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.
i really don't know why so many people like to compare san francisco and manhattan. other than being dense, there really isn't much in common between the two. i mean, manhattan is hardly the only place on the east coast that's dense and walkable. plus, it has a much higher population density and concentration of skyscrapers than sf, not to mention a very different architectural look.
if there's any nyc borough that can be (kind of) compared with sf, it's brooklyn. and even then it's a stretch, although it works better than manhattan.
of course, i'm not deriding sf; on the contrary, i think it's a fantastic city in many respects. i just wish people would stop trying to compare it with manhattan/nyc all the time and instead recognize that it has its own personality and flair.
btw, i definitely agree with omshahi about boston and san francisco being a better comparison, but i would amend his statement by saying that boston is the closest east coast counterpart or equivalent (rather than twin) of sf. i also agree that seattle shares some similarities as well.
to answer the OP's question, san francisco is pretty distinct from both los angeles and manhattan, but if i have to choose one, i'll go with LA by default. the reason is because both cities have a mediterranean climate (although sf has smaller temperature extremes and is less sunny on average), both have similar architecture in certain areas (they actually have more in common than a lot of people seem to believe, especially in some of sf's fringe neighborhoods which have semi-suburban single family homes and wide two-way streets), both have stunning natural scenery that manhattan largely lacks, and both have a certain "west coast vibe" that i can't explain, but which is very distinct from anywhere on the east coast. plus, los angeles actually has its share of dense, walkable neighborhoods that wouldn't be out of place in sf and which all the density lovers here would describe as "east coast style" (as if the east coast invented density or something).
i really don't know why so many people like to compare san francisco and manhattan. other than being dense, there really isn't much in common between the two. i mean, manhattan is hardly the only place on the east coast that's dense and walkable. plus, it has a much higher population density and concentration of skyscrapers than sf, not to mention a very different architectural look.
if there's any nyc borough that can be (kind of) compared with sf, it's brooklyn. and even then it's a stretch, although it works better than manhattan.
of course, i'm not deriding sf; on the contrary, i think it's a fantastic city in many respects. i just wish people would stop trying to compare it with manhattan/nyc all the time and instead recognize that it has its own personality and flair.
btw, i definitely agree with omshahi about boston and san francisco being a better comparison, but i would amend his statement by saying that boston is the closest east coast counterpart or equivalent (rather than twin) of sf. i also agree that seattle shares some similarities as well.
to answer the OP's question, san francisco is pretty distinct from both los angeles and manhattan, but if i have to choose one, i'll go with LA by default. the reason is because both cities have a mediterranean climate (although sf has smaller temperature extremes and is less sunny on average), both have similar architecture in certain areas (they actually have more in common than a lot of people seem to believe, especially in some of sf's fringe neighborhoods which have semi-suburban single family homes and wide two-way streets), both have stunning natural scenery that manhattan largely lacks, and both have a certain "west coast vibe" that i can't explain, but which is verydistinct from anywhere on the east coast. plus, los angeles actually has its share of dense, walkable neighborhoods that wouldn't be out of place in sf and which all the density lovers here would describe as "east coast style" (as if the east coast invented density or something).
Exactly, it may be very walkable, but it still seems very WESTCOAST to me. Spanish revival, hills, palm trees, laid-back, etc. I guess when a city is walkable, people want to give it an "east-coast" designation no matter what region it's in. SF seems VERY West-coast to me, well, from what I've seen at least.
San Francisco and Manhattan are similar due to their density and vibrancy compared to the surrounding areas. But its not just density and vibrancy, but also in terms of the quality of the amenities, quantity of things to do and shopping-in relation to its surroundings.
Also, Manhattan and SF are both seen as meccas for yuppies, artists, upper crust folks, financiers and moguls and are both perceived to be much more glamorous than pretty much any other urban environment in their respective regions(NE and West).
There are actually quite a few similarities as far as as the kinds of places they are and as far as how they relate to the their surroundings.
Both are called "The City" by locals who live near them. Both are places that people pack into not only M-F but also nights and weekends. Both are the considered the gathering place and cultural heart of their respective areas.
The similarities are more than anecdotal, but not much more.
It's twin is actually Boston. To some degree Seattle. Those three would be like triplets.
When I was there, it felt nothing like Los Angeles architectually, and even the culture was a bit different, IMHO.
I would say it's more like Manhattan than Los Angeles.
I like Los Angeles more than both Manhattan & San Francisco (combined).
Nice thread Fashionguy.
Agree with you and am surprised that many consider San Francisco more like Los Angeles than NYC. Aside from the hills, San Francisco is more vertical and condensed like Manhattan. The financial district in San Francisco reminds me of a mini-Manhattan. It is an older more established city than Los Angeles. Yes, it is super liberal and more counter-culture than NYC but geographically resembles New York a bit [harbor and surrounded by water].
i really don't know why so many people like to compare san francisco and manhattan. other than being dense, there really isn't much in common between the two. i mean, manhattan is hardly the only place on the east coast that's dense and walkable. plus, it has a much higher population density and concentration of skyscrapers than sf, not to mention a very different architectural look.
if there's any nyc borough that can be (kind of) compared with sf, it's brooklyn. and even then it's a stretch, although it works better than manhattan.
of course, i'm not deriding sf; on the contrary, i think it's a fantastic city in many respects. i just wish people would stop trying to compare it with manhattan/nyc all the time and instead recognize that it has its own personality and flair.
btw, i definitely agree with omshahi about boston and san francisco being a better comparison, but i would amend his statement by saying that boston is the closest east coast counterpart or equivalent (rather than twin) of sf. i also agree that seattle shares some similarities as well.
to answer the OP's question, san francisco is pretty distinct from both los angeles and manhattan, but if i have to choose one, i'll go with LA by default. the reason is because both cities have a mediterranean climate (although sf has smaller temperature extremes and is less sunny on average), both have similar architecture in certain areas (they actually have more in common than a lot of people seem to believe, especially in some of sf's fringe neighborhoods which have semi-suburban single family homes and wide two-way streets), both have stunning natural scenery that manhattan largely lacks, and both have a certain "west coast vibe" that i can't explain, but which is very distinct from anywhere on the east coast. plus, los angeles actually has its share of dense, walkable neighborhoods that wouldn't be out of place in sf and which all the density lovers here would describe as "east coast style" (as if the east coast invented density or something).
Very thoughtful response and a good argument that makes me stop and reconsider my earlier comments. Actually San Francisco isn't all that walkable without the aid of public transit due to extremely steep hills. For example, a walk from Union Sq to the Marina is maybe a mile but unless a person is willing to risk cardiac arrest it is more likely that most people would take a cable car.
On the other hand, NYC has suburbs with yards and auto-centric living like the areas surrounding San Francisco. It just seems that San Francisco is in many ways distinct from California and unlike so much of the urban areas of the state. Agree that Boston and Seattle are better comparisons.
It's an East Coast looking city with a West Coast vibe.
this, I voted LA. It has more in common with LA and other west coast cities than it does in Manhattan, not including the architecture. It's actually probably more west coast than them all given it was the largest and earliest cultural hub of the west coast. If one wanted to compare it to an East Coast city it looks in size and feel more like Boston, definitely not Manhattan/NYC. Some cultural traits or industries are similar to manhattan though (but boston also has this element)
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.
