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.
San Francisco has a much more moderate climate and it has wonderful vistas. It has a beautiful coastline looking out on the Pacific. That among other factors might sway someone towards San Francisco in comparison to Chicago. However, in terms of big boy city-ness, that's more to do with the strength of its polycentric metropolitan area rather than a strong, definitively central city. Chicago and its downtown is much brawnier than that San Francisco and its downtown and it is very apparently so. However, San Francisco does have a fair bit more grit in its downtown and sometimes people take that as being more "city" though I don't think that needs to be a hallmark of an urban city.
One top--no one says San Fran in San Francisco.
Reasonable post.
San Francisco has a borderline world class downtown and is easily top 5 in the U.S. (I'd even say 3 or 4). It is fantastic... compact, vibrant, mundane, exciting. But it's not at Chicago's level. As much as people might want it to be, it simply is not. It's easily a rung below Chicago (and in fairness, Chicago is easily being a rung below NYC.).
San Francisco has a borderline world class downtown and is easily top 5 in the U.S. (I'd even say 3 or 4). It is fantastic... compact, vibrant, mundane, exciting. But it's not at Chicago's level. As much as people might want it to be, it simply is not. It's easily a rung below Chicago (and in fairness, Chicago is easily being a rung below NYC.).
Just a quick correction, as this was debunked in another thread- As far as a two-way, net-net migration pattern, this might be true. However, more New Yorkers move to Boston than they do Philly. The post, with statistical backing, was for 2017 into 2018 and in raw numbers.
Just to clarify. I should also add that this most certainly feeds into the already unbarable housing market/crisis in Boston.
Returning to this post because I just checked the figures for metro-to-metro migration on the Census Bureau site (the third link that came up when I did a Google search on "migration between cities"; the first two dealt with migration to cities from outside them worldwide and migration into cities from other countries).
I don't know where that post got its numbers from, but it's completely wrong. Here are the metro-to-metro migration figures for the three metros in question based on 2012-2016 American Community Survey estimates (the latest 5-year time series available on the site). The figure in parentheses following each number is the 90 percent margin of error figure (IOW, the odds are 90 percent that the actual number lies within a range this much above or below the figure given):
Between New York and Boston
Total migration between both metros: 26,044 (+/-1,266)
To Boston from New York: 15,348 (+/-1,048)
To New York from Boston: 10,696 (+/-854)
Net: 4,852 towards Boston (+/-1,415)
Between New York and Philadelphia
Total migration between both metros: 46,734 (+/-2,170)
To Philadelphia from New York: 28,649 (+/-1,823)
To New York from Philadelphia: 18,085 (+/-1,251)
Net: 10,564 towards Philadelphia (+/-2,251)
Between New York and Boston
Total migration between both metros: 26,044 (+/-1,266)
To Boston from New York: 15,348 (+/-1,048)
To New York from Boston: 10,696 (+/-854)
Net: 4,852 towards Boston (+/-1,415)
Between New York and Philadelphia
Total migration between both metros: 46,734 (+/-2,170)
To Philadelphia from New York: 28,649 (+/-1,823)
To New York from Philadelphia: 18,085 (+/-1,251)
Net: 10,564 towards Philadelphia (+/-2,251)
Thanks for looking into these stats. I knew I've seen an overview of these numbers in the past on some online publication but couldn't recall where.
With half the housing costs and being half the distance as compared to Boston, it stands to reason that Philly would have much more of a gravitational pull for NYC area out-migrants. And the numbers clearly bear that out.
Returning to this post because I just checked the figures for metro-to-metro migration on the Census Bureau site (the third link that came up when I did a Google search on "migration between cities"; the first two dealt with migration to cities from outside them worldwide and migration into cities from other countries).
I don't know where that post got its numbers from, but it's completely wrong. Here are the metro-to-metro migration figures for the three metros in question based on 2012-2016 American Community Survey estimates (the latest 5-year time series available on the site). The figure in parentheses following each number is the 90 percent margin of error figure (IOW, the odds are 90 percent that the actual number lies within a range this much above or below the figure given):
Between New York and Boston
Total migration between both metros: 26,044 (+/-1,266)
To Boston from New York: 15,348 (+/-1,048)
To New York from Boston: 10,696 (+/-854)
Net: 4,852 towards Boston (+/-1,415)
Between New York and Philadelphia
Total migration between both metros: 46,734 (+/-2,170)
To Philadelphia from New York: 28,649 (+/-1,823)
To New York from Philadelphia: 18,085 (+/-1,251)
Net: 10,564 towards Philadelphia (+/-2,251)
Kind premature to make a statement like that this far into the thread. It is an easy top 5, not top 3. Boston and Philadelphia match/ exceed San Fran in essentially every category of what makes a great downtown. The 3-5 spot is very blurry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318
San Francisco is the 2nd best downtown / urban environment in the US after NYC. Chicago is great, but its not as dense and crowded as SF.
Returning to this post because I just checked the figures for metro-to-metro migration on the Census Bureau site (the third link that came up when I did a Google search on "migration between cities"; the first two dealt with migration to cities from outside them worldwide and migration into cities from other countries).
I don't know where that post got its numbers from, but it's completely wrong. Here are the metro-to-metro migration figures for the three metros in question based on 2012-2016 American Community Survey estimates (the latest 5-year time series available on the site). The figure in parentheses following each number is the 90 percent margin of error figure (IOW, the odds are 90 percent that the actual number lies within a range this much above or below the figure given):
Between New York and Boston
Total migration between both metros: 26,044 (+/-1,266)
To Boston from New York: 15,348 (+/-1,048)
To New York from Boston: 10,696 (+/-854)
Net: 4,852 towards Boston (+/-1,415)
Between New York and Philadelphia
Total migration between both metros: 46,734 (+/-2,170)
To Philadelphia from New York: 28,649 (+/-1,823)
To New York from Philadelphia: 18,085 (+/-1,251)
Net: 10,564 towards Philadelphia (+/-2,251)
If you search New York under the Redfin link, it shows that more New Yorkers are looking at properties in Boston more than any other city in the US. So while the demand may be the highest, it doesn’t necessarily mean they execute on a transaction and migrate.
EDIT: Not actually sure if it’s simply the % of those looking, or actually domestic migration under the search functionality.
Kind premature to make a statement like that this far into the thread. It is an easy top 5, not top 3. Boston and Philadelphia match/ exceed San Fran in essentially every category of what makes a great downtown. The 3-5 spot is very blurry.
Another premature post.
Obviously it is debatable which is best. But, I could see SF having a strong case for the number 3 spot in terms of size, activity, retail/restaurants. I think it has more office space than Philly or Boston. Population is harder to measure given debates about what constitutes "downtown". But, it has the highest peak population density at its core. SF is also generally regarding as having more retail than either Bos/Philly's
Philly arguably has a more compact, but "peaked" downtown around Rittenhouse/the Broad and Market canyons, so I can see an argument for Philly. But, I cant really think of an argument for how Boston tops SF's downtown on scale (aside from qualitative factors like historic architecture or cleanliness).
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.
