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.
My wife and I are going to be moving and we are considering Boston or San Francisco. We have been to San Francisco and the Bay Area a few times but never to Boston. We would like to get your opinions, like and dislikes.
I think it really depends what you're looking for.
I've lived in both areas and in a way a lot of the pros and cons are similar.
Pros: Lovely parks, lots of fun things to do, attractive neighborhoods, interesting architecture, etc. Cons: very high cost of living, horrendous traffic
We have pretty long winters in Boston so that can be a tough adjustment depending where you're coming from. Pockets of SF get foggy & cold and can really vary by different parts of the city so be sure to have a local help you out if you end up in that area.
I don't really know how their transit system is these days. I feel like ours leaves something to be desired.
Other thoughts: In the Boston area you're driving distance to lots of beaches. You are in the Bay area as well but the water is so damn cold I never swam there (though south of the city there are some amazing surf spots). In the SF area, you're driving distance to much better skiing than we have in the northeast.
Anyhow, I hope that's a bit helpful. Please post more details about what you're looking for in a community & I'm sure more folks will chime in. :-)
Perfect timing. I'm sitting in my girlfriend's apartment in San Francisco right now. I've lived most of my life in the Boston area but have spent large chunks of the past year in the Bay Area.
Both are beautiful cities that are similar in many ways.
Traffic and driving is rough in both cities. I find driving to be a bit easier in SF, but if you don't live IN the city, there's a good chance you'll have to commute via one of the bridges. I'd call this a wash. You really don't want to have to do much of it in either town. Parking is a little more expensive in SF and spots in both cities are hard to find, especially downtown. If I lived in the suburbs and commuted by car, I'd rather do it in Boston than San Francisco.
Both cities are quite walkable. The center city areas in SF and Boston are similar in size and almost equally pedestrian friendly. The outer neighborhoods in SF are a little more walkable, but Boston's are no slouch either. The Richmond, Inner/Outer Sunset, Castro, Haight, etc, etc, etc in SF are all wonderful with neighborhood centers chalk full of restaurants, shops, etc. Boston has Jamaica Plain, Rossi, and many other similar neighborhoods in Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline and Newton. Slight edge for outer neighborhoods to S.F.
Public Transit in Boston is quite a bit better. That's not to say that SF's is bad, but Boston is really only behind New York, DC and Chicago (and you could argue that Boston is as good as the latter two). San Francisco's Muni Metro subway system is VERY similar to Boston's Green Line. Boston also has free transfers to the other Rapid Transit lines (Red, Blue, Orange, Silver) from the Green Line while MUNI has no free transfers to BART. Also, BART is more expensive than Boston's subway system and is designed to play the role of Rapid Transit AND Commuter Rail (Caltrain is a poor excuse for commuter rail). In all, Boston's (while not perfect) system is further reaching and easier to use than San Francisco's. Ridership numbers reflect this. Large chunks of SF are not served by rail or rapid transit. The only area in this regard that SF beats Boston is buses, but not by too much. Still, Boston gets a decent sized edge here.
As far as climate goes, it depends on what you're into. I like San Francisco's Winter and Springs better than Boston's (although I do love the first snowfall), but the Summer and Fall in New England can't be beat. For that reason, I prefer Boston's overall climate. While the cold in Boston can be brutal (and SF's winter is chilly, but more mild), The summers are great. In SF, the summers can be chilly still (50s and 60s in July and August is too cold for me) and the water isn't warm enough to swim in at all. Furthermore, SF is a VERY foggy city. Many neighborhoods (namely, those along the oceanside of the peninsula) stay fogged in for days at a time. On the Bay side, the sun can peak through. The weather in SF on a given day can be completely different depending on the neighborhood. You could be in the Castro where it's 70 and sunny and in the Outer Richmond, it could be 60 and cloudy.
Boston gets humidity that SF doesn't. Still, the summers in Boston are pleasant and fall is spectacular. I give the edge to Boston, but that's highly subjective.
