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.
Maybe the mountains and trees are bigger in San Francisco but the city and the buildings are bigger in NY. And how many times a month do people in SF go out in their mountains or forests?
My friend would go twice a month to Yosemite for climbing. Add in a few bike rides out of the city, maybe four to five.
And how many times a month do people in SF go out in their mountains or forests?
I feel like the people I know in the Bay Area are always posting photos from hiking trips. I don't know too many "outdoorsy" people in New York, but that's partially because most of the people I know don't own cars and can only travel as far as the subway can take them. I feel like not having a car is a huge limitation in that regard. In DC, where car ownership is higher, it seems like more people take advantage of hiking trails, etc.
I feel like the people I know in the Bay Area are always posting photos from hiking trips. I don't know too many "outdoorsy" people in New York, but that's partially because most of the people I know don't own cars and can only travel as far as the subway can take them. I feel like not having a car is a huge limitation in that regard. In DC, where car ownership is higher, it seems like more people take advantage of hiking trails, etc.
Or you could rent a car. A friend who used to live in Boston went on a bunch of trips during the summer, traveled with a few other friends, all of whom didn't own a car, and they split the rental together. Most of the times people go on trips with a group, and except in NYC, often at least one person in the group has a car. NYC doesn't have as much of an "outdoorsy" culture, and the city is so huge it's a pain to get out. Though perhaps only the really motivated will rent a car just for the purpose of getting out. San Franciscans also have more of an incentive to get out.
Or you could rent a car. A friend who used to live in Boston went on a bunch of trips during the summer, traveled with a few other friends, all of whom didn't own a car, and they split the rental together. Most of the times people go on trips with a group, and except in NYC, often at least one person in the group has a car. NYC doesn't have as much of an "outdoorsy" culture, and the city is so huge it's a pain to get out. Though perhaps only the really motivated will rent a car just for the purpose of getting out. San Franciscans also have more of an incentive to get out.
Yea, honestly, most people here opt for a plane ticket out than anything else.
No, San Francisco's scenery is much more dramatic. Mountains are several times taller and much larger tracts of preserved land. But yea, the Hudson valley is very scenic it's just not to the level of the Bay Area — few urban areas in the US are. But NYC has to be one of the better large cities east of the Rockies.
I would agree that SF has more dramatic scenery, but I don't think it's a huge difference. The mountains within proximity to NYC are not wildly different than SF. There are 4,000 foot+ hills pretty close to NYC, within boundaries of the metro area. I don't think most people would know that there are higher hills than Mt. Diablo in the NY Metro.
There are dramatic cliffs right across from Manhattan, and an easy bike ride from Manhattan. I think much of the land north of NYC is downright spectacular, especially near the Hudson, near the Gunks, and around Bear Mountain.
I certainly give the edge on natural beauty to SF, as Marin is incredible in parts, and so close to SF, but I think NYC is easily the American best city east of the Mississippi in terms of proximate natural beauty, and that beauty is not hard to access, at all. Climbers know that the best climbing in the East is nearby. Hikers know the Appalachian Trail is on the Metro North.
NY attracts less of an outdoorsy type, though, especially in the city. Frankly outdoorsy types tend to be heavily located moreso in certain suburbs, especially the River Towns in Westchester County (places like Hastings and Sleepy Hollow), Montclair, NJ, and the like. Basically progressive-type urban suburbs occupied by families that probably fit the outdoorsy stereotype best. If your first love is ice-climbing, you aren't going to choose a neighborhood based on hyper-urbanity.
I would agree that SF has more dramatic scenery, but I don't think it's a huge difference. The mountains within proximity to NYC are not wildly different than SF. There are 4,000 foot+ hills pretty close to NYC, within boundaries of the metro area. I don't think most people would know that there are higher hills than Mt. Diablo in the NY Metro.
Different tastes, I guess. I've visited both the Hudson River Valley and some of the Bay Area surroundings, and thought it was a huge difference. The 3000+ mountains are further away from populated parts of NYC (say, westchester) than Mt. Tam or Mt. Diablo
No, San Francisco's scenery is much more dramatic. Mountains are several times taller and much larger tracts of preserved land. But yea, the Hudson valley is very scenic it's just not to the level of the Bay Area — few urban areas in the US are. But NYC has to be one of the better large cities east of the Rockies.
The Marin Headlands are accessible by bus from San Francisco. And the ride from San Francisco to the headlands is one of the better short bike rides I've done.
Its no contest in this regard. Comparing the natural beauty of San Francisco to New York is like comparing the two cities as financial centers. The gap is that big.
Its no contest in this regard. Comparing the natural beauty of San Francisco to New York is like comparing the two cities as financial centers. The gap is that big.
While you can actually see/research figures where the NY financial sector is bigger, there's no measurable way to determine beauty. At all. This will always be subjective lol. You can count all the hills, the mountains the creeks or whatever else SF/Bay Area has, but to some that's not "beauty" and vice versa.
Though I can admit, SF was/is very beautiful when I visited last year. I will never deny that. Though New York is also beautiful (to me) even though it's not conventional or necessarily gentle.
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.
