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.
Hard to choose between New York and San Francisco, but if I were filthy rich, I'd give a slight edge to San Francisco.
Why SF for "filthy rich"? It isn't really known as a city favored by global wealthy types. The city doesn't have a lot of super posh areas filled with global expats.
There are, of course, rich people in SF, but mostly tech money or local rich folks. And most of the rich live in the suburbs. Not really the volume of global rich you see in NYC, London, LA and the like. SF would be more like an Amsterdam or Frankfurt or something.
Hard to choose between New York and San Francisco, but if I were filthy rich, I'd give a slight edge to San Francisco.
Why?
People who haven't been to these cities often have this misunderstanding that NYC and SF are similar, and that SF is somehow a western coast version of NYC - it is NOT.
Despite its reputation of being walkable and having good public transit, San Francisco in reality shares more common with Los Angeles than New York City. SF is still a rather typical Californian city, which is quite different from older eastern cities such as NYC, Boston or Philadelphia.
SF's density and walkability largely arises from the fact that it is geographically a small city, however, that doesn't mean it doesn't have its typical American sprawl. Being only 10% of LA's land size, of course SF "appears" compact and walkable, but really? This is SF's Sunset district - a very big one size-wise
SF is about 120 sq km, versus 1200 sq km for Los Angeles. If you expand SF 10 times to include the surrounding suburbs like LA does, the density of these two cities are really not that different. Or conversely, you pick central Los Angeles that is about 120 sq km, it would have a similar density and walkability as well as good transportation system as San Francisco.
SF also has about 830k people. Manhattan is about 90 sq km, 75% of SF's size yet has a population of 1.6 million. So are they comparable? Central Los Angeles would have over 800k people do, which makes it a lot more like SF if it WERE a city on its own.
In terms of urban zoning, about 90% of San Francisco is zoned for 4 stories or less - resulting in the city being predominantly low rise single family house living - is that like NYC or any major European city?
Speaking of public transit, take a look at SF's system map, and compare it to New York's, or Munich, or Vienna, and tell me it is more like NYC/Europe. SF's transit is more like Vancouver/Toronto, nowhere near NYC's extensiveness.
I am not saying SF is bad, but it is often ridiculous to think that SF is a west coast version of NYC and it is difficult for people to make a decision between the two. Completely different cities, completely different lifestyle. San Francisco after all, is still a typical North American city while New York City is not.
I have lived in both cities, and about a dozen others of varying size across three continents.
It has nothing to do with all that you just cited, some of which makes sense and is relevant, some of which doesn't and isn't, at least not to me.
The OP's question is "which one is more attractiveto you?" to someone who, I suppose, findsattractive London or Liverpool or Barcelona or Toledo or Rome or Bergamo or Brussels or Brugge or a small European Mediterranean village -, in the likes of which I have lived and for extensive periods -, the OP did not mention, much less specify, an urban-to-urban comparison, in fact the OP mentioned no other criterion than attractive to you.
I would measure San Francisco and the Bay Area foremost in terms of present and future utility, its position in California and the world as both a center of technological innovation, arguably unrivaled, and finance, in some respects starting to rival New York.
But as a practical matter I personally cannot compete.
I also find it aesthetically pleasing, not only the city but the entire surrounding area from the Mediterranean-like coastline and interior and its world class agriculture to world class mountains and deserts, more so than New York and the Hudson Valley which certainly have their beauties, especially in the months of October and June.
True, as a practical matter, the housing stock in the San Francisco pretty much sucks, at least by my criteria, but it is not much better in New York and Boston, for example, unless one is, as mentioned, filthy rich.
As a practical matter, then, I personally cannot compete.
Finally, for what it's worth, NYC and Boston remind me more of London, anyway a little bit, than any other European city, if you consider London European (some do, some don't) and London beats them both with a stick, at least by my criteria.
Having said all that, if I were ever to move back to some place from where I am now, as a practical matter New York would probably be the most likely destination than any other.
I agree, New York is the only city on par with European cities. But just way too expensive, if everything wouldn't cost 3 - 5 times as much as over here I wouldn't mind living there for a while.
"On par" meaning what exactly? As someone who has lived in many European cities I can tell you that there are a bunch of American cities that are great places to live. London has become just as expensive New York for example, and many other European cities are not exactly utopia either..
I'm an American living in Europe. Yes, European cities are superior to US cities on the whole. However, hate to break it to you, New York City far exceeds any European city I've seen so far. I haven't been to London, so maybe it can compete but Paris - while wonderful - is no NYC. NYC .. better, by a long shot. So whatever European city you're in, NYC is likely going to be an upgrade.
NYC exceeds any European city in every aspect? like safety, beauty, public transportation, economy, more things to do, architecture, etc... I'm curious
NYC exceeds any European city in every aspect? like safety, beauty, public transportation, economy, more things to do, architecture, etc... I'm curious
I think he means in terms of energy, pulse, vibrancy, diversity, size etc. At least, those are the areas I would agree with him on.
NYC exceeds any European city in every aspect? like safety, beauty, public transportation, economy, more things to do, architecture, etc... I'm curious
I don't think it does. But I'm not the biggest fan of NYC.. I think they only place where it has the edge, from the stuff on the list is economy any maybe more things to do depending on the European city you compare it too
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mag3.14
I think he means in terms of energy, pulse, vibrancy, diversity, size etc. At least, those are the areas I would agree with him on.
These may also fit
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.
