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.
Culture: SF. DC and Boston may have more prestigious cultural institutions, but SF has some heavy hitters such as SFMOMA and the SF Ballet, along with tons of ethnic culture and a great homegrown art and music scene.
Diversity: SF. DC and Boston are both pretty diverse, but SF is easily the most diverse of the three.
Suburbs: Boston. DC's suburbs feel a little bit too new and Sunbelt-like. Bay Area suburbs are too dense, but without any of the benefits you'd get from density in a city. Boston suburbs are the prettiest, most historic, and have the best downtowns/main streets.
Downtown. SF & Boston, tie. Downtown SF is better in terms of shopping, restaurants, and overall amenities, but I also find Downtown Boston to be a more pleasant place to walk around due to the architecture, historic charm, and cleaner streets. Downtown DC is just okay.
Quality of Life: Tie. They are all beautiful places with tons of wealth and educated populations.
Education: Boston. I imagine all three are pretty similar when it comes to K-12, but Boston really takes the lead at the university level with Harvard, MIT, Berklee, Tufts, BU, BC, Brandeis, Wellesley, etc. The Bay Area has Stanford and Berkeley, but there is a pretty big drop off after those two. DC doesn't really have anything on par with the likes of Harvard, MIT, Stanford, or Berkeley.
Political Progressivism: Boston. DC may be the nation's capital and SF may be very loud about its liberalism and progressivism, but Boston and Massachusetts are generally ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to progressive policies and laws.
Braininess: Boston. SF and DC are both very well-educated cities, but no place in the US feels quite as intellectual as Boston. Academia just runs through Boston's veins.
Integration: SF. Boston and especially DC are pretty segregated. While SF is still quite segregated, it's more integrated than most cities.
Food: SF. Boston has great seafood and is among my favorite cities to eat in, but SF is a culinary powerhouse. Food in DC is pretty underwhelming for a place its size.
Nightlife: SF. Boston has great bars and some great venues, but overall, it feels a bit sleepy. DC has a lot to choose from and is very lively, but I've never been a huge fan of the overall vibe there. SF has the most varied and lively nightlife of the three.
Mass-Transit: DC. Boston's does the job, but DC's is more extensive, faster, and just way more comfortable. DC also has the nicest stations in the US. SF's is pretty awful. Muni is horribly slow and BART has very few stops in the city.
Of the three, SF is easily my favorite. I love Boston, but I'm not sure I'd actually want to live there. It'll always be one of my favorite places for a weekend visit. DC is alright. I'll admit that it's not one of my favorite cities, but DC has the potential to be awesome and it really seems to be moving in the right direction. I'm excited to see what DC will be like in another 10 years.
When you guys say SF is diverse, what are you basing it on? SF doesn't nearly have the same amount of ethnicities DC has. SF does not have a lot of black people. In fact, blacks are leaving the city in droves. DC has various black ethnicities, such as Nigerians, Ghanians, Ethiopians/Eritreans, and West Indians. SF doesn't have a Hispanic Caribbean population. DC has South and Central American immigrants along with Puerto Ricans and Dominicans.
So I don't know where you guys are coming from.
From the people I have talked to who lived in Boston, they indicate of how incredibly boring the city is. It lacks vibrancy.
When you guys say SF is diverse, what are you basing it on? SF doesn't nearly have the same amount of ethnicities DC has. SF does not have a lot of black people. In fact, blacks are leaving the city in droves. DC has various black ethnicities, such as Nigerians, Ghanians, Ethiopians/Eritreans, and West Indians. SF doesn't have a Hispanic Caribbean population. DC has South and Central American immigrants along with Puerto Ricans and Dominicans.
So I don't know where you guys are coming from.
You don't need to have black people to have diversity. SF has incredible diversity when it comes to the various Asian ethnicities.
Quote:
From the people I have talked to who lived in Boston, they indicate of how incredibly boring the city is. It lacks vibrancy.
