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.
Most people only care about the city itself. Whatever is in San Jose or Mountain View doesn't matter. They don't make San Francisco look bigger. Boston doesn't appear to be a very big city, but San Francisco doesn't feel any bigger either, judging by how easy it is to walk from the CBD to residential single family homes. One sentence: the suburbs don't matter, whether it is 20sq km or 200 sq km.
I disagree, you can't just pretend each city is an island. Especially places like San Francisco and Boston where the city limits are so small. Most people travel outside the city limits regularly for both work and recreation and the communities around San Francisco and Boston significantly impact life inside the city limits. San Francisco and Boston feel similar when you walk around the core. Walking from Boston's Financial District to the Richmond is comparable to walking from San Francisco's Financial District to the Richmond. There are many other similar comparisons. But the urban area doesn't end there and San Francisco's the Bay Area is much more cohesive and urban. The secondary cities of Boston's CSA (Providence, Worcester, Manchester) are much more disconnected and far flung than San Francisco's.
In the Bay Area, people travel to work from San Francisco up into Berkeley and Oakland as well as down to San Jose/Silicon Valley. People head up to Napa/Sonoma, Muir Woods, Marin Headlands, Mt. Tam, etc. for regular recreation. You can't pretend that isn't the case. Just like you can't pretend that people in Boston don't commute to Cambridge and the 128 belt for work or that they don't head down to Blue Hills, the Cape, the beaches, etc. for recreation. It's all a part of every day life in those areas. And the Bay Area is larger, more urban, and much more cohesive (people aren't commuting much from Boston to Worcester/Providence/Manchester for work). Boston's CSA population is much more widely distributed than the Bay Area's. You can absolutely feel that when you're outside of the urban core of each.
Quote:
LGBT issue, no, most people don't want it to be too on your face. It is important but not THAT important. We have a lot of bigger things to worry about.
I also disagree. There are people who want a more active LGBTQ community, and there are people who want it to be more of a live and let live type environment. Both places are among the best for the LGBTQ community, but Boston is definitely not as "active" as San Francisco on that front. However, because of the history of the LGBTQ movement in San Francisco, and the more active environment that exists today, it's easy to see why San Francisco is viewed as the more LGBTQ friendly city. It's definitely more outwardly friendly on that front. Boston is also very LGBTQ friendly, but it's not as outwardly friendly as people tend to keep to themselves here.
Quote:
I don't think the author is trying to downplay San Francisco, but simply to correct the usual illusion about San Francisco which is not true (such as it is something like the NYC on the west coast when in fact there are about three Bostons between NYC and San Francisco. Yes, it is the Boston on the west coast to be precise)
Eh, like Boston, San Francisco can be provincial at times, sort of viewing itself as the center of the known universe. I know a lot of people from the Bay Area that act that way, and I know a lot of people from Boston who act that way. Aside from the grid system and the density, however, I don't know too many people who compare SF to NYC as equals (or close to it). Not any more than people from Boston compare it to New York (which happens a lot). I think the thing about San Francisco is that it's an outlier on the West Coast (whereas most of the Northeastern cities are pretty urban and dense) in that it's very dense, walkable, and has good transit by American standards. And because none of its nearby peers really compete, the natural choice is to look further for comparisons. Because New York is the measuring stick for the U.S., it's natural that that's where people in SF will look. I don't think that there's any illusion that San Francisco is the NYC of the West Coast even if it's true that in terms of layout, density, and walkability, it actually is the closest thing on the West Coast to NYC (even though it's not really close). San Francisco is absolutely a peer of Boston's. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to make some NYC comparisons (we do it all the time here in Boston), and it doesn't mean that Boston matches up on every level.
- Nightlife - Tie
- Diversity (economy) - San Francisco
- Diversity (culture/people) - Tie in terms of people. Though neither has much political diversity or diversity of thought, Boston is less hostile towards opposing views compared to SF.
- Languages spoken - San Francisco
- Education (Will be the most anticipated criteria IMHO) - Boston. There's A LOT more than just Harvard.
- Lifestyle - Personally, Boston.
