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 never been to either, But if Someone bust through my door right now and said Hey! YOU JUST WON A TRIP to either BOSTON OR SAN FRANCISCO, Plane Leaves in 10 minutes......I would Choose San Francisco
Dude, what?! “More famous� “More interesting tourist destination� What San Francisco have you been to and what Boston are you living in?
As a New Yorker, I never run-out of things to do up in Boston whereas I’m bored within 24-hours in San Francisco. And San Francisco is NOT more famous than Boston—that’s simply an idiotic statement.
San Francisco's name has a bigger global footprint than Boston's. San Francisco gets more tourists. That's certainly been my experience, although most of the international travel I've done has been to East Asia. Maybe not everyone would agree that San Francisco is the better tourist spot (although a majority would), but I'd hardly call that assertion "idiotic". Maybe if I'd said Baton Rouge is a more interesting destination.
And if you find yourself bored after 24 hours in San Francisco, what exactly do you find interesting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLL108
The whole joke is that San Francisco doesn’t have more to offer than Boston does at all, yet San Francisco is always considered “glass half full†and Boston is usually considered “glass half empty.†It’s the same volume in each proverbial glass, yet San Francisco is so smug and Boston is so modest. I’d encourage you to be louder and prouder about what you have in Boston.
I voted for Boston! I like it here! It's a fine place to visit, but San Francisco is one of my favorite places to visit. It would take at least double and probably triple my Boston salary to get me to live there over here, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLL108
And someone who doesn’t know about food would say what you said. As I stated in an earlier post, the Michelin guides are antiquated bullsh*t and a source of much industrial controversy. I’m sorry, but I discredit any food guide that includes DC, but overlooks New Orleans, Los Angeles, and Boston—all of which have better food than DC and are unquestionably on-par with San Francisco and Chicago (New York is the only true foodie outlier in this country).
Perhaps the "people who care about Michelin Stars" comment was too subtle. I am not one of those people. Probably not in the way you are not one of those people, but in the other direction. I can blame my kids now, but I didn't really like going out to fancy restaurants before they were born. LA was definitely more my kind of food town.
I do, however, have Michelin tires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLL108
I’m getting a “ho-hum, Boston’s lame even though I choose to live here†vibe from you…
My advice: Get out of Westwood and enjoy (and be prideful about) the gorgeous city and region that you’ve chosen to live in. And don’t romanticize your San Francisco days as if they were “magical years of wonder and enchantment.†That wonder and enchantment is right outside your door.
Wrong vibe, altogether. Boston is great, once you get accustomed to its quirks. And assuming you can afford to live here. Plenty going on, decent public transportation, decent outdoor opportunities, good jobs. San Francisco I'd pick to visit, Boston I'd pick to live. And, to be fair, the last time I did visit San Francisco for vacation (not to visit my brother-in-law), I spent two days in the city and the rest of the time in the mountains.
I would say famous =/= tourist. Boston is famous because it where US independence began. It's read about in history classes all around the world. How else would the "Europeans know more about American history than Americans jokes" start.
If you say San Francisco gets more tourists or has a bigger impact on the world economy, I would tell you it's a different argument.
Did you know Trump is from New York? Yeah, born and raised.
Let's not pretend Brooklyn is paradise!!
Yet NYC voted overwhelmingly against him. And in the Republican primaries, he even lost Manhattan, where he lives and the people that actually know him personally do too. And then at the Al Smith Dinner, he was booed.
This is basically the NYC village idiot. Many other States voted for him but NY and especially NYC, where people actually were familiar with him and actually know him, were clear on how they stood against him. Well, except Staten Island, but that’s just Staten Island being typical Staten Island... not to mention they are a very small portion of the NYC population. Even without them, we’d still have over 8 Million people...
I find San Fran more interesting in general. It's more diverse, has a more interesting landscape/topography. Has the Silicon Valley going for it and it is also has a more temperate and mild climate.It has that California "cache" about it...west coast, liberal, cool, wine country, hippie, diverse, etc.
Not that Boston is some slouch either, but idk.... Boston is too "buttoned up" and puritan IMO. Plus the winters in Boston are literally brutal and I don't find it's topography all that interesting.
I would say famous =/= tourist. Boston is famous because it where US independence began. It's read about in history classes all around the world. How else would the "Europeans know more about American history than Americans jokes" start.
If you say San Francisco gets more tourists or has a bigger impact on the world economy, I would tell you it's a different argument.
Internationally speaking, Boston is famous for what Cambridge has - Harvard and MIT. Not history, I doubt the average Chinese student knows about the tea party but do they know about Harvard.
To me the history of Boston is an added bonus and one that adds some heft to Harvard's reputation. It's the literal difference between Harvard and Stanford - both good schools, one however is so new it's rather underwhelming (for me anyway).
I will say that while San Francisco is my favorite US city, New England is my favorite region. There is just something charming about living in New England that Northern California cannot capture with all her new soulless mcmansions.
San Francisco is absolutely more internationally famous than Boston. Outside of NYC, The Golden Gate Bridge is probably the most recognizable landmark in the US.
You saying you get bored in San Francisco within 24 hours is ridiculous and totally discredits your criticism of the other poster.
I've spent lots of time in both Boston and San Francisco, they are probably my favorite cities not named Chicago, but I've never gotten the vib Boston was a better foodie city than San Francisco.
If you want to talk about food and you don't care about Michelin Stars, Houston kicks Boston in the *** for unpretentious international food. For non "fancy" food, there are several cities that are better than Boston including but not limited to the ones you brought up (LA, NOLA, Dallas)
I'm not saying this because I don't like Boston, I love Boston, I've never had an issue with the food there, its more than good enough for me, but you need to be honest about the things you like instead of being some weird east coast homer.
I dont know Houston very well, only visited once. But what types of International food does Houston have that you cannot find in Boston? I see people say things like this all the time, but they can never really narrow down what the holes are in the other cities dining scene, because they are truly not familiar with it.
I would say famous =/= tourist. Boston is famous because it where US independence began. It's read about in history classes all around the world. How else would the "Europeans know more about American history than Americans jokes" start.
If you say San Francisco gets more tourists or has a bigger impact on the world economy, I would tell you it's a different argument.
I disagree. Maybe more tourists doesn't necessarily mean more famous; but in this case I'd say both are true for San Francisco. We have data for tourists and almost every source indicates San Francisco is the more popular destination. I also think it's simply better known worldwide. Boston may have more history, but I don't think that's as prevalent in most people's minds as San Francisco's assets. San Francisco is considered one of the more beautiful cities and regions in the world with the image of the Golden Gate Bridge spanning the entrance to the bay being internationally recognized. The bridge alone is arguably one of the top most recognizable man-made structures in the world. Certainly in the U.S. Boston's beautiful, but its beauty is more subtle. Boston has landmarks, but nothing at the level of the Golden Gate Bridge (or even the cable cars).
San Francisco is also associated with Silicon Valley and it's biggest international brands - Apple. Google, etc. San Francisco (along with LA, and San Diego) is the poster child for "stereotypical" American culture... laid back people and atmosphere, sun-kissed skin (lots of first time visitors are shocked that SF isn't really a warm city) on the beach, palm trees, and convertibles on the coastal highways. It's incredibly romanticized. Much more so than Boston. You can debate the merits of it until you're blue in the face, but in my experience (and the tourist numbers would support this), San Francisco is a much better known locale than Boston. At least in the eyes of people overseas.
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.
