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.
Yea, if you're flexible enough and aren't caught up in how many global headquarters of what or the price per square feet or the most expensive this or that, in some categories SF wins/ties with NYC--and by that same token, in some categories Brooklyn or Queens ties with SF. Now if you want to go with the entire thing about global power and influence, then SF will win against a single portion of a city such as Brooklyn or Queens, but then be completely outclassed by NYC as a whole. Get it? You can't have your cake and eat it too, you go by one rubric for them all or you go by the other.
Did I not say that New York is the most economically important city IN THE WORLD? I never tried to outright compare San Francisco's economy with New York City's. NYC's economic output is 1.1 trillion. No American city besides LA comes close(700 billion but with half the population). San Francisco's is 340 billion, but with 830,000 people. About 1/10 the size of New York City. No, this is not including the Bay Area. So pound for pound, which city packs the bigger punch? If LA or SF were as large as NYC their economies would be larger.
Last edited by SFNative87; 03-09-2013 at 01:24 PM..
When the heck did I call Brooklyn a suburb or claim than San Francisco is more dense? And is population density a good measure for a city being "better" than the next? Using that logic Union City is be best town in America.
. I also stated that San Francisco is arguably the better food/restaurant city, which many critics agree with.
Point 1:
You didn't, you should pay attention to the other "Sf posters" though, b/c they said Brooklyn is suburban in function and is similar to the San Fernando Valley. Read back a few pages.
Point 2 in bold:
Whoa whoa wait a minute. I thought you were saying SF is a better food city than just Brooklyn which I had no problem with. I just realized you were talking about SF being a better food city than NYC...
I'm sitting here and not sure what to type... I think I will just hit a couple keys in response, the letter h and the letter a.
ha hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Please argue to your hearts content how SF is a better food/restaurant city than NYC... I would love to see this.
Please see kidphillys post for more help. 18montclair is a vet and knows what he is doing even if I don't agree with him and think his points are vague or nonpoints, I actually think you have no experience with NYC though by several of your posts.
Did I not say that New York is the most economically important city IN THE WORLD? I have stated several times these are two separate categories.
It's probably important for you to state how far behind SF is in comparison to NYC and how that margin in some ways would be more than the difference between SF and just the borough of Brooklyn. SF is nice--SF is also tiny compared to NYC. There is little ground to stand on for a comparison unless you want to talk about some more personal and subjective viewpoints--which SF can do quite handily, though on the other hand, Brooklyn would be able to do the same.
What he was saying is NYC suburbs are more dense and urban than the cities outside of San Francisco, which is true.
BTW why weren't you railing against your SF friend when he said Brooklyn, an area that is 8 BLOCKS from Manhattan over the bridge functioned as a suburb, yet you get bent out of shape when he says a largely suburban looking "city" that is over 40 miles and 50 minutes to an hour away from San Francisco is?
pot meet kettle.
this is NYC *suburbs*... in case you were unfamiliar, which I'm just going to have to assume you are and starting to question whether you have ever been to New York City. Jersey City, which he mentioned.
ny times (Suburban white plains)...14 miles outside the city limits.
and in case you need a reminder of what nyc the city looks like...
that is only about 1/10th of the city in that picture.
and last but not least.
THE GREAT SUBURBAN FUNCTIONING BROOKLYN (JUST DOWNTOWN PRIMARILY), YOU MIGHT THINK IT IS THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY AT FIRST THOUGH, I HOPE YOU ARE SITTING DOWN. I ASSURE YOU IT IS BROOKLYN THOUGH AND NOT THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY, THOUGH THEY BEAR GREAT RESEMBLANCES AND FUNCTIONALITY!
My friend is it photo (and video) time?! I think I would like to contribute to Brooklyn's "suburban" function. . . .
You didn't, you should pay attention to the other "Sf posters" though, b/c they said Brooklyn is suburban in function and is similar to the San Fernando Valley. Read back a few pages.
Point 2 in bold:
Whoa whoa wait a minute. I thought you were saying SF is a better food city than just Brooklyn which I had no problem with. I just realized you were talking about SF being a better food city than NYC...
I'm sitting here and not sure what to type... I think I will just hit a couple keys in response, the letter h and the letter a.
ha hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Please argue to your hearts content how SF is a better food/restaurant city than NYC... I would love to see this.
