Already tired of San Francisco (Richmond, Palo Alto: transfer, restaurants, moving)

[NYCtoSF]

Originally Posted by humboldtrat

I hope NYC809 and NYCtoSF are following this thread. I think after they have lived in SF for a year or two, the novelty will have worn off and it will be time to move on . . . or go back to NYC.

I don't like this kind of negative talk. Granted, it's been 3 weeks and my first impressions are that its not exactly my ideal city, but that being said I'd still like to give it a go for at least a year before I give my final verdict.

What I (and the OP) need to internalize is that comparing SF to NYC or London is pointless, it's just a different city and always will be.

I miss the convenience of public transportation in NYC, bar hopping without having to drive, shops/restaurants open late/on weekends, walking outside onto a crowded street at all hours of the day/night, beautiful babes on every street/in every Starbucks/bar etc

But SF has some advantages too, the weather of course, People are mostly super-friendly, and there are sexy women here too.

[rkwalton]

Originally Posted by NYCtoSF

I feel like I shouldn't have come to this site today. Really irritated right now because I waited 20 mins for the Light rail that never showed up and this thread will only further serve as a downer.

NextBus.com - It helps, a lot. Unlike in NYC, you can actually track transit here. It's pretty spot on for MUNI.

[Mach50]

Originally Posted by alexxiz

Yeah Denver area got software jobs... but are there any forests within several hours drive? I think it's mostly open land... otherwise I'd consider working there.

Can't tell if serious...

Evergreen to Vail Mt Evans...all forest (.5-2 hours away)
Rocky Mountain National Park.... forest (1-1.5 hours away)
Co Springs Pikes Peak is Forest (1 hour away)

Basically you have the entire Front Range here, I've done a lot Mountain biking and hiking near the BayArea, I'd say it doesn't compare to what's near Denver. You do have redwoods there, that is nice but the forest here is DENSE.

East of Denver all the way to Appalachians is flat open land.

Pic: Maxwell Falls trail in Evergreen, CO (.5-1 drive to trailhead)

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Mach50

Can't tell if serious...

Evergreen to Vail Mt Evans...all forest (.5-2 hours away)
Rocky Mountain National Park.... forest (1-1.5 hours away)
Co Springs Pikes Peak is Forest (1 hour away)

Basically you have the entire Front Range here, I've done a lot Mountain biking and hiking near the BayArea, I'd say it doesn't compare to what's near Denver. You do have redwoods there, that is nice but the forest here is DENSE.

East of Denver all the way to Appalachians is flat open land.

Pic: Maxwell Falls trail in Evergreen, CO (.5-1 drive to trailhead)

That's not exactly nearby. Muir Woods is less than 30 minutes away from SF and there are other forested areas within 20 minutes.

[Mach50]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

That's not exactly nearby. Muir Woods is less than 30 minutes away from SF and there are other forested areas within 20 minutes.

30 min to Evergreen is nearby, if you lived in Lakewood or Littleton it would be 10-15 min.

Originally Posted by alexxiz

Yeah Denver area got software jobs... but are there any forests within several hours drive? I think it's mostly open land... otherwise I'd consider working there.

anyways I am not trying to debate BayArea vs Denver.

[ashlandbus]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

That's not exactly nearby. Muir Woods is less than 30 minutes away from SF and there are other forested areas within 20 minutes.

Denver has it's own mountain parks and Jefferson County (suburban Denver) has plenty of open space less than 30 mins from downtown. From my house in downtown denver, i was able to get to Loveland ski area in 45 mins. Plus, these places have 1/100th the amount of people you would find in Muir Woods.

Now, hiking in the East Bay regional parks can't be beat for urban access. From my house in Oakland, I have access to canyons, fire trails, and trails leading to redwood parks, etc. within 5 ins WALK from my front door.

Either way, if the whiners in San Francisco would ever leave their 10 sq. mile space, they could understand why it is damn expensive here and despite the price, quality of life is quite high. I left Denver living comfortable life about ayear ago and am not looking back, at all... But, it is a bit laughable to these whiners that a world class city means pretty cocktail waitresses and more experiences that are catered to tourists? What about diversity, access to open space, progressive growth policies, WATER!, beauty, etc.? I don't know, to me that is what makes this place more desirable than most places I have visited in the US and abroad.

[mstnghu2]

Originally Posted by lrmsd

I really can't believe you are comparing NYC to SFO. For anyone reading this, SFO is not and has never been, NYC. Or LA.

Please research population demographics, geography, etc. before moving somewhere. Boston is a better east coast comparison to SFO, if you must. But generally, east and west coast are completely different. If you are looking for the 'place most like NYC, or boston, or miami, etc' on the west coast, well, pick NYC, Boston or Miami, please! Do us all a favor-lol-and do your homework.

I would never say I'm looking for the east coast version of san diego. That's ridiculous. And when I left the Boston area, I did not look for a Boston west of the Mississippi.

FYI, SFO only refers to the airport, not the city itself.

[mayorhaggar]

Originally Posted by mstnghu2

FYI, SFO only refers to the airport, not the city itself.

I'm gonna go eat a deep dish in the city of ORD!!!

[marilyn220]

There will never be a city like NYC. Never. I'm not even talking about this new fangled NY, but the city I grew up in (I guess the rough and tumble NY).

When I read how people want to happily to move to places like Fort Green and Brownsville in BROOKLYN of all places, I'm simply amazed at how much it has changed. These two places were bonafide GHETTOS not too long ago.

I'm grateful that I was born and raised there, but I will never go back. It's over for me. As much as I dislike LA right now, there's no way I can live a "crabs in a barrel" existence like people do in NY. Everyone is on top of each other, you can hear your next door neighbor talking in their apartment, the supercroweded subway system and just all around pompousness.

I'd rather live in a more "spacious" environment, but I would never pay Manhattan rents to live SF either. I wouldn't pay Manhattan rents to live ANYWHERE, but MANHATTAN. The decor is different, there's more to do, more fashionable, more attractive people, etc., you seriously get what you pay for in Manhattan that no other city in America can offer you.

Now with that said, I'm sure SF and the surrounding towns have things that make it awesome as well, but I would NEVER spend $2,000 or $3,000 a month for a one bedroom apartment, unless it was SUPER HUGE, had a great view and a host of other things worth my while. I live in LA, but for $3,000 I could rent an ENTIRE HOUSE somewhere for that.

Not that I could anyway, since there are no good paying job in LA where you could afford rent like that on your own anyway. Almost everyone you meet here lives with someone else or has several roommates just to live in a $1,000 studio.

[dmode]

Originally Posted by marilyn220

There will never be a city like NYC. Never.

You mean in the US, right? Otherwise I will point you to 30million + Asian cities.