SF is a more "international" city. Boston is an international city too, but it really seems like everyone in SF is from somewhere else. Every apartment my girlfriend looked at had either Asian or some sort of foreign student or worker living in it. It's fascinating. You'll hear dozens of different languages at any time in SF. Again, Boston has its share of international flare, but not like SF.
I feel like the economy is more stable in Boston. While both cities have some of the largest technology sectors in the nation, Boston has more work in education and healthcare to buoy the economy in tough times. A few hours in SF really made it obvious how hard the city has fallen. You don't see homelessness and boarded up shops in Boston like you do in SF. Of course work availability depends highly on what you do. SF may have more opportunities in your fields than Boston. In terms of the bigger picture though, Boston is in better shape.
They're both two of the greatest cities in the country. I think if you like one, you'd most likely enjoy the other.
Thank you for all of the input. In terms of more information, we are a young professional couple with no children, however we do have two small dogs. I am an attorney and my wife works in marketing. We currently live in Ohio, so we are used to the cold winters. We enjoy being outdoors, skiing, attending sporting events, concerts, shows, etc.
^That helps, but I think you'll find both cities will work well for you given your interests. Both cities have some very dog friendly neighborhoods (Where I am in Boston many stores allow dogs and a few eateries sell food designed for dogs. JP licks has dog treats). Dog friendly rentals will depend on the landlords, but if you're buying that's a non-issue. Rent and home costs are a little lower in Boston but not cheap by any means.
Both cities have great access to the outdoors. You can ski a bit closer to Boston. There is even a ski train from North Station to Wachusett Mtn. However, the best skiing in New England is about 2.5+ hours drive from Boston and the best skiing near SF is about 3.5 hours away (Tahoe). San Fran's milder climate will allow you to get out a little more in the winter, but again, summer in Boston offers more. The rugged beauty of the Central CA Coast is tough to compare to the quaint forested seaside settings of Massachusetts. Both are great.
You'll be able to get tickets to sporting events for cheap in SF (especially if you will go to Oakland for the A's Games) whereas in Boston, it's a bit pricier. However, the prices are reflective of the support the teams have. There is no atmosphere like Fenway Park and passionate support for the other Boston teams is almost unrivaled except for a few places (Cleveland being one of them). The atmosphere is almost electric many times. There's no question that Boston is more of a sports town.
You'll get all the big concerts in either city as they both are big cities. San Fran may get a FEW more as some concerts in the Northeast only make it as far as NYC or the big casinos in CT (Mohegan Sun or Foxwoods). Still, neither city will lack in that regard. Both have great local music scenes and other festivals too. For what it's worth, I enjoy the markets in San Francisco better than Boston's but Both have good ones.
irfox makes some great points, but having lived in Nor Cal for most of my life, and now living in Boston, I'll add my 2¢.
Both cities are very similar, and I agree that if you like one, you will like the other. However, here are some areas where they differ:
Homelessness. SF, and the Bay Area in general, has a huge homeless population. It is hard to walk more than a few feet without running into someone panhandling. The homeless will also camp out on the sidewalk, in doorways, and pretty much anywhere they can lay down. Boston definitely has its share of homeless people, but it is nothing in comparison.
Jobs. Overall, the economy is better in Boston, but Boston seems to have more 'menial' types of jobs. Probably because of the large student population here. SF seems better for business professionals, particularly international business.
Crime. Crime in SF is a lot more prevalent than in Boston. SF is not as bad as the East Bay, but it can still be pretty rough.
Word of warning: people who were born in Northern California tend to say 'hella', a lot. I did, and I still do.
The Muni and BART are two separate things. Muni is primarily a City of SF thing, where as BART is the entire Bay Area (although not San Jose for some reason). BART can be pretty expensive as your fare is dependent on the distance that you travel. The T in Boston has a one size fits all fare, so you pay the same whether you travel one stop or go the distance.
