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.
You have to understand that the Bay Area has 3 anchor cities as oppose to Chicago's one. However, Chicago alone is bigger than SF, Oakland and SJ combined. Therefore, there going to be a lot more to do in a huge city like Chicago than the burbs. Nevertheless, there's still more to do in the burbs than you think. Evanston has really improved, Aurora's built its downtown area, Schaumburg, Naperville and Oakbrook have become alternatives to the Loop, Merrillville and Highland has some decent restaurants and entertainment, there area at lots of casinos in the area. Don't forget about Great America in Gurnee.
I do understand that the Bay Area has 3 anchor cities as opposed to one, which is part of my point... the bay area in a way acts as one giant urban area as opposed to three individual ones because the suburbs are not very separate from the cities. The cities often look continuous... there's no giant grass plains separating each city on the freeway like there is in NW Indiana. In Oakland, you wouldn't be able to tell that you're crossing from North Oakland into Berkeley or East Oakland into San Leandro unless you knew where the border was, and once you cross the San Leandro border it all looks markedly similar to Oakland even going into Hayward... same for SF and Daly City/Colma. There's no real decline in urban amenities either... on the contrary, San Leandro has MORE going for it than the immediate part of Oakland that borders it. If you stay on El Camino going from San Mateo to Atherton you won't realize you passed four different cities. The real division in the bay area is the bay itself. If there was no bay then SF probably would have become a mega-city by now.
No, the bay area is not the second best. Its really not even in the top 5. It is in the top 10 though. The best metros are.
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Philly
4. DC
5. Boston
6. Las Vegas
7. SF
8. LA
9. Miami
10. Houston
I generally don't have a problem with your list, except that I'd put San Francisco over Las Vegas. In fact, I'd put Las Vegas even under Houston or not in the top ten at all. The only thing interesting in Las Vegas metro is in the city alone. I don't think its metro can compete with Houston or Miami, much less even with LA or SF. That's just my opinion.
I'd say you could replace Las Vegas with New Orleans, Seattle or even DFW. I've never visited Seattle but it just seems that those cities offer more in its metro.
So yeah.... I definitely think San Francisco is or should be considered in the top ten.
To be fOr real. What does being an important city have to do with being Preferrable? You guys sound childish. No one moves to dc because it's the capital, no one moves to sf because of its tourism buisness and technology. Of cOurse unless there trying to get a job other than that what about the people that arnt going there for those reasons. Being an important city does not make people want to live there. Now I live in philadelphia, but was born in san Francisco, do you guys actually think I live in Philly because it's the medicine/history hub?NO! Do you think I live here because it has the 9th economy in the world? NO! I could care less about that stuff. Im an artist living in old city. I get payed a good ammount for Painting morals/grAffiti art and I make About 90k a year. Anywhere you go, just because it's an important city does not make you automatically successful. as for the tread
1 ny
2 Chicago
3 dc
4 la
5 philly
6 Boston
7 sf
8 Houston
9 Miami
10 atl
The San Francisco Bay Area is top 5 in all categories. Top two in many categories.
I dont know why so many people on here over rate Philly and DC? I dont get it, neither is that great.
I have two clients that moved here from the DC metro, and just hated it there. Said the place is sprawled out like crazy, overpriced, full of over paid federal workers who are clueless about other things, and the most rude people theyve ever encountered.
Subjective. Everything in this thread is subjective.
For me, I put San Francisco in the top 5, but not number two. In my opinion, the best metro areas are NYC, LA, Chicago, Bay Area, and DC in that order.
Of course, it's subjective. I rate the DC metro area higher than a lot of others because it has more of a combination of amenities and qualities I prefer.
However, I can see how someone could prefer Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Philly or LA over DC. I have no beef with that.
To me, these cities are all in a similar range overall. They all have different strong points and weaknesses that ultimately cancel each other out. None of them are clearly better than the others.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 02-03-2011 at 09:40 AM..
SF is the most "important" city we have in the USA.. i guess it depends on what kind of "gdp" you're talking about
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.