The people you talked to "who lived in Boston" sound a lot like some DC forumers here who tote that as the company line whenever DC gets compared to Boston.
How often do you go to Boston and how much time have you spent in the city?
You don't need to have black people to have diversity. SF has incredible diversity when it comes to the various Asian ethnicities.
The people you talked to "who lived in Boston" sound a lot like some DC forumers here who tote that as the company line whenever DC gets compared to Boston.
How often do you go to Boston and how much time have you spent in the city?
Black people are not a monolithic. I find it funny how you use Asian ethnicities as an attribute for diversity but not black ethnicities.
I've never been to Boston, but I've spoken to multitudes of people from there. From what I hear, it's boring.
Culture: Museums obviously DC wins but for performing arts Boston clearly comes out ahead. For the mix of both Boston.
Diversity: DC and Boston are both diverse, SF is hyper diverse. SF wins.
Suburbs: All three have affluent suburbs. SF's and DC's are both diverse, which most of Boston's are not. I do love the New England Town model where many of the Boston suburbs have excellent downtowns and are walkable. I would call this a draw.
Downtown: All three are vibrant and walkable. I do favor Boston's narrow streets and downtown activity. I also like Boston's type of urbanism but all three are dense (SF probably the most?) Boston just due to personal preference.
Quality of Life: Depends on what situation you are in. All three offer people who work hard alot of opportunities to succeed, so all three are some of the best cities in the world for upward mobility.
Education: None are slouches, but Boston is the Higher Education capital of the world. Also the metro area in Boston offers one of the best public (K-12) school systems in the world. Recently Massachusetts students scored 2nd in the world in Science after Singapore and 6th in the world in Math after South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Japan. My colleagues in DC are all afraid to send their kids to public school it seems. SF I have no idea.
Political progressivism: DC as a city is progressive but you can't ignore what goes on in Washington on a national level so they are excluded. SF is more in your face Liberal than the others, they definitely set the bar when it comes to challenging the status quo. Boston is a more practical get things done type of Liberalism. Which has manifested itself in being the first to legalize gay marriage and bring about Universal Healthcare. I would say a tie between SF and Boston.
Braininess: All three are super educated and attract some of the best minds on the globe to either come to study or work. SF is the techie brainy, Boston is academic brainy and DC the power player brainy.
Integration: SF seems the most integrated of the 3. You feel the diversity move from neighborhood to neighborhood effortlessly more than Boston and DC.
Food: I love eating in all three, but SF is one of the worlds culinary capitals. I love the balance, innovation and diversity in SF's food scene. Plus the access to some of the best ingredients year round also helps.
Which one do I like better? Based on what I do for work along with my wife we could easily live in any of the three if we wanted to, so I guess the fact that we have decided to make Boston one of our home bases says alot. Still at the end of the day Boston is still only my 3rd favorite city in the US and SF is cemented as 2nd (DC 4th) so I have to go with SF here.
Black people are not a monolithic. I find it funny how you use Asian ethnicities as an attribute for diversity but not black ethnicities.
I've never been to Boston, but I've spoken to multitudes of people from there. From what I hear, it's boring.
It's odd that you left out Asian ethnicities as part of your counting though. Sure, DC has a larger black population there, but the vast majority of blacks in DC are several generations in the US and they make the largest block of a single group of people in DC. SF has much smaller cultural blocks spread among a greater number of groups as per the 2010 census. SF's foreign-born population is at 36.7% while Washington DC's is at 14.6% while the gap between second-generation immigrants in SF and DC will likely be even higher as DC was not much of an immigration hub a decade or two ago whereas SF was. That being said, DC is likely more diverse than what most people think--it's just that Boston and especially SF are very diverse cities. You can go through the census numbers if you'd like on these, as those are probably the most reputable numbers you can get and knowledge is key.
I've heard Boston is sort of boring, too. Maybe things would liven up if the city had better night owl services for transit.
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.
