Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: New York City vs San Francisco
New York 310 56.36%
San Francisco 240 43.64%
Voters: 550. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-13-2014, 06:11 PM
 
Location: So California
8,704 posts, read 11,116,346 times
Reputation: 4794

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nema98 View Post
New York City is the more grander and greater city, San Francisco is he more charming, pretty one. I'll leave it at that.

Very Fair...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2014, 06:11 PM
 
251 posts, read 307,704 times
Reputation: 171
Big ups Hawaii4evr, love Philly and my brother has lived in Kaimuki the last 15 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2014, 06:36 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,983 posts, read 53,467,780 times
Reputation: 15184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaii4evr View Post

Philly is the second-biggest city on the East Coast with a lot of history, great food, good nightlife and shopping as well. I can't imagine that SF, even including the suburbs, would have more going on.
They're not that different size-wise, San Francisco has small city limits. And a lot of the urban parts of Philly are rather impoverished (yes, I know plenty aren't). I would expect them to be about the same, maybe San Francisco a bit better. San Francisco is also less overshadowed by Los Angeles than Philadelphia is by New York City. San Francisco's food scene is probably more varied and has more center city shopping. But not to knock on Philly, it has plenty.

I don't think San Francisco is trying to be New York City, it reminds of me Boston more than any other east coast city; the appeal of both San Francisco and Boston is supposed to be cute and charming (instead of megacity) while still being urban. I think it's only certain misguided CD posters that trying to think they're city is NYC. The first time I visited San Francisco as a teen (I grew up near NYC and hadn't really spent time in any other big US city at the time) I was struck how different it was from NYC.

I do agree it's become too yuppified and corporate. It's still a better fate than most inner cities (at least Midwestern / Northeastern ones): large portions turned to a poverty hole. Including Philly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2014, 06:38 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,983 posts, read 53,467,780 times
Reputation: 15184
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post

And SF probably has the worst climate on the California coast. Where along the coast could you possibly do worse in terms of weather (at least in terms of urbanized areas)?
Well, San Francisco is the only real urbanized area on the California coast north of southern California, so it's the only urban part of the coast in a sense. For year around outdoor recreation of the more physical kind, San Francisco has a rather friendly climate. Good weather for a bike ride year around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2014, 03:12 AM
 
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,175,298 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
They're not that different size-wise, San Francisco has small city limits. And a lot of the urban parts of Philly are rather impoverished (yes, I know plenty aren't). I would expect them to be about the same, maybe San Francisco a bit better. San Francisco is also less overshadowed by Los Angeles than Philadelphia is by New York City. San Francisco's food scene is probably more varied and has more center city shopping. But not to knock on Philly, it has plenty.

I don't think San Francisco is trying to be New York City, it reminds of me Boston more than any other east coast city; the appeal of both San Francisco and Boston is supposed to be cute and charming (instead of megacity) while still being urban. I think it's only certain misguided CD posters that trying to think they're city is NYC. The first time I visited San Francisco as a teen (I grew up near NYC and hadn't really spent time in any other big US city at the time) I was struck how different it was from NYC.

I do agree it's become too yuppified and corporate. It's still a better fate than most inner cities (at least Midwestern / Northeastern ones): large portions turned to a poverty hole. Including Philly.
Still, San Francisco IS overshadowed by Los Angeles. The degree is not as bad as NYC/Philly, but it's there, even given the distance. SF has had to carve its own niche (tech) to stand out. I'd argue that Philly is in the midst of doing the same thing (energy).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2014, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,657 posts, read 67,506,468 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder View Post
Still, San Francisco IS overshadowed by Los Angeles.
Not really. We have the entertainment capital of the world and the high tech capital of the world in the same state. To say that entertainment overshadows high tech is hilarious because they both touch billions around the world daily.

California is just so damn famous and powerful these days.

Quote:
SF has had to carve its own niche (tech) to stand out. I'd argue that Philly is in the midst of doing the same thing (energy).
San Francisco is by far, the largest financial center west of the Mississippi, even after LA became larger.

And while I do wish Philly the best with energy, I cant see it even coming close to Houston.

So whereas San Francisco is totally undisputed in finance and tech vs LA, Philly has a much harder time standing out because it doesnt control any vital industries regionally or nationally.

Philadelphia's proximity to NY AND DC make it difficult to stand out.

San Francisco is all by itself for hundreds of miles in all directions and is THE CITY for 15 Million Northern Californians.

Los Angeles has it's own, distinct area of influence in So Cal.

The result is 2 global powerhouses in one state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2014, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
5,294 posts, read 10,206,460 times
Reputation: 2136
True that CA has two powerhouses, but LA is still far more popular, cultured, and well-known than SF Bay Area. It's the second-biggest city in the US, so this shouldn't be a surprise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2014, 07:15 PM
 
Location: So California
8,704 posts, read 11,116,346 times
Reputation: 4794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaii4evr View Post
True that CA has two powerhouses, but LA is still far more popular, cultured, and well-known than SF Bay Area. It's the second-biggest city in the US, so this shouldn't be a surprise.
They're pretty close regardless of size. It's 1a and 1b really. They're so different they don't compete all that much except in sports.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2014, 12:11 AM
 
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,134,833 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
They're pretty close regardless of size. It's 1a and 1b really. They're so different they don't compete all that much except in sports.
...if you consider whatever the Dodgers do as "competing"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2014, 12:31 AM
 
1,353 posts, read 1,643,598 times
Reputation: 817
The idea that LA is more "cultured" too is a weird one. SF has an extraordinary density of cultural options/outlets available to its citizens in a rather confined and accessible setting. It also has a longer history of providing such culture and more established programs. LA is larger and throughout its huge autocentric bounds may offer more, but it gets a bit diluted (but then if we "extend" SF's bounds we can also add the culture available in abundance in Oakland and to lesser degrees in San Jose and Points in between).

Only an inexperienced, not so well traveled, and/or biased person would say LA completely overshadows and dominates SF in any sort of capacity except in sheer population and/or the entertainment or aviation industries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top