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 guess I have a hard time comparing places based on street level feel, core density and similar msa size. SF (to me doesn't really compare to Philly or DC). I've been to Sydney and Melbourne and strikingly both have some LA and Chicago similarities respectively. However, the first time I went to Toronto I thought I was in a cleaner Chicago lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
Good post. I don't know about Wellington (it seems far too small to be comparable to SF) but you are right on the money with Lisbon. Very similar to SF in its setting, look and urban dimensions.
As for your other point on comparability - yes and no. I feel like Boston, Philly and DC are very comparable. With NY its true we have to look abroad to find a city that truly compares. LA and Chicago might be as difficult to find a good comparison abroad as it is in the US.
talk about a tough choice, which is the lesser of 2 evils? I'll have to go with atlanta on that 1. san francisco is just too disgusting and plagued with ridiculous politics... it is at once a hippie haven and yet a major corporate headquarters responsible for destroying and outsourcing countless american jobs. it is a natural disaster waiting to happen and as it stands the weather is crappy and the hills are a real pain.
I would rather live just about anywhere, even canada, then have to suffer the intolerable smugness of san francisco residents on a daily, basis. I'd be jumping off that bridge in no time ;-)
talk about a tough choice, which is the lesser of 2 evils? I'll have to go with atlanta on that 1. san francisco is just too disgusting and plagued with ridiculous politics... it is at once a hippie haven and yet a major corporate headquarters responsible for destroying and outsourcing countless american jobs. it is a natural disaster waiting to happen and as it stands the weather is crappy and the hills are a real pain.
I would rather live just about anywhere, even canada, then have to suffer the intolerable smugness of san francisco residents on a daily, basis. I'd be jumping off that bridge in no time ;-)
it is at once a hippie haven and yet a major corporate headquarters responsible for destroying and outsourcing countless american jobs. it is a natural disaster waiting to happen and as it stands the weather is crappy and the hills are a real pain.
The hills are one of the bigger pluses of the city together with its natural setting. I used to live in a town with steep hills and I missed the hills a lot.
talk about a tough choice, which is the lesser of 2 evils? I'll have to go with atlanta on that 1. san francisco is just too disgusting and plagued with ridiculous politics... it is at once a hippie haven and yet a major corporate headquarters responsible for destroying and outsourcing countless american jobs. it is a natural disaster waiting to happen and as it stands the weather is crappy and the hills are a real pain.
I would rather live just about anywhere, even canada, then have to suffer the intolerable smugness of san francisco residents on a daily, basis. I'd be jumping off that bridge in no time ;-)
That is definitely a matter of personal preference, I used to live in a city with steep hills and now live in a flat city. I find that this is conducive to walking and biking around. I would not want hills added back to my urban landscape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
The hills are one of the bigger pluses of the city together with its natural setting. I used to live in a town with steep hills and I missed the hills a lot.
It looks like unless you agree with johnatl you are "biased". Lol...
Like rriojas I am not entirely clear in what way having hosted the Olympics 15 years ago constitutes an advantage. What is this "advantage"? Not to mention that the Atlanta Olympics is widely considered as one of the worst Olympics in living memory, particularly after the spectacular games organized by Barcelona.
I am also not sure that more diversity and better sports culture - even if it were true - are advantages. Many people don't care about either.
Better architecture in Atl than SF? Is this a joke??
Finally, weather and QOL is completely subjective.
So what else you got?
Worse Olympics?Ask Montreal about that.Ours is paid in full and then some.When people think of the Olympics now and the future,they simply think in terms of an Olympic City.One of several in a group.Not the worse.People who were actually there enjoyed it.But I suppose its subjective.
San Francisco has architecture that is classic and traditional but Atlanta has more varied.Its modern buildings are supperior.Even the varied styles of peoples homes.Atlanta has Victorians too.But where have you see "Tara" in San Francisco?
Georgia Governors Mansion
1. Culture and Overall Entertainment?- Prefer Atlanta's
2. Cost of Living compared to salaries? Quality of life?- Atlanta
3. Where would you rather live and visit? - Rather live in ATL, visit SF
There's a house a few blocks from my house that kinda looks like that:
2 Lincolnshire Drive
Oakland, CA 94618
The view aint so bad either...
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.