Please see kidphillys post for more help. 18montclair is a vet and knows what he is doing even if I don't agree with him and think his points are vague or nonpoints, I actually think you have no experience with NYC though by several of your posts.
Now without saying that NYC has more restaurants can you tell me how NYC is the better food city? Phoenix has more restaurants than New Orleans, but it certainly isn't the better food city. The fact that you "laughed" at me saying San Francisco is arguably the better food city shows how little you know on the subject.
lol, it isn't. I knew his post was odd and out of nowhere.
Neither are close to Vegas though.
Go to Atlantic City and see for yourself. Reno is depressing city. I'd rather live in Atlantic City just because its close to NYC and more action. But if you're just comparing the cities, Atlantic City is incredibly downtrodden.
Neither city comes remotely close to being Vegas, but Reno is the nicer city(and that isn't saying much).
Now without saying that NYC has more restaurants can you tell me how NYC is the better food city? Phoenix has more restaurants than New Orleans, but it certainly isn't the better food city. The fact that you "laughed" at me saying San Francisco is arguably the better food city shows how little you know on the subject.
Oh here we go, the meaningless links game. I could find 100s more referencing NYC, so why don't we start out by discounting *all* of them.
What does per capita restaurants have to do with anything if those restaurants aren't good. I'm surprised you have links for everything else except that though, as that is the only interesting metric you posted.
It's funny you mention SF as the 16th most Michelin restaurants, hint, you should check out the amount of them in NYC...
Frommers is a junk travel guide with extremely vague recommendations. Guides like Travel & Leisure routinely switch out the list order to sell issues and drive hits to their website. Why do I know this? I'm an amateur *paid* travel writer myself and do it for side income which includes dining and nightlife as a large component. When you are doing research these would be some of the very last places to source information from.
Access to wine only makes it cheaper to purchase by about 15-20%. That is a nice perk (of CA wines) but Napa/Sonoma is one of only many many wine regions in the world and restaurants can order them from anywhere. Wine is aged several years anyway. I do miss getting wine at discounted prices but that is a separate discussion.
I agree on you about fresher ingredients and many places in SF do incorporate this into their style of cooking, but once again, this is only one very small trend in cooking.
SF has plenty of high quality dining establishments that can go head to head with NYC, but NYC has far far more of these, therefore, NYC wins.
This is how the logic breaks down:
If there are 300 high end restaurants in city A of exactly equal quality, and 1000 high end restaurants of exactly equal quality in City B. City B is the better food city. You could continue this logic, but that is why NYC is the better food city.
More options, far more of them, same high quality and you don't have to leave the city and head outside to enjoy half of them (as you do in the case of city A) ex. referring to locations of Michelin guide restaurants/Zagat Restaurants per analysis showing around 1/2 of the places are actually in Oakland/Berkeley/Napa/Sonoma and the best rated of those are not actually in SF usually. These other area deserve just as much props as SF proper, possibly more, when it comes to cuisine. When I lived in the Bay Area I lived right on the border of Sonoma/Marin. I always thought, and it was general concensus among most of my foodie friends that we had the better food particularly in the mid range/high end in Sonoma/Napa than in San Francisco proper.
I'm very familiar with the Bay Area food scene and somewhat familiar with the NYC food scene and never crossed my mind that Bay Area was better, nor SF, nor however you cut it really.
SF wins on better local ingredients and having a higher gourmet culture around the metro, but that is about it and it's often cheaper but that's about it.
Don't care about economic output, or this or that or the other... I just enjoyed my time there more than my time in NYC.
That's not to say that I don't like NYC; that's not the case at all. It's a great city, no arguments there, and it's in a league of its own in many regards. But, again, I just like San Francisco more in general. I like the climate and weather. The food is, indeed, better by my palate and for the cuisines I like. I like the topography and the nature around it more. There are a variety of things that come together for me to prefer it.
But just as easily, I could see where someone would prefer NYC for its cultural amenities, economic output, sheer scale, etc. I'll also add that, as a musician, SF has a shockingly dull and stagnant music scene relative to its size, history and influence on the arts; can't say anything of the sort with NYC, which still has multiple vibrant scenes. The best music scene in the Bay Area IMHO is over in the East Bay, in Oakland/Berkeley.
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.
