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 don't know San Francisco neighborhoods that well-or Chicago that super well either, neighborhood by neighborhood-wise.
Anyway, I will say that although the comparisons are fun to see for each city, they are "very loose" comparisons because NYC is just so much bigger with so many of their comparisons, it's not "apples to apples."
For example, they mention Oakland is to San Fran what Brooklyn is to New York. Well, Brooklyn has 2.7 million people in its borough--the size of the city of Chicago. While Oakland has about 450k or so.
A better comparison here might be "Oakland" and "Newark."
I realize it is a just for fun interesting comparison, but Brooklyn is a whole massive city on its own.
Some really off base comparisons. I guess people who aren't from the Tri-State don't realize it but Princeton is FAR from NYC. It's serious highway driving for over an hour before you're even close. That one is a horrible comparison to Berkeley, Evanston and Tacoma Park as those are all edge cities right next to the alpha city. They should replace Princeton with Hoboken which would be a more apt comparison.
Another one - Westchester is a county and they're comparing it to 3 cities on the same line. Same with the Long Island comparison. Not apples to apples at all.
What a difference 6 years can make in DC. There are neighborhoods that didn't even really exist 6 years ago compared to what they are now which would completely change that entire lineup from 2016.
Agree with the majority of posters. Knowing DC and Chicago well, they are comparing Lake Forest (a North Shore suburb) that is 33 miles outside of the city, to Bethesda, MD which directly borders DC. Definitely not an apt comparison. Not to mention that these are both "cities" and not "neighborhoods."
Some really off base comparisons. I guess people who aren't from the Tri-State don't realize it but Princeton is FAR from NYC. It's serious highway driving for over an hour before you're even close. That one is a horrible comparison to Berkeley, Evanston and Tacoma Park as those are all edge cities right next to the alpha city. They should replace Princeton with Hoboken which would be a more apt comparison.
Another one - Westchester is a county and they're comparing it to 3 cities on the same line. Same with the Long Island comparison. Not apples to apples at all.
Agree with the majority of posters. Knowing DC and Chicago well, they are comparing Lake Forest (a North Shore suburb) that is 33 miles outside of the city, to Bethesda, MD which directly borders DC. Definitely not an apt comparison. Not to mention that these are both "cities" and not "neighborhoods."
I think that one was aiming at "suburbs with a lot of (tech) employers and leafy, gridded town cores", which does fit the southern Lake County/northern Cook area.
Weird one to me is comparing all of Oakland and Brooklyn to the tiny neighborhoods of Clarendon and University Village. I'm from Chicago and I don't even know where University Village is.
As mentioned already, areas like this in DC weren't even this built out 3/4 years ago so looking at any street view is outdated, you can even navigate around, and notice the buildings just go away as the date regresses.
Last edited by the resident09; 04-27-2022 at 11:24 AM..
I don't know San Francisco neighborhoods that well-or Chicago that super well either, neighborhood by neighborhood-wise.
Anyway, I will say that although the comparisons are fun to see for each city, they are "very loose" comparisons because NYC is just so much bigger with so many of their comparisons, it's not "apples to apples."
For example, they mention Oakland is to San Fran what Brooklyn is to New York. Well, Brooklyn has 2.7 million people in its borough--the size of the city of Chicago. While Oakland has about 450k or so.
A better comparison here might be "Oakland" and "Newark."
I realize it is a just for fun interesting comparison, but Brooklyn is a whole massive city on its own.
Well, really so is Oakland. I have never really liked when Oakland was likened to Brooklyn. It's not just lofts for yuppies who just moved here-there was a lot of great things about this city before techies and hipsters from SF came a knocking. Also, you can blame NY Media for likening Brooklyn to Oakland: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/f...y-the-bay.html
Newark might be closer to Oakland in population, but it's not really as similar to Oakland as far as desirability as Brooklyn is.
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.
