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.
There may be a few others, but I don't know a better way to sort through the data other than guess/check.
I think Lincoln and Sudbury were also missing from the list, which surprised me. Come to think of it, I would've thought that Manchester-by-the-Sea and Concord would make that list as well.
What San Francisco has over Boston is closer proximity. In San Francisco, you can be in jaw-dropping nature within an hour or so, whereas in Boston it’s more like two-plus hours.
But I staunchly refuse to label one as having “better nature.” I’m sorry, but the topographies of both regions are equally spectacular. You can’t get northern California in New England just like you can’t get New England in northern California. I’m a make-or-break beach guy and northern California doesn’t do beaches thus San Francisco’s nature couldn’t possibly be superior to Boston’s in my mind. If I wanted mountains and trees, I’d drive to the Whites or even the Catskills or the Adirondacks.
I’ll boldly reiterate: Yes, Cape Cod and the islands, coastal Maine, the White Mountains, Vermont, western Massachusetts, (and let’s even include upstate New York and Long Island), ARE on-par with Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Big Sur, and the Sierra Nevadas.
Nature snobbery doesn’t work in the same way that culture snobbery does. It’s all gorgeous nature, whereas it’s not all impressive museums or education or food—if you catch my drift…
And regarding the weather thing:
Most people are downplaying the suckiness of northern California’s weather. I’d happily brave winter and wait for my seasonal beaches over shivering in the Bay’s tepid-to-cold temperature 24/7.
I’m sick of people saying smug bullsh*it like “In San Francisco, it’s never too cold and it’s never too hot, it’s always pleasant…” Ummm, no it’s not. It’s f*cking cold and it sucks. If you are someone who likes that climate, try to acknowledge that you speak for yourself.
I said this in an earlier post, but San Francisco’s weather feels like sharp New England fall or spring—only year-round. No thank you. I like the change of seasons and if I wanted a temperate climate I’d obviously take southern California without hesitation.
What San Francisco has over Boston is closer proximity. In San Francisco, you can be in jaw-dropping nature within an hour or so, whereas in Boston it’s more like two-plus hours.
But I staunchly refuse to label one as having “better nature.” I’m sorry, but the topographies of both regions are equally spectacular. You can’t get northern California in New England just like you can’t get New England in northern California. I’m a make-or-break beach guy and northern California doesn’t do beaches thus San Francisco’s nature couldn’t possibly be superior to Boston’s in my mind. If I wanted mountains and trees, I’d drive to the Whites or even the Catskills or the Adirondacks.
I’ll boldly reiterate: Yes, Cape Cod and the islands, coastal Maine, the White Mountains, Vermont, western Massachusetts, (and let’s even include upstate New York and Long Island), ARE on-par with Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Big Sur, and the Sierra Nevadas.
Nature snobbery doesn’t work in the same way that culture snobbery does. It’s all gorgeous nature, whereas it’s not all impressive museums or education or food—if you catch my drift…
And regarding the weather thing:
Most people are downplaying the suckiness of northern California’s weather. I’d happily brave winter and wait for my seasonal beaches over shivering in the Bay’s tepid-to-cold temperature 24/7.
I’m sick of people saying smug bullsh*it like “In San Francisco, it’s never too cold and it’s never too hot, it’s always pleasant…” Ummm, no it’s not. It’s f*cking cold and it sucks. If you are someone who likes that climate, try to acknowledge that you speak for yourself.
I said this in an earlier post, but San Francisco’s weather feels like sharp New England fall or spring—only year-round. No thank you. I like the change of seasons and if I wanted a temperate climate I’d obviously take southern California without hesitation.
To be intellectually consistent you would have to say all nature is relative so Iowa=NorCal=New England, otherwise it is just your opinion that they are about equal to you and you just personally can't pick the one you like better which is a totally valid (although less self righteous) position to take.
My opinion is that while people have different tastes for what they find attractive/scenic/beautiful there is generally some consensus.
And to your point on cultural amenities, actually, cultural amenities rely even more on consensus as food or art are even more relative (meaning shaped by tastes both literal and cultural) than landscapes.
For example, the Grand Canyon is more immediately accessible as an object of enjoyment to people of virtually any cultural background compared to lets say, French Cheese or wine which can be acquired tastes.
If you think it is cold and it sucks that is your opinion. You don't have any more authority on the subject than the people you are criticizing.
I actually really like the cool San Francisco weather, for me it really doesn't get too cool or too hot. It's largely sunny and dry in the summer so it doesn't get hot and muggy like Boston does in the summer. Generally i'm a 4 season kind of guy, and will take a northern climate over a southern one but the year round cool weather in San Francisco and low humidity when it does warm up really is great weather for me personalty. I like the climate in NorCal better than SoCal, but thats just my opinion.
I’ve lived in both metros and this is one of the few comparisons I feel qualified to make. I voted for Boston, because I like living here more than the Bay Area. That’s my situation, though. Boston is better in the things that are important to me. I like seasons and don’t mind the cold. I like that Boston is much more affordable. I think the schools are far better top to bottom, especially at the bottom. Public transit is a lot more effective and traffic isn’t nearly as crazy.
I have to admit that, especially if you’re someone who cares about things like Michelin Stars, San Francisco is way ahead of Boston. It’s a much more famous city that has a much bigger global profile, has more wealth, and is a more interesting tourist destination. Being 3-5 hours from so many mountains is a bigger plus in my book, too.
I prefer SF over Boston but Boston being close to NYC and DC is one major advantage Boston and plus i don't like cold the but I could tolerate it. I lived in Boston for 4 years, it is a cool city.
I prefer SF over Boston but Boston being close to NYC and DC is one major advantage Boston and plus i don't like cold the but I could tolerate it. I lived in Boston for 4 years, it is a cool city.
Oh please, as if being close to DC is an advantage...
Oh please, as if being close to DC is an advantage...
It’s an interesting place to visit since it has some great museums, good transit to get around, interesting neighborhoods, and some really great ethiopian/eritrean restaurants. If you’re down on DC because of the politics, sure, but they don’t actually make you a member of congress as soon as step foot in the city except for Swear in Second Saturdays during the summer.
I also don’t think Boston to DC is that common of a trip. It’s definitely not in easy driving distance and the train still takes quite a while. NYC and Montreal are more reasonable weekend trips.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-09-2017 at 09:43 AM..
What San Francisco has over Boston is closer proximity. In San Francisco, you can be in jaw-dropping nature within an hour or so, whereas in Boston it’s more like two-plus hours.
To be intellectually consistent you would have to say all nature is relative so Iowa=NorCal=New England, otherwise it is just your opinion that they are about equal to you
Asking for intellectual honesty is a bit of a stretch in this case.
Well, these can still be an hour away given how bad transit is in SF.
Lands End sure is pretty though and amazing to have within a city.
True about the traffic but at 3am it should be 10 minutes.
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.
