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.
When people think California on a global scale, they still think LA.. As much as I’ve been known to bash LA, that much is true..
Regardless, there is not a chance in hell SF touches NYC. It’s not even in the same sphere. The only city that can come close- this is solely talking city limits- is Chicago. It’s the most worldly, cosmopolitan, broad shouldered city in the US outside of NYC. I’ve lived in both Chicago and San Fran, and there is no frickin way that I’d consider SF a better city than Chicago. No. Chance.
Bay Area vs. Chicagoland? Bay Area by a mile.
Edit: I prefer Boston to SF. DC is right there too.
When people think California on a global scale, they still think LA.. As much as I’ve been known to bash LA, that much is true..
Regardless, there is not a chance in hell SF touches NYC. It’s not even in the same sphere. The only city that can come close- this is solely talking city limits- is Chicago. It’s the most worldly, cosmopolitan, broad shouldered city in the US outside of NYC. I’ve lived in both Chicago and San Fran, and there is no frickin way that I’d consider SF a better city than Chicago. No. Chance.
Bay Area vs. Chicagoland? Bay Area by a mile.
Edit: I prefer Boston to SF. DC is right there too.
Well lets agree to disagree. No way chicago comes close to SF, in lifestyle, vibrancy, culture etc... Each his own. And when people think of California they dont think of just L.A.. Maybe you do but most people I know don't. Also L.A. natives claim California more than Bay Area residents who claim the Bay only, so the name Cali is more associated with LA.. Go to BestCities.org and they have a list of the worlds best cities and L.A. doesnt crack top 10 but SF(9) and Chicago(10) do.. SF beats NYC in many categories
Well lets agree to disagree. No way chicago comes close to SF, in lifestyle, vibrancy, culture etc... Each his own. And when people think of California they dont think of just L.A.. Maybe you do but most people I know don't. Also L.A. natives claim California more than Bay Area residents who claim the Bay only, so the name Cali is more associated with LA.. Go to BestCities.org and they have a list of the worlds best cities and L.A. doesnt crack top 10 but SF(9) and Chicago(10) do.. SF beats NYC in many categories
You were right saying Chicago the cleanest in another thread. But you are going to win.... very few over to say SF over NYC in many categories. Not even in cleanliness .... these days.
Your infatuation with SF luv is noted. But SF alone .... doesn't even get it's big boost from Tech with SF city alone. I agree you can luv a city more then mighty NYC. But to boast another in many categories superior? It really is a -- man/city infatuation kinda luv.
This from someone who can luv a favorite city too and prefer it over NYC. But still... you can't lessen New York by another city-love.
NY, LA, CHI and SF all have the total package it's just NY has it on a much grander scale. The other three will have certain attributes that are better than the other. You can find glaring faults in LA, SF and CHI when comparing them against each other. NY is much harder to nitpick IMO. The only thing NY lacks IMO is scenic landscape (unless you're into urban infrastructure and foam at the mouth at the sight of a skyscraper).
I do thoroughly enjoy the "well its only tech and finance", as if those two things aren't insanely important in the modern world. Newsflash, if you own any kind of smart phone, you can thank the eggheads or use google on a daily basis, you can't make the argument that it isn't important. There's some kind of irony of posting how tech isn't important using the internet.
Look, the Bay Area and SF isn't a top 2 metro/city. It can't be because it's way too small. Even if it was vastly outperforming its size (which it is), population still has a bit of importance.
But the gaps between 3-5 are really really miniscule in the larger scheme of things.
Some CAN make the argument that SF is out of the top 5 altogether, but I won't make that argument (and I would suspect, neither would most objective people). Instead, what we see on this forum is "Well SF is more important than NYC" or "SF is less important than Des Moines, IA", of which both are insanely wrong.
And Iphonea don’t exist without the material scientists at DuPont (actually basically no micro-electronics do). Considering how dependent Tech is on other industries “it’s just tech” IMO is a valid point. If it were accurate.
So does that make Wilmington DE the most important city in the world?
Last edited by btownboss4; 09-15-2018 at 05:40 AM..
San Francisco has aspects or specific criteria it can argue it is best or Top 2-3 in...
On an overall scale, almost nobody without an SF bias would be convinced that SF has overtaken LA and Chicago....
Why can't San Franciscans be satisfied with Top 5 placement? It's a Top 5 American city, Top 5 metro, and excels in certain spots at Top 2-3 level...but it's right there with DC at the back of the Top 5. That's not an insult...
San Francisco appears to have the most prominent "little brother"/Napoleon complex in America...
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,547,418 times
Reputation: 6682
SF is a great city but would be nothing more than the 6th borough in NYC.
As for v LA, LA provides us with entertainment and pop culture but SF Bay Area companies have supplied us with everyday products that have transformed the world.
Last edited by elchevere; 09-15-2018 at 09:14 AM..
LA is the center of TV and film and it’s certainly solidified its place as a prominent city but the tech scene has completely change everything in San Fran. I think it’ll continue to grow more prominent while LA will still have a singular focus in television and film. The biggest problem with LA is that as a city there’s been a lack of evolution compared to the other major cities.
It's definitely not more prominent than LA. A case could probably be made that it could be more prominent than Chicago depending on what categories you are comparing, but overall I still think Chicago is more prominent since it is still (currently) the 3rd largest city in the US and the most prominent city in its region. LA is more prominent than SF in their region.
LA is the center of TV and film and it’s certainly solidified its place as a prominent city but the tech scene has completely change everything in San Fran. I think it’ll continue to grow more prominent while LA will still have a singular focus in television and film. The biggest problem with LA is that as a city there’s been a lack of evolution compared to the other major cities.
Big mistake believing LA has a singularly-focused economy, and a common misrepresentation regurgitated online...
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.
