SF: more like LA or Manhattan? (living, state, compared, places)

[nei]

Originally Posted by erictrenson

There's a couple of reasons. First of all, SF's financial district and surrounding areas feel more like *lower* Manhattan than any other downtown Ive ever been too, including Chicago and Philly. Something about the feel of it...

Boston feels more like Lower Manhattan than any other American city. Much smaller scale, but the way they both stick out into the water gives a bit of the same look. They're the only two cities that have skyscrapers on narrow winding streets, giving a very claustrophic look. Boston kept more of its history, but there some similarities with the old buildings. And the nearby North End feels a bit more similar to Lower Manhattan low rise neighborhoods than parts of San Francisco next to Downtown but I'd have to revisit.

Something about the form and continuous buildings, at least near the center, would make San Francisco seem nowhere as foreign to a New Yorker compared to LA.

[bballniket]

Though LA and San Francisco share a similar climate, similar architecture, and the dramatic topographical landscapes that the coastal CA is known for, I believe that San Fransisco functions the same way for the East Bay as Manhattan does for Brooklyn and Queens. This, in my opinion, is THE reason that so many posters on here so often draw comparisons between San Francisco and Manhattan (rather than San Francisco and New York city, even though they're both the "focal" cities of their metro areas and have more similar densities than San Francisco and Manhattan; or between San Francisco and Los Angeles, even though they're comparatively similar architecturally, climatically, and actually have more comparable transit networks).

To take it a step further San Francisco plays a very similar role in its MSA as Manhattan does in NYC. Also, the East Bay's role in the SF-Oakland MSA is analogous to the role of Brooklyn+Queens in NYC. For the purposes of this post, I'm defining the East Bay solely as Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

Points illustrating the parallel between the SF-->East Bay and Manhattan-->(Brooklyn+Queens) relationships
1) Queens+Brooklyn covers a very similar share of NYC's population (58%) as the East Bay does the SF-Oakland MSA's population (59%).

Manhattan's population accounts for 19% of NYC's population; San Francisco's population accounts for 19% of its MSA's population.

2) San Francisco and Manhattan are significantly less diverse than their East Bay and Brooklyn+Queens counterparts. Though San Francisco is quite racially diverse, its Asian population is far less diverse (nationality-wise) than that those of the East Bay counties; it also has a smaller black population. Though Manhattan is quite racially diverse, its Hispanic and black populations are significantly less diverse than those of both Brooklyn and Queens (Manhattan's hispanic population is >65% Puerto Rican+Domincan whereas those of Brooklyn and Queens are much more diversified; by ancestry, Manhattan is only 1.7% West Indian while Queens and Brooklyn's West Indian percentages are 6.8% and 12.5%, respectively, and the black percentages for the 3 are 15.6%. 19.1%, and 34.3%, respectively--> West Indians form a MUCH larger share of the black population in Queens and Brooklyn than they do in Manhattan, while none of the 3 have much by way of a Subsaharan African diaspora). Also, the Asian population of Queens is much more diverse than that of Manhattan. To generalize completely, Manhattan is the reason that NYC is known for its "affluence"/"being posh" just as San Francisco of the main reason its MSA is reputed to be affluent and posh. On the other hand, the Queens+Brooklyn landmass is the main reason that NYC is considered to be extremely diverse; likewise, the East Bay is one of the main reasons that the SF-Oakland MSA is considered to be so diverse.

3) The regions' core rail transit networks- MTA and BART (before anyone states that Muni has more riders than BART, I'll reiterate that I said RAIL transit networks, and Muni metro has around half the ridership of BART) probably derive the majority of their ridership from people commuting from Queens+Brooklyn to Manhattan, and the East Bay to SF, respectively.

4) *Both Manhattan and San Francisco are reputed to have lots of wealthy people and lots of poor people, but not much by way of a middle class; the two look to their immediate eastern neighbors for both a cheaper alternative that still provides a hip/trendy/"progressive" environment (parts of Brooklyn for Manhattan-ites, and parts of Oakland and Berkeley for San Franciscans); the two look to their neighbors further "down the road" for middle-class and "family-friendly" neighborhoods (central Contra Costa county, Tri-Valley of Alameda County for SF and eastern Queens for NYC)
*This claim is completely anecdotal


5) Both San Francisco and Manhattan are relatively isolated geographically. Manhattan is the one among 2 of the boroughs (and the only one that's not forgotten about) that is not a constituent of a larger landmass; similarly, San Francisco is the only component of its MSA (and even CSA) in which development past its political boundary continues only in one direction.

6) A large chunk of NYC and the SF-Oakland MSA owe their culture* to Brooklyn+Queens and the East Bay, respectively. For example, the SF-Oakland MSA can credit Oakland for its being known as the birthplace of the hyphy movement, and NYC can credit many neighborhoods in Brooklyn for a lot of its hip-hop music.
*Regarding culture, I'm specifically referring to music, arts, food, political movements, etc.


