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.
Ummmm I'm not even sure you read my comment thoroughly before replying. If you did I stated that I agree with you that S.F is more beautiful from a natural beauty perspective than NYC, but that I agree with Nairobi's sentiment that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Wheter he is in the minority is irrelevant. If he believe NYC is more beautiful than S.F that is his right because it is a subjective argument so how can we fault him?
On the same token, I'd personally rather live in NYC than S.F and i'm sure most people would say the same, but there are plenty of people who'd rather live in S.F... shall we attack them for the choice.. NO it's called personal preference which squarely sits in the realm of subjectivity.
I feel Vancouver is more beautiful than S.F but that isn't to say I have the final say, nor is it the final say if most people find Vancouver more beautiful than S.F - It just means more people find Vancouver more beautiful that S.F..
What is objective is a statement of fact... such as the ESB is taller than the Transamerica pyramid.. if I made the claim that TP is taller than ESB than I rightfully should be pistol whipped!
You believe him, I guess I dont. He typically goes agains anything SF. Not sure he's been to either....
I go with NYC, though both cities are great. NYC is underrated in terms of scenery, IMO, and SF isn't as small as people are making it out to be.
I can agree with that. NYC for instance has quite a bit better scenery than Chicago right out of the city. And yes SF esp if you include it's extensive urban areas is probably the 4th largest almost completely walkable cohesive easy to get around urban area in the country, or 3rd, behind NYC, Chicago and Philadelphia. I don't know enough about Philly to say whether SF is larger or not.
I can agree with that. NYC for instance has quite a bit better scenery than Chicago right out of the city. And yes SF esp if you include it's extensive urban areas is probably the 4th largest almost completely walkable cohesive easy to get around urban area in the country, or 3rd, behind NYC, Chicago and Philadelphia. I don't know enough about Philly to say whether SF is larger or not.
Who wants to walk around a very large portion of Philadelphia, though? I'll stick to CC, parts of South Philly, and maybe venture into U City (which is pointless for non-workers/residents/students), but all else is pretty much pointless for a visitor or middle/upper class professional to wander around in.
I'd argue that even central Boston has a larger footprint worth exploring or living in than Philadelphia (I think you're confusing residual street grid for redeeming factors). I think Boston also has superior regional transit and at least equivalent little walkable nodes around the greater area.
With wealth generally comes safety and clean, comfortable environments. Philly can neither compete with the city of SF for overall safety/walkability nor can greater Philly compete with the Bay Area. And virtually all walkable areas in the Bay Area are connected by some form of transit, as well (i.e. Caltrain hits DT Burlingame, DT San Mateo, DT Palo Alto, BART hits Oakland, Berkeley, Walnut Creek, etc etc).
No city comes close to touching on what NYC or greater New York region offer in terms of walkability, connectedness, urbanity, "life", etc. But Chicago, LA, and SF are certainly in the #2-4 position if you ask me "on the whole".
I could go for either one. NYC has more going on, is much larger, and is probably a must on anyone's "to live" list if you are a go-getter. I see doing NYC first while young and then "retiring" to SF, but there's a lot of cross traffic either way. I'd say they are different/complimentary in all the right ways, but also similar in all the right ways. Best to try experience them both at least once in a lifetime (definitely a privilege to be able to do so rather than a right - both come with a high price tag and for good reason).
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,934 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist
I could go for either one. NYC has more going on, is much larger, and is probably a must on anyone's "to live" list if you are a go-getter. I see doing NYC first while young and then "retiring" to SF, but there's a lot of cross traffic either way. I'd say they are different/complimentary in all the right ways, but also similar in all the right ways. Best to try experience them both at least once in a lifetime (definitely a privilege to be able to do so rather than a right - both come with a high price tag and for good reason).
I can respect this opinion, especially the bit about retiring in SF. Having lived in NYC, I can't imagine dealing with the hustle and bustle in my 60s/70s. Plus, SF does have the better nature/outdoors scene, which is relaxing.
Still, two great cities. At this point in my life, NYC is the undisputed winner, but it's possible that that might change.
I don't know, it would be hard to say. I think New York would be the overall better city to me, however the big downside is that the winters are absolutely brutal and it lacks the scenic beauty of the West Coast.
I think both cities are overrated. However, I'm going with the Big Apple on this one.
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.
