Would you rather live in Boston or San Francisco? (2015, cities, bus)

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by elhelmete

I love how people know their geographical desires without ever stepping foot somewhere.

The OP posed a question of which one I'd prefer. I answered. I'm sorry that I didn't answer in a way that was more favorable to you. I may not have been some place, but that doesn't mean I don't know anything about it, or haven't done my research on it.

[semiurbanite]

I have lived in both - 14 years in the Boston metro area (Brighton ,Brookline,Cambridge,Somerville) and 3 years in SF (Mission district). I love Boston and especially Somerville/Cambridge but I gotta give the vote to SF. The main drawbacks in SF are cost of living and traffic which are both terrible. But the city neighborhoods, parks, weather, food, people, access to the ocean (a beach right in the city!), nature and large mountains get my vote. I also ski alot and Tahoe beats NH/VT. I found the people in SF to be more friendly and more approachable than New Englanders. This is partly because everyone there is a transplant unlike here where most people are natives who tend to stick to the friends they made 20 years ago and are less interested in making new friends. There also seems to be a wider diversity of people in SF because it draws people from all over the country. this is all based on when I lived there in 9 years, and I think the over-the-top gentrification and techie wealth have probably made it a less interesting place than it was. I know for a fact that the rent for my SF apartment in 3x higher today than it was in 2008.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by botticelli

what's wrong with that?
I have never been to Texas or Arizona and know clearly I wouldn't want to live in either place. North Dakota or Mississippi neither.

You get a lot of information online nowadays and it is completely possible to have a basic idea.

Yeah I may have overstated, but when someone rules out an entire area sight unseen I just feel like there some stuff...implied. You see it on this forum all the time...someone says "I'd never want to visit Italy" and then wait for all the rebuttals...

The 'west coast' could be anywhere from Bellingham, WA to San Diego. You're really going to lump all of that together and dismiss it? San Francisco is but one sort of area you'll find in between.

Back to the OP...Boston is my answer. Each successive visit to San Fran creeps me out a little more.

[blueherons]

San Francisco no contest. I couldn't take the winters in Boston.

[clarksvillemom]

lived in both and SF hands down. However, why don't you split the middle and move to Austin or San Antonio? Very "un-Texas" if you buy into the Texas stereotypes

[reneeh63]

I would rather live in one of the warmer (less foggy) micro climates of San Francisco. I've grown tired of snow and Boston only seems to be getting more and more. A warmer climate is great but San Francisco is known for its fogginess and cool air - luckily, some of that can be avoided by living a neighborhood or two away from and higher than the immediate bay.

[chicagoliz]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Of course, I'd take Chicago over either.

Gotta wholeheartedly endorse that sentiment!

I've only been to SF once, for a few days and I loved it. I really want to go back and have very positive feelings toward the city. But, I've never lived there, and have only been there for that short time, so I can't say for sure that I'd love to live there.

I lived in Boston for 3 years for school and found it maddening. We have kind of a love/hate relationship going on. Shockingly, after years away, I'm actually very unexpectedly moving back there.

But, if I had to pick one of the two without the opportunity to try SF more, I'd have to go with Boston -- even though I have much more love for SF than I do for Boston. I've lived my whole life in either the midwest or East Coast, and most of my family and friends are in those places. So, especially at this point, I'd pick Boston just because it's closer to places I know and like and to a higher number of people that I want to see (or have to see) on a regular basis.

[luvmyhoss]

San Francisco.

I like the transit system, the weather and the wharf.

[Utopian Slums]

SF

Mostly for the weather. Transportation, food and adult ed classes also better.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by Dd714

Neither - both too expensive in terms of cost of living, too crowded in terms of my lifestyle, and too liberal in terms of my outlook.
I guess I could have copied and pasted the above response from the other guy.
By they way OP this is the travel, not the residential living, forum. You might have better luck in the specific city/state forums.

Originally Posted by Passion4_Cars_Travelling

Haha I saw that, but I figured that if I asked that question in the Boston section, everyone would choose Boston and the same with San Francisco.

Actually there is a City Vs City subforum that's meant specifically for such dueling threads, and in which you might search for previous Boston/SF threads if you want more opinions. Though both places have changed quite a lot over the years.

My own experience happened too long ago to be of much use. I lived in Waltham rather than Boston proper, and went there only occasionally to Harvard Square and Fanueil Hall market. It's a bit more intellectual than SF because of the enormous numbers of universities and colleges. Summers are hot and humid, winters are cold and snowy. Both the people and the streets seem grittier than in SF.

SF of course has better weather and is even more unaffordable. The city itself is prettier in views and architecture. My impression was that the people weren't as gregarious as in Boston, but that sort of thing is very subjective and dependent on your age/social status at the time.

If I could afford it, I'd choose SF - but a lot of that is from being intolerant of cold weather recently, from medical conditions - on the other hand Boston has better hospitals.