Manhattan.

In the New York area, you are at the center of a megalopolis of major U.S. cities -- Boston, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, and Newark. This would be a major draw for me.

Anyways, both cities are very cosmopolitan but it seems like New York would be a more exciting place to live. New things never stop popping up and your child will experience the world in one place.

A public transportation lifestyle is also a better way to live in my opinion nowadays. Gas prices aren't going to go down anytime soon and we aren't sure when a new invention pops up for cars or when they find a new fuel.

San Francisco isn't really a kid friendly city... New York is surprisingly caters well for such a huge place especially outside of Manhattan. You can find plenty of suburban towns in Connecticut or New Jersey if you don't want to live in the city. Another thing about San Francisco is the possibility of an EARTHQUAKE. They keep saying the 'big one' will strike California in the near future so keep that in mind.

By the way, I've been to Paris twice. It's such a lovely city. New York city is very dense in Manhattan but in the boroughs it's a lot more spread out. Paris you know is dense everywhere you go!! I was surprised even in the 'suburb' parts of the city, it still looks like the city center.

[NYCBoy1212]

Originally Posted by Hyun-Soo

I would choose somewhere in the New York metropolitan area! You don't necessarily have to live in Manhattan.

In the New York area, you are at the center of a megalopolis of major U.S. cities -- Boston, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, and Newark. This would be a major draw for me.

Anyways, both cities are very cosmopolitan but it seems like New York would be a more exciting place to live. New things never stop popping up and your child will experience the world in one place.

A public transportation lifestyle is also a better way to live in my opinion nowadays. Gas prices aren't going to go down anytime soon and we aren't sure when a new invention pops up for cars or when they find a new fuel.

San Francisco isn't really a kid friendly city... New York is surprisingly caters well for such a huge place especially outside of Manhattan. You can find plenty of suburban towns in Connecticut or New Jersey if you don't want to live in the city. Another thing about San Francisco is the possibility of an EARTHQUAKE. They keep saying the 'big one' will strike California in the near future so keep that in mind.

By the way, I've been to Paris twice. It's such a lovely city. New York city is very dense in Manhattan but in the boroughs it's a lot more spread out. Paris you know is dense everywhere you go!! I was surprised even in the 'suburb' parts of the city, it still looks like the city center.

Dont Forget that NY is a state too and it has suburban cities closer to the city than CT

[hsw]

SF is just a suburb of SiliconValley....one of world's biggest wealth creation machines....and home to most of world's smartest engineers....

NYC is arguably world's most important city b/c most of world's smartest financiers live/work in Manhattan/Greenwich....not sure where outer boroughs/NJ/LI fit into that equation, though....

Just as many hedgies live/work in Greenwich (and rarely enter Manhattan), many tech guys live/work in PaloAlto area, so City of SF is irrelevant....

Std of living in NYC region is notably weak vs SF region, comparing equally affluent people....SF region is 60-80F yr-round, w/o stifling humidity; can easily drive around SF in own private car w/undgd garages at offices, etc.....mass transit/cabs are unsafe/sweaty/smelly anywhere in world....no surprise why mass transit is primarily stuff of 3rdWorld (or EU)....

Advantage of NYC suburbs is Greenwich land/housing is much cheaper than SF's best suburbs....but drive from Greenwich into Manhattan is far more painful/slower than drive from SiliconValley into SF....

[ridestick66]

sf is just a suburb of silicon valley but sf's best suburbs are silicon valley?

[popalnet]

Oh God, another one of those SF Vs. NYC threads! What is the deal with that?

SF has got to be the most overrated city in the world to be compared to NYC! Com'on. They are so different. SF is small, dead and boring. NYC is super fast paced excitement. Nothing in common between the two.

Let me give you an example. You people in SF - when you drive through a really small town in Wyoming of about 200 people - you ask yourself - how could anyone live here? It's so dead. It's so boring. It's so depressing.

Well, that's the response you get when a NYC native visits SF.