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.
lol calm down. A city's wealth is more than just by a handful of extremely popular websites. Comparing London to SF is just ridiculous. Culturally, financially, socially, historically--London trounces SF in every way.
Furthermore, the city, despite a fair amount of wealth, suffers from problems of homelessness and racism on a scale that for a small city is unbelievable.
Correct. The Bay Area really takes London to town in ways people clearly never thought possible. It's actually quite hilarious.
The Bay Area is wealthier and has a more dynamic and robust economy, is more racially diverse, has far superior climate and natural setting, etc.
Quote:
Culturally, financially, socially, historically--London trounces SF in every way.
Perhaps in the 1700s but in 2014, that clearly is no longer the case.
Quote:
Furthermore, the city, despite a fair amount of wealth, suffers from problems of homelessness and racism on a scale that for a small city is unbelievable.
Hahaha...oh really? Does London have areas like this?
I keep reading that London is an unattainable, alpha powerful orb of sorts, but no one has really explained HOW exactly?
It appears to be all reputation which is fine, but don't get upset when I actually post stats to back up what I say.
LOL
I think part of the problem is that people don't take this thread seriously, or at least not as seriously as you seem to.
I suggest we put your arguments to a more rigorous test, point by point, then see how your arguments fare.
Let's start by hearing your points in defense of the cityscape in San Francisco compared to that in London: Walking experience, activity/buzz, public spaces, infrastructure, public transit, cleanliness and architecture.
Last edited by MissionIMPOSSIBRU; 05-22-2014 at 10:49 AM..
I keep reading that London is an unattainable, alpha powerful orb of sorts, but no one has really explained HOW exactly?
It appears to be all reputation which is fine, but don't get upset when I actually post stats to back up what I say.
LOL
The issue is your stats are all economy based. Economy obviously is important, but it shouldn't be the only factor. And London's economy is doing fairly well in any case so you should look at many other factors, too. What is the more interesting city to live in? Offers better urban amenities?
Just looking at economic indicators is silly. Houston is probably better GDP-wise and in number of corporate headquarters (not sure, just guessing) than Barcelona. Should it win a city contest with Barcelona? Of course not.
Hahaha...oh really? Does London have areas like this?
Chabot Park Average Household Income: $123,738
It probably does somewhere on the outskirts. It definitely has rich neighborhoods, obviously. But what is so special about that neighborhood? Oh, the diversity stats. So, a rich non-white area? It's a bit hard to racial diversity between an American and British context, very different historical context. But if anything, that link is an example of racial segregation [not imposed, voluntary but still]. It's a high-income neighborhood, so you'd expect it's demographics to reflect the general population of anyone who could afford it. 60% black in a metro area that's only 8.4% suggest a strong sorting. London has a higher black % (13% in Greater London, maybe down to 9% if you include commuter belt towns) but no neighborhood that would be 60% black, that's way concentrated over the city average.
I keep reading that London is an unattainable, alpha powerful orb of sorts, but no one has really explained HOW exactly?
It appears to be all reputation which is fine, but don't get upset when I actually post stats to back up what I say.
LOL
Plenty of people have explained how and why but you just chose to live inside your own bubble and ignore any of them and keep bringing up how wealthy San Francisco is, yet the city has an income inequality on par with developing countries like Rwanda.
Many of the same posters appreciate San Francisco's natural beauty, but agreed that the city doesn't quite pack the same punch in other area when it comes to culture, history, architecture, street life and so on. But for some reason they all read like $$, $$, $$, $$, $$ to you.
The issue is your stats are all economy based. Economy obviously is important, but it shouldn't be the only factor. And London's economy is doing fairly well in any case so you should look at many other factors, too. What is the more interesting city to live in? Offers better urban amenities?
Just looking at economic indicators is silly. Houston is probably better GDP-wise and in number of corporate headquarters (not sure, just guessing) than Barcelona. Should it win a city contest with Barcelona? Of course not.
And to that, it's not like London is a poor city by any stretch of the imagination...
I think part of the problem is that people don't take this thread seriously. Given that you seem convinced that you have a strong case, let's take this comparison point by point and start with hearing your points in defense of the cityscape in San Francisco, compared to that in London:
1. Walking experience
2. Activity/buzz
3. Public spaces
4. Infrastructure
5. Public transit
6. Cleanliness
7. Architecture
Walking experience and activity buzz: They both have that, no?
San Francisco is an absolute joy to walk around. The streetscape of SF is quite stunning and vibrant. London is larger, but better? Not really. Its just different.
Public spaces. San Francisco, being located on a rugged ocean coastline and surrounded by water on three sides and dominated by hills and far greater biodiversity in plant life, flora and fauna provides an experience that*sets it apart from anything in London, which may have better planned urban plazas and city parks, I suppose, so once again to say London is 'better' is really not accurate. Its just different.
Infrastructure/ Public Transit. London has a larger system, sure. I rejoice with you. LOL
Cleanliness. Both cities are clean or not so clean depending on what part of town we're talking about.
Architecture: I find London's new skyline to be hideous and amusement park like. SF has a better skyline.
London has older architecture, although at street level SF is actually more memorable.
As far as residential I love London's townhouses and SF has fabulous homes in town, but they both get major strikes. London's public housing blocks are just ghastly while SFs semidetached homes with garages right at the front turn me off.
So now that Ive indulged your little request, which I rarely do, please compare the following:
Racial diversity, race relations, racial minority affluence and Educational attainment.
Quality of local recreational amenities.
Quality of area housing inventory.
Quality of Education at all Levels.
Quality of Health Care.
Unemployment and Job growth.
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.
