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.
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.
A lot of Harvard is in Boston. The athletic fields and business school are in Boston. As well as the teaching hospital.
San Francisco is very likely more internationally famous than Boston, but the Golden Gate Bridge being the most recognizable landmark in the US is really ridiculous.
I'm originally from Germany, and every single time I've been back in the past fifteen years, I see something about San Francisco, usually with the Golden Gate Bridge in the shot, at least once or twice in a week's time, whether it's a travel article in the newspaper or a magazine, a photo of the GG Bridge at the airport to announce international travel destinations, in a TV show about SF, or displayed on a bookstore table. I've never seen anything about Boston. People internationally have heard of Boston, of course, but they couldn't name any landmarks in it or necessarily recognize it from a photo. SF is that photogenic city that mesmerizes everyone and that nobody ever forgets. It's full of unique, iconic, and breathtaking vistas: the bridges, the Transamerica Pyramid, Coit Tower, Alcatraz, Alamo Square, cable cars, etc. Europeans really are sort of obsessed with San Francisco. Not sure about other continents, but I think the GG Bridge is easily one of the top recognizable landmarks in the U.S.
I sadly haven't been to Boston, and it's not top of my list, but I'm sure the historic sections are absolutely beautiful and European in architecture, in a way that you won't find out west.
Overall, though, as a European transplant to Northern California (and now San Diego), I think the west coast lifestyle of the Bay Area can't be beat, although high prices and traffic are sadly ruining some of it. The wine country, the access to the Sierras, both sandy beaches and rugged coastline, big cities and small towns, food culture, and other big city amenities makes the Bay Area probably the most diverse region in the country, if not the world. You can find pretty much any niche lifestyle you could ever want in the Bay Area, whether you want to grow mushrooms by your cozy cabin in the woods, grow cabernet grapes in the wine country, play golf in a gated community, live in a city, sit by your swimming pool, or wear a cowboy hat and raise cattle. Plus you can get to the tallest mountains in the continental US in a few hours, and the Nevada high desert in another 45 minutes beyond that. Almost the entire diversity of the west coast comes together in one amazing intersection of north/south/coastal/inland/mountains/deserts.
If there is one thing about the Bay Area as a larger region, it's that it definitely can't be pigeonholed, no matter how many people try to oversimplify "Northern California" of one small sliver of the area representing the whole.
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.
I'm sure New England in late October beats the pants off of ANYWHERE during that time of year, and I'd love to visit that area sometime. I don't think New England's nature is quite as *unique* as California's though, as it looks similar to other parts of the country and even Europe. California's Mediterranean landscape is shared with only 2 percent of the world.
I totally agree about San Francisco having generally chilly temperatues, not so much because it's really so cold but because those 60+ temps most of the year means you never really warm up. It's always jacket weather but never too cold. But since the poll compares *regions* and not cities, the Bay Area wins hands-down IMO. Places like San Jose and Sacramento are among the sunniest cities in the country, and of course, those beautiful wine grapes need hot, sunny weather too. As long as you're away from the immediate coast, I'd say NorCal has some of the finest weather anywhere, with lots of warm to hot temperatures and virtually no humidity. So be careful not to extrapolate the uniqueness of San Francisco to the entirety of Northern California.
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 guess I would start by saying that I like Boston a lot, and have spent probably as much time there as Houston if not a little more. I like the city of Boston more than Houston for sure. The food scene is Boston is just fine, really there isn't much of anything that you can't find in both cities. Honestly there are cities much smaller than either of those cities where you can get most types of food. I've had pretty good Indian food in Idaho. Some of the best authentic Mexican food I've had has been in small towns.
That said:
Houston is just much more diverse than Boston, it is actually arguably more diverse than NYC, at least according to some metrics. In addition to being larger and more diverse than Boston, Houston also has more restaurants per capita and people eat out there more than anywhere else in the country.
Houston on average has better Asian, Latin American and BBQ food than Boston. I think alot of what makes the Houston food scene so good is that it is more of a gateway city for immigrants than Boston is currently. There are more working class immigrants in the Houston area than Boston which tends to cater to the educated.
That isn't to say I haven't had pretty good to great food while in Boston, but overall based on my experience in both cities, Houston has a better food scene and I'm not talking Michelin Star Restaurants.
I want to see how two of the most densest cities, two of the most prestigious cities, and in many ways two of the most compatible cities compare to each other.
Both are renowned for education, it will be interesting to see how far that discussion goes and the different takes on that. Harvard's nearly impossible to beat, but Stanford's top notch too.