- Friendly people - Boston
- Climate - San Francosco
- Medicine (Hospitals, clinics, health related things) - Boston
- Natural scenery - San Francisco
- Shopping - Tie
- Economy overall - San Francisco
- Population city proper and metropolitan area - ?
- Benefits from location - San Francisco
- Public Transportation - Tie
- Airports - San Francisco
- Vibrancy of downtown - Tie
- Museums - Boston
- Theater, Music, & Arts scene - Boston
- History - Boston
- Parks - Boston
- Food - Boston
Too, both areas have very high costs of live, bringing down their quality's of life. With the national average being 100, Boston's overall COL index score is 150 (ie 50% higher than the national average) and San Francisco's 222.8. In housing costs, Boston 226.87, San Francisco's 445.18. Something that can't be ignored. That's why "most important cities" can be a bit subjective.
I lived in Boston for graduate school, cool city but not my personal taste due to a lot of political and social factors that I do not have time to explain. San Fran even thou ultra liberal would be my pick to visit and live in if I wanted to but both cities are super expensive and if I was going to pay that much again to live anywhere it would be NYC no offense.
Just imagine this: if SF and Boston switched the climate (hypothetically), which city will be a lot more attractive? I just think if a city is attractive largely due to its climate and location, then it is really not something to be particularly proud of.
We can ask people here. If SF and Boston had exactly the same climate, which one would they prefer.
SF is definitely a peer of Boston, but no more than that.
I lived in Boston for graduate school, cool city but not my personal taste due to a lot of political and social factors that I do not have time to explain. San Fran even thou ultra liberal would be my pick to visit and live in if I wanted to but both cities are super expensive and if I was going to pay that much again to live anywhere it would be NYC no offense.
both are expensive, but Boston is not nearly as expensive as SF. Boston is significantly cheaper than NYC, which can be considered an alternative if you love old city charm yet lower prices.
SF on the other hand is as expensive as, if not more expensive than NYC, and you are absolutely right, if I want to spend that much money, I will live in NYC (or Paris for that matter), not a regional city like San Francisco. If it is only as expensive as San Diego, that would make a lot more sense for what it really offers
both are expensive, but Boston is not nearly as expensive as SF. Boston is significantly cheaper than NYC, which can be considered an alternative if you love old city charm yet lower prices.
SF on the other hand is as expensive as, if not more expensive than NYC, and you are absolutely right, if I want to spend that much money, I will live in NYC (or Paris for that matter), not a regional city like San Francisco. If it is only as expensive as San Diego, that would make a lot more sense for what it really offers
Well, unless you’re really into the weather or need to work in the Bay Area. Some people put a huge premium on climate and being at the hub of their industry. The industry that the Bay Area is a hub of just so happens to pay a massive amount of money, so it makes sense it drove up the cost aside from also being an English-speaking urban city with a very moderate climate.
Just imagine this: if SF and Boston switched the climate (hypothetically), which city will be a lot more attractive? I just think if a city is attractive largely due to its climate and location, then it is really not something to be particularly proud of.
We can ask people here. If SF and Boston had exactly the same climate, which one would they prefer.
SF is definitely a peer of Boston, but no more than that.
Yes. You nailed it!
I always say that if you put Boston in California with a temperate climate, people would think it was the most amazing city in the world and if you put San Francisco on the cold east coast next to New York and DC and even Philadelphia, people would not be impressed by it.
But, instead, Boston is demonized as Soviet Russia and San Francisco is romanticized as Shangri-La. It’s ironic because Boston, culturally speaking, is practically Paris compared to San Francisco and actually has more to offer. San Francisco has access to great nature and a temperate climate (if you like that sort of weather year-round—I personally can’t stand it), but that’s pretty much it. The embarrassing reality is that San Francisco is fairly pitiful when stacked-up next to Boston as I investigated in my earlier post.
I lived in Boston for graduate school, cool city but not my personal taste due to a lot of political and social factors that I do not have time to explain. San Fran even thou ultra liberal would be my pick to visit and live in if I wanted to but both cities are super expensive and if I was going to pay that much again to live anywhere it would be NYC no offense.
Chicago pretty nice on north side like Old Town, Lincoln Park, Lake View area etc. It has best transportation in U.S after NYC
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.