None of this is really earth-shattering and I'm pretty sure all posters who make threads likening SF and Manhattan (instead of SF and NYC or SF and LA or NYC and the Bay Area) are basically subconsciously thinking all of the above.

[2e1m5a]

Originally Posted by scrantiX

Best of both worlds but both LA and San Francisco are just plain better cities than NYC for me. Then again most non tundra cities are.

You want to talk tundra? Among major U.S. cities, San Francisco has the coldest daily mean, maximum, and minimum temperatures for June, July and August.
Ugh, the absolute worst weather imo, and it never changes.

San Diego or LA on the other hand, I could deal with that monotony.

[HenryAlan]

I'd say it's more like Los Angeles, though I probably would have said New York up until about ten years ago when I started to spend more time there. If we remove the skyscrapers from the analysis (just a first step, not ignoring them), the architecture in San Francisco is far more like Los Angeles than it is like New York. Then there are the hills. Los Angeles is very hilly, not as dramatically as SF, but still quite hilly. Manhattan has some heights, but nothing resembling the geography of SF or LA.

Now, if we bring back the sky scrapers, I think people typically think of SF and NY as having similar skylines, but they really don't. First, they are really only comparing Manhattan to SF, but more importantly, the skyscrapers in SF are more dispersed. You really don't see the never ending canyons of tall buildings the way you do in Manhattan. Now when it comes to LA, for some reason people seem to think it lacks a significant skyline. I believe this is because they think of all of LA, whereas with NY, again,they think of only Manhattan, and likewise, with SF, they think mostly of the area north of Market. LA has several buildings taller than the tallest in SF, and quite a few more towers of all sizes. It doesn't compare to Manhattan, but it is closer to that than is the SF skyline.

Los Angeles and San Francisco are two West coast cities, oriented toward the Pacific, with significant cultural influences from Asia and Mexico (in each case). New York culture is more influenced by Italy, Poland, Germany, Ireland, the Middle East, and Africa. It is less like the other two, which are more like each other.

[415_s2k]

First of all... I don't get where people are getting that SF and LA have similar climates: they don't, at all. SF's microclimates are insane. I've never, ever seen fog anywhere in LA close to what I'd see in SF - even when I lived over in Venice, the AM fog was nothing like the fog over in SF's Inner Richmond, which was nearly impenetrable sometimes! It's also chillier, and the seasons are much more defined.

Culturally, all three areas are very distinct, but IMHO, San Francisco owes less to LA than it does to NYC or Boston when it comes to the pace of life. Again, this said, the pace of life in SF is a lot more palatable to me than it was in NYC.

[expdxer]

Originally Posted by S.D. Calif

It's an East Coast looking city with a West Coast vibe.

This old post describes it all to me. I remember when I visited Calif. for the first time from the NYC area in the 70's my parents were raving about San Francisco and were so-so regarding L.A. When we visited relatives in the Bay Area they said "all New Yorkers like San Francisco." I ended up moving to San Francisco 10 years later. Maybe New Yorkers like it because you don't need to drive there, either!

[peninsular]

Originally Posted by HenryAlan

LA has several buildings taller than the tallest in SF, and quite a few more towers of all sizes.

Technically correct, but I don't think you realize how close LA and SF are in terms of tall buildings. There are in fact TWO buildings in LA that are taller than Transamerica. Here are top 5 buildings from both (height in meters):

LA
1. US Bank Tower 310.3
2. Aon Center 261.5
3. Two California Plaza 228.6
4. Gas Company Tower 228.3
5. Bank of America Plaza 224

SF
1. Transamerica Pyramid 260
2. 555 California Street 237.4
3. 345 California Street 219.8
4. Millenium Tower 196.6
5. One Rincon Hill 184.4

20th tallest buildings:

LA - TCW Building 157.7 m, SF - Hilton SF 150.3m.

[bballniket]

First of all... I don't get where people are getting that SF and LA have similar climates: they don't, at all. SF's microclimates are insane. I've never, ever seen fog anywhere in LA close to what I'd see in SF - even when I lived over in Venice, the AM fog was nothing like the fog over in SF's Inner Richmond, which was nearly impenetrable sometimes! It's also chillier, and the seasons are much more defined.

Point taken. However, if you had to pick between the climates of Manhattan and Los Angeles, which would you say San Francisco's climate is more similar to? Personally, I'd pick that of Los Angeles (even though the climate of SF is still quite different from that of LA for all of the reasons you stated).

[LookinForMayberry]

Originally Posted by fashionguy

SF is a west coast city like LA, but its dense layout and surrounding areas also resemble Manhattan? What do you think?

I think there is no comparing the three to one another, from any vantage point.

[nei]

This thread would make more sense if the choice was Philly or Boston instead of Manhattan.