My criteria:
- Nightlife
- Diversity (economy)
- Diversity (culture/people)
- Languages spoken
- Education (Will be the most anticipated criteria IMHO)
- Lifestyle
- Friendly people
- Climate
- Medicine (Hospitals, clinics, health related things)
- Natural scenery
- Shopping
- Economy overall
- Population city proper and metropolitan area
- Benefits from location
- Public Transportation
- Airports
- Vibrancy of downtown
- Museums
- Theater, Music, & Arts scene
- History
- Parks
- Food
- Anything else you can come up with to compare these two cities.
Be civil, try not to bash, and be respectful of others's opinions.
And please, try to properly give reasoning why you picked a certain place and at least attempt to follow the criteria.
And yes, we are not just comparing the city, but the entire metropolitan area as well.
Be creative.
That is a lot of criteria. I'm going to trim off some that I don't care about.
- Nightlife: Definitely Boston. San Francisco is full of yuppies who "hang out during the day".
- Diversity (economy): San Francisco. It has all of the sectors that Boston does plus finance and tech.
- Diversity (culture/people): Boston. Used to be San Francisco, but it is being white washed by tech nerds.
- Education : Boston. MIT and Harvard above Stanford and UCB.
- Lifestyle: San Francisco. More walk-able, ocean access, and lack of winter.
- Friendly people: Boston. San Francisco liberals are kind of dicks...
- Climate: San Francisco hands down. No winter.
- Natural scenery: San Francisco hands down. The ocean, cliffs and mountains.
- Economy overall: San Francisco is booming.
- Benefits from location: San Francisco. It is in a superior climate zone and it is in California.
- Public Transportation: Tie.
- Vibrancy of downtown: Tie.
- History: Boston obviously. San Francisco's history is Boston's recent past.
- Parks: San Francisco has Golden Gate Park and Presidio.
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...
Don't be so sure about that. You have millions of single issue voters! NY has never been a good indicator of national politics.
Don't be so sure about that. You have millions of single issue voters! NY has never been a good indicator of national politics.
Correct that NY is not a good indicator of national politics. That’s not at all what I was trying to say.
Either way, this is probably not the right thread for this. I have never been to Boston so I can’t make an official comparison in this thread. I just came here to lurk for a minute out of curiousity. Your post was one of the first ones I saw and I just couldn’t resist replying.
That is a lot of criteria. I'm going to trim off some that I don't care about.
- Nightlife: Definitely Boston. San Francisco is full of yuppies who "hang out during the day".
- Diversity (economy): San Francisco. It has all of the sectors that Boston does plus finance and tech.
- Diversity (culture/people): Boston. Used to be San Francisco, but it is being white washed by tech nerds.
- Education : Boston. MIT and Harvard above Stanford and UCB.
- Lifestyle: San Francisco. More walk-able, ocean access, and lack of winter.
- Friendly people: Boston. San Francisco liberals are kind of dicks...
- Climate: San Francisco hands down. No winter.
- Natural scenery: San Francisco hands down. The ocean, cliffs and mountains.
- Economy overall: San Francisco is booming.
- Benefits from location: San Francisco. It is in a superior climate zone and it is in California.
- Public Transportation: Tie.
- Vibrancy of downtown: Tie.
- History: Boston obviously. San Francisco's history is Boston's recent past.
- Parks: San Francisco has Golden Gate Park and Presidio.
I scored this one in favor of San Francisco.
I would agree with you all pretty much everything except diversity, walk-ability and nightlife. San Francisco is still more diverse and while San Francisco is more dense Boston is more walkable. For nightlife San Francisco is better, Boston has some cool pubs, but it punches way under it's weight for nightlife in my experience. Happy hour is even illegal in the state. You would have to go to Utah or Oklahoma to find stupider Alcohol laws that MA.
Correct that NY is not a good indicator of national politics. That’s not at all what I was trying to say.
Either way, this is probably not the right thread for this. I have never been to Boston so I can’t make an official comparison in this thread. I just came here to lurk for a minute out of curiousity. Your post was one of the first ones I saw and I just couldn’t resist replying.
You should try to visit Boston, it's one of the best cities in the country. Even if I prefer San Fran, Boston might be the best large walking city in the country and is totally worth a visit. I try to go at least once a year!
Plus from NYC, its super close, no reason not to go!
You should try to visit Boston, it's one of the best cities in the country. Even if I prefer San Fran, Boston might be the best large walking city in the country and is totally worth a visit. I try to go at least once a year!
Plus from NYC, its super close, no reason not to go!
You’re right. It’s an extremely easy trip. Probably about a ~$20 bus ticket and only 3-4 hours or so. I honestly have no idea why I haven’t been yet. Montreal is another easy trip that I haven’t done yet either.
Meanwhile I have been to LA, SF, Seattle, and Vegas twice! And even Europe too. I have no excuse. I’m sure I will probably make it within the next year or two.
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.
