U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: London vs SF
London 96 70.59%
San Francisco 40 29.41%
Voters: 136. You may not vote on this poll

Old 05-26-2014, 08:58 PM
Location: Berkeley, S.F. Bay Area
374 posts, read 388,816 times
Reputation: 289


Originally Posted by easthome View Post
So now your telling us that as well as a bridge and some trees to entice visitors San Fransico also has some..........shops! Well why didn't you say before! I didn't realise the city was so sofisticated that it actually has shops and shopping centres too! How can New York possibly compete with that! Next you'll be telling me that it has trains or buses or even an airport!
What is with the recent emphasis about SF only having a bridge and nature to attract tourists? By that logic I could say the only thing London has is an even shorter, older, bridge and a clock to excite tourists. Oh and the Thames river--my God--that thing took my breath away. I mean who cares about a large Bay with boring houses, boring bridges, boring sights, boring climate, and boring island prisons.
Rate this post positively

Old 05-26-2014, 09:45 PM
Location: Berkeley, S.F. Bay Area
374 posts, read 388,816 times
Reputation: 289
Picture I took while in London, these were generally the type of houses I saw in the city immediate:

And it was on a sunny day too. I mean I don't hate the building designs but personally I've never seen it as attractive. I honor its historic value, but I don't feel like its the kind of buildings that make me want to live there. It also didn't help that the climate is such garbage that all the colors (usually browns and grey) felt more muted than usual.

But even with SF having fog all the time, the housing was just much more attractive. I should also make clear that when i mentioned architecture earlier, I was referring to houses people could live in, apartments, bungalows, ect. Not offices or older non-residential buildings, mainly because when compare how a city looks I'm also envisioning a potential abode.


Your typical SF Victorians, usually for wealthier, and upper middle class, which you can imagine is quite bigger here in SF.


Apartments and houses in the Western and Southern side where it's most dense with solid middle class families.


And finally your more spacious but still dense housing in Berkeley and Oakland.

Keep in mind none of these places are extremely extravagant, all are just middle class, (with exception to the post-card SF photo Victorians and the houses over the Claremont hills in Berkeley, they're not super-elite but they are upper-class). Nonetheless, they're places and areas I reside in and past by all the time. They're not special buildings of super historic value (except maybe the Victorians at Dawn pic, I see that one on post cards a lot). But it's the colors, it's the modern-style, combined with futuristic interpretation, and historical tribute. With exception for the obvious new apartments in the East Bay, most of these houses aren't new, they've been around since the Bay Area became a financial hub in the 19th and 20th century. What it boils down to is preference obviously, but I simply don't have much of a preference for older buildings that don't stick out and remind me of a history book instead of a more Cosmopolitan future with acknowledgment of the region's past, which is why Victorians are my favorite. Anyways, it's just my opinion, if you like London housing and styles then fine, I just never understood it. Inside London they were either old, drab-castle like apartments, or contemporary apartments that were absolutely not created for their looks. And outside of London the houses look just like American suburban houses, just with less appeal.

Last edited by Rozenn; 05-28-2014 at 04:15 PM.. Reason: Copyright issues
Rate this post positively
Old 05-27-2014, 12:00 AM
282 posts, read 353,529 times
Reputation: 314
Type in "London stucco" into google image search if you want to see housing that is more representative of Central London.

Some examples:

West Eaton Place, Belgravia, London, SW1X | Ayrton Wylie | Estate Agents in Belgravia

Stucco-Fronted Properties in Central London

Rate this post positively
Old 05-27-2014, 02:51 AM
Location: Westminster, London
878 posts, read 1,226,822 times
Reputation: 714
The interiors to some of these mansions and townhouses in Central London have to be seen to be believed.
Rate this post positively
Old 05-27-2014, 02:55 AM
Location: London | Atlanta
219 posts, read 284,944 times
Reputation: 278
Very true, stunning edifices inside and out.
Rate this post positively
Old 05-27-2014, 03:40 AM
1,274 posts, read 1,015,555 times
Reputation: 1413
GalacticDragonfly, those pictures of San Francisco you posted are lovely (as are those posted by 18montclair), but that picture of London hardly represents the kind of "houses" you might find here. You claim to have lived here 18 months and you didn't notice the sheer variety of architecture? Strange.

At least this thread has finally become less about posting meaningless stats. Photographs and videos, even if they're not that well shot, are much better
Rate this post positively
Old 05-27-2014, 04:26 AM
Location: London | Atlanta
219 posts, read 284,944 times
Reputation: 278
I'd agree, much better. That photo of London is indeed unrepresentative.
Rate this post positively
Old 05-27-2014, 08:09 AM
Location: Berkeley, S.F. Bay Area
374 posts, read 388,816 times
Reputation: 289
Originally Posted by Grigoriachel View Post
Type in "London stucco" into google image search if you want to see housing that is more representative of Central London.

Are these houses that average people live in? I didn't take many pictures of London housing because I thought they were rather dull. But I'd never dispute that clubhouses, older offices, political buildings, and such were quite grand. Even the interiors were spectacular. But at least the people I knew, and the areas I had been around which were middle class and lower middle class, the housing (excluding contemporary apartments) just didn't seem very creative or attention drawing.

I'm going to try and find some more pics I have of London but for now, these are some more older, European-like buildings that I know of locally:


The grand Claremont that I stay at once a year (since it burns a hole in everyone's pocket)


These are great places and all, but there not places that average people stay at or general residential housing. It's not a place I can see myself living in. But I do live in the East Bay houses and am eligible for Victorians. Do any of the Londoners here live in any styles of housing that are interesting?

Last edited by Rozenn; 05-28-2014 at 04:17 PM.. Reason: Copyright issues
Rate this post positively
Old 05-27-2014, 08:15 AM
Location: Berkeley, S.F. Bay Area
374 posts, read 388,816 times
Reputation: 289
Some of the photos I took of London, this wasn't where I lived but I did think the areas were interesting:

They were poor images, I wasn't a good photographer back then. Anyways, I feel like London has a lot of historical points for its architecture, but even before I moved there I kind of predicted what it would look like. I am into historical architecture, but personally I've never found English architecture to be 'exciting', it just has a 'grand bland' feel to me. In terms of residential housing for average people however, I didn't see anything grand or eye-grabbing. I'd love to see photos of residential housing (similar to the ones of my Victorians and the boxy-bungalows in SF I posted earlier). I'm aware Central London has nice structures (obviously, it's where most of London's old attraction is), but outside those areas, perhaps?

I should also point out that I don't think New York is very attractive either in its style, actually it comes off to me as dirty and unoriginal outside of the wealthier parts of Manhattan. So don't get the impression that I'm against English architecture or anything.
Rate this post positively
Old 05-27-2014, 08:22 AM
Location: Queens, NYC
420 posts, read 741,009 times
Reputation: 352
Besides only one of those pics, the SF houses are extremely tacky and tasteless, which is extremely fitting for a city devoid of well-earned and respectied history, character, and culture.
Rate this post positively
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.

Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top