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.
SF, Toronto, Sydney and Singapore are all pound for pound, FAR NICER than NY, Paris and London, which by comparison are slivers of nice surrounded by a sea of slummy looking tenements.
Oh, come now. I know you're just being reactionary and defensive but you can't make a staright-faced statement saying that SF, Toronto, Sydney and Singapore are better than NY, Paris and London. They're all great cities, but that's a bit of an odd statement.
Oh, come now. I know you're just being reactionary and defensive but you can't make a staright-faced statement saying that SF, Toronto, Sydney and Singapore are better than NY, Paris and London. They're all great cities, but that's a bit of an odd statement.
Yeah, taking this whole"pound for pound" and "on average" argument works if you are talking personal preferences, but straight up they cant compete with the big boys.
Oh, come now. I know you're just being reactionary and defensive but you can't make a staright-faced statement saying that SF, Toronto, Sydney and Singapore are better than NY, Paris and London.
What I find most bizarre about this most common of posts^ is that it is removed from reality to say that NY, London and Paris are better in ALL THINGS and in EVERY CRITERIA than any other cities.
Because that's not true.
This thread is packed with post after post stating specific ways in which SF is BETTER than London--it goes without saying in some instances.
But the desperate demands of deference to these 3 cities is hilarious and will NOT be accommodated by me.
Why on earth would I live in London when the Bay Area is a far better place to live?
Yeah, taking this whole"pound for pound" and "on average" argument works if you are talking personal preferences, but straight up they cant compete with the big boys.
SF, Toronto, Sydney and Singapore are all pound for pound, FAR NICER than NY, Paris and London, which by comparison are slivers of nice surrounded by a sea of slummy looking tenements.
LOL, montclair's choice of pictures sums it all up.
In the picture posts below, one of the following cities looks like a richly detailed and beautifully woven tapestry of history, culture and hi tech. The other looks like a cheap five dollar knock-off print.
What I find most bizarre about this most common of posts^ is that it is removed from reality to say that NY, London and Paris are better in ALL THINGS and in EVERY CRITERIA than any other cities.
Because that's not true.
This thread is packed with post after post stating specific ways in which SF is BETTER than London--it goes without saying in some instances.
But the desperate demands of deference to these 3 cities is hilarious and will NOT be accommodated by me.
Why on earth would I live in London when the Bay Area is a far better place to live?
GDP data was released yesterday by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the stat indicates that in 2013, California's economic growth powered the state past Brazil to regain it's 7th place ranking among the world's largest economies.
California is also growing faster than other comparably sized economies.
I can see California surpassing the UK in the next 5-7 years.
The Bay Area isn't the center of California in any sense though. I suppose it has the California supreme court and one of the branches of the US Federal Reserve bank, but it certainly isn't at the helm of an actual sovereign nation whose powers are far beyond simple economic output.
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.