If you are riding the BART into SF, you can pay the lowest fare and get off at the stop that transfers to the Muni, there is a stairwell that will take you up to the Muni-but to a location at the Muni station that will allow you to exit without adding more fare to your ticket. Or you can walk right behind someone as they are exiting and quickly follow them through the gate before it closes.
Anyways, BART is really only good if you want to cross the bay. Other than that, it really is not an ideal form of public transportation. It is fast, though, and a lot faster than the T. But that is only because stops are far and few between. It is kind of neat to go under the bay, though.
Housing in SF is a lot more expensive than Boston, and prices are only going up. I read an article a few weeks ago talking about how the average middle-class couple/family are now being priced out of SF.
Cops/firefighters. The police, and firefighters, get a lot more respect in Boston. Definitely the firefighters. In SF, not so much. The police are definitely not looked upon favorably and it can take forever for them to respond to your call. Being a firefighter is akin to being a plumber.
Food, in general, is cheaper in SF. At grocery stores, definitely, but also in restaurants. Bars, too.
Before I forget: Never, ever, say San Fran. Just don't do it. You might as well refrain from saying 'frisco, too-although it is not as bad. It's kind of like calling Boston Bean Town.
Weather. SF has some pretty decent weather, but it tends to be pretty mundane. I hope you like fog. Also, for some reason, SF is cooler in the summer than places like Oakland and Berkeley. Or even San Jose and Marin. Bizarre.
Honestly, I find the SF winter to be more horrible than a Boston one. Yeah, temps might stay in 50s or 60s, but it gets drizzly. And that drizzle doesn't stop. I'll put it to you like this: water torture--you know, when a drop of water is applied to your forehead, drop after drop--may not sound all that bad. But it eventually drives people nuts. That is what an SF winter is like too me. Yeah, it won't be butt-freezing cold. You won't walk knee-deep through snow. No one even knows what a snow shovel looks like. But it is that constant drizzle in your face that will drive you crazy.
Oh, and both places get completely over-run with tourists. Because of better weather, the tourists don't momentarily go away during the winter in SF.
I dunno. It would be hard to choose between the two. But I would lean towards SF primarily because of the varied topography that is within a day-trip's distance from the city (ocean, mountains, Yosemite, valley, farm land, PCH, etc., etc.).
My comments about the BART to MUNI transfer were simply to illustrate that San Francisco (a slightly larger city than Boston) has a subway/light rail system that's roughly the equivalent of Boston's Green Line... merely one of the city's local rapid transit network branches. BART is most certainly regional... connecting SF to the cities and towns further away. It's comparable to Washington D.C.'s Metro (nowhere near as good though) in that it's sort of a commuter rail/ hybrid combination. Boston's MBTA subway network combined with the MBTA Commuter rail and local buses is much more extensive than BART/MUNI/Caltrain.
I completely agree with the rest of your post. If I didn't have deep roots in the Boston area, I'd give SF the edge too.
Do you have jobs lined up? I ask because I'm sure you know that as an attorney, it's not always easy to go from state to state. If you've been practicing law in another jurisdiction for 5+ years and are in good standing, you can get admitted to the MA bar on motion. Pay a fee, get sponsored and fill out a mountain of paperwork. Annoying, but doable.
CA bar admission is more onerous and you may be required to take the CA bar unless you're doing some type of limited practice/in-house work.
Anyway, you may have already done the research on this or it may be a non-issue for whatever reason, but something to keep in mind.
irfox makes some great points, but having lived in Nor Cal for most of my life, and now living in Boston, I'll add my 2¢.
I dunno. It would be hard to choose between the two. But I would lean towards SF primarily because of the varied topography that is within a day-trip's distance from the city (ocean, mountains, Yosemite, valley, farm land, PCH, etc., etc.).
i agreed with everything but until i got to this point. You do know that in Boston within a day's drive you can be at the Ocean (RI, MA, CT, NY, NJ,ME), Mountains in the berkshires and White Mountains in NH, Valley area in Northhampton along with farmland. And also can be in NYC, Philly, Providence all within a handful of hours. And a national park Acadia in Maine.
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.
