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.
I've always thought of Savannah as a Southern, smaller version of San Francisco. They both have waterfront settings, a beautiful bridge over it (actually S.F. has two in the city), historical architecture and Victorian row houses, and an overall charm to them. I really can't decide which one I like better, so I'll let y'all vote.
Its hard to compare. Savannah is great, but SF is a world-class city, second only to NYC in terms of density and urban vibrancy.
Savannah is just not in the same ballpark in that sense. But it is more quaint and you dont have to deal with crackheads outside your door when you are paying $2000 for a 1 bedroom!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEAandATL
I've always thought of Savannah as a Southern, smaller version of San Francisco. They both have waterfront settings, a beautiful bridge over it (actually S.F. has two in the city), historical architecture and Victorian row houses, and an overall charm to them. I really can't decide which one I like better, so I'll let y'all vote.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,460 posts, read 44,083,751 times
Reputation: 16841
Really? I don't think of them as alike at all.
Savannah has an historic district with an inventory of late 18th and early and mid 19th century homes and buildings. The prevailing architectural styles are Federal, Regency, Georgian and Italianate. Outside this district, Savannah feels like just about any other mid-sized Southern city. It's topography is flat, canopied in Live Oaks and interspersed with marshland and tidal rivers.
San Francisco has its historic buildings rooted in the Late Victorian era; add to that the more recent buildings that are IMO unique to the city in their architectural style. It is also hilly and a relatively arid landscape relative to Savannah's lushness.
Not sure what the similarities are.
I don't think they're similar at all, except for very superficial surface things. Even the type of waterfront settings are totally different. They both have historic architecture (in some areas) but that's about it.
I love both cities, but the reason I love each of them is because they are each distinct in their own way - both compared to each other and to other American cities.
Savannah wins my vote by a long shot! I don't see any comparison at all. I love Savannah, could even live there, San Fran, not so much! I think San Fran is over rated, but that's just me
I've never been to Savannah, but have lived in SF for almost 20 years. It's a great city, but we will be leaving soon. It's VERY expensive and if you have kids forget it. The public schools are difficult to get into and if you can't then you have to pay an arm and a leg for private. So, if money isn't an object, move to SF. If you don't want to pay about 2K for a studio apt, then move to Savannah. Although, if it's a temp situation, then try and sublease a place in SF for 6 mos or a year. You will have a great time, for sure. Also, the weather in the summer in the city is not good. Cold, foggy and windy!
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.
