Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Boston's weather is simple too bad, and the city a bit too small. It is too expensive for what it is. I'd live in Back Bay in a heart beat, but the weather...
SF is overrate rated, not as beautiful as what people think or led to believe it is, and way too expensive. If I had that kind of budget, I fail to see why I don't live in Manhattan instead.
So neither. These two cities really don't justify the price they command.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,935,179 times
Reputation: 40635
I've lived in both. Inner Richmond area of SF, and mostly Somerville/Cambridge in the Boston area.
I take Boston easily. The weather in SF I enjoy more (especially being able to run outside year round). And I think the food is better in SF. Otherwise, I'll take Boston... especially for the people and social culture.
Neither. On my list of "Places I LOVE to visit but would HATE to live in," San Francisco easily ranks as No. 1. Boston would probably rank No. 2, or maybe 3 (depending on where I ranked New York).
The living expense, congestion, social culture, and political climate of both cities are huge turn-offs to me. But I love them both for their scenery (S.F. in particular) and the breadth of things to see and do.
If I were somehow told that I had to choose between those two, and only those two, I would probably pick San Francisco, just because the weather is nicer.
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.
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.
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.
better climate, better food, better culture, better people, more scenic, better airport, better opportunities to make money, etc. Can't think of anything Boston has on SF.
better climate, better food, better culture, better people, more scenic, better airport, better opportunities to make money, etc. Can't think of anything Boston has on SF.
Agree, I've been to both and San Francisco is what poster above says.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
