Had a conversation with two New Yorkers at Golden Gate Park today.

[mayorhaggar]

It needs some infrastructure rehabbing but it's a nice place to hang out.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by 0'Farrell

Basically, GGP is better than Central Park because it is all natural, and San Francisco as a whole is better than Manhattan because "everyone in Manhattan is chasing the same nickel". Your thoughts?

Sounds like a classic case of "grass is greener" syndrome." I also don't understand why people are always trying to compare San Francisco and NYC -- I don't think they have much in common.

I like some aspects of GGP better, and some aspects of Central Park better. Overall I prefer Central Park, although I do really love Stow Lake and the Botanical Gardens and spent a LOT of time there when we lived within walking distance. (and FWIW, GGP is certainly NOT all "natural"!) I don't feel comfortable in GGP's more isolated, overgrown areas, and go elsewhere for my more unruly nature, anyway. (one nice benefit of SF is that it is so close to so many other great natural areas)

As for the rest of the city, as someone who has looked for (and applied for) apartments in both Manhattan and SF within the past 8 months, it's cheaper and easier in Manhattan right now. (never thought I'd say that!)

Manhattan and SF are both pretty amazing cities with a lot of positives (and negatives) but they are very different. I would strongly disagree that "everyone in Manhattan is chasing the same nickel," though -- that would be a generalization anywhere, but if anything it's probably more true in SF than in Manhattan.

[gone down south]

Serious answer? I think those guys were on vacation and enjoying themselves in the moment. If they truly thought SF was better than NYC, they'd live here not there.

[bmw335xi]

I really like GGP, it's one of the few parks not overrun with homeless people in SF. Central Park is also very nice, I agree it's a matter of opinion.

[80skeys]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

Sounds like a classic case of "grass is greener" syndrome." I also don't understand why people are always trying to compare San Francisco and NYC -- I don't think they have much in common.

Yeah. Not like I'm an expert in a lot of NYC neighborhoods, but I can't think of a single neighborhood in NYC (Manhattan + boroughs) which is anything like a neighborhood in San Francisco.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

I really like GGP, it's one of the few parks not overrun with homeless people in SF.

It's not? Besides the legions of junkies and crackheads, of course.

[ImRandy]

Originally Posted by 80skeys

When did they plant all those trees? How long did it take them to get to their current state, since the 1800s??

They first started planting in 1870 but they didn't start with trees, they started with grasses trying to stabilize the sand. After a few years they started planting trees and had planted 155,000 by 1879. It's hard to say when the park started to look like the park you see today but it's safe to assume that it was fairly quick because there was a lot of interest in the park, especially as a tool to spur real estate development. It was only partially successful though. While the Richmond developed fairly quickly, the Sunset was a large sand dune well into the '40's and some parts into the 50's.