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.
Just a wee non-thread-related comment on you getting sick after eating in NYC restaurants. It happens everywhere but the youth culture there is particularly bad ....... always see if you can get a look at who's working in the kitchen. If there are teenage boys, don't eat there. Some of us guys don't mature enough to work in kitchens until we're in our early twenties.
Cities aren't ppl some cities really are superior to others when you compare them unbiasedly. Just like if I was from Cleveland and I was comparing Cleveland to Chicago I can say yea Cleveland is so much better because I'm from there but if I broke it down without any bias Chicago would kill Cleveland. Same thing with NY everyone has their opinion on what they like but that doesn't make it better. My favorite basketball player ever is Kobe Bryant but I think Michael Jordan was a better player than him.
Well no, my point is that your idea of breaking it down without bias is not possible.
You'd probably say New York City is inherently superior to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, right? Well I have several friends who've lived in both and ended up HATING New York and moving to BR. They just don't want what you want in a city. To them, BR is inherently superior after "breaking it down without any bias."
Of course, you say that people's opinions aren't what make cities better. Then what do? You may say things like "more mass transit, more people, more skyscrapers, more whatever" are "unbiased" measures, but that fails to take into account that your selection of those criteria is in itself a bias. Not everyone wants more people, more skyscrapers, more mass transit, whatever. You do. That's fine, but for you to claim there are any unbiased measures is a bit over-the-top IMO.
I have lived in SF for 25 years, and have visited NYC several times. The major differences I see are that NYC has much, much more going on in terms of media, arts, museums, and the like than SF, which is somewhat sleepy and provincial even in comparison to the greater LA area. I also think that NYC is a more truly walkable city because it is flat and fog/wind are often pervasive in SF. You can still get around in SF without a car, and there are some routes where you can walk for fairly long stretches, but the hills prevent long strolls between neighborhoods. So if the art/media/museum scene, a high level of urban energy, and walkability are paramount to you, I would choose NYC. On the other hand, if proximity to outdoor activities and gorgeous scenery are important to you, then SF probably beats NYC. There is no state as geographically beautiful and diverse as California, and SF is a little north of the center of the state's long coast. I'm not sure what counts for downhill skiing on the East Coast, but I'm confident it has nothing to match what is available 2.5-3 hours from SF. SF is also probably the most interesting restaurant city in the US at the moment, and has more Michelin stars per capita than any other US city. So, while SF is "lower energy" and less cosmopolitan than NYC, SF probably probably offers a better overall lifestyle per dollar than NYC.
LA is probably the ugliest major city in the US, which opinion I offer as a native of So Cal.
NYC is great, if you can afford it. It is not a place to raise kids unless you are super rich. Basically, it is a great place to live and work and play... BUT only if you have money. LOTS of money.
Manhattan (South of ~110th) is great, if you can afford it. It is not a place to raise kids unless you are super rich. Basically, it is a great place to live and work and play... BUT only if you have money. LOTS of money.
I edited your post so that it makes more sense
I was raised in NYC (Washington Heights), NYC can be a great place to raise a family, check out Staten Island or Queens.
"Any other opinions? I'm pretty much sold on NYC, but this is going to be a MAJOR move for me and I probably won't be able to visit all these cities before choosing due to my financial situation, so as many first-hand accounts as possible would be great!"
________________________
Yes my opinion is to get your financial situation together and visit your finalist cities before taking the plunge. No substitute, not even close, for your own eyes and experience.
My experience - if you are looking for the true big city experience, the ka-pow factor, it's NYC all the way. It's really not even close.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,166,733 times
Reputation: 8105
Yeah, for younger adults who may be adrenaline junkies (as most young people are), who like a tremendous variety of things to do nearby (in certain areas), NYC would be better. San Francisco is definitely not "sleepy" in the downtown area, but there's much less downtown there.
But do remember that anyone on a budget, who doesn't have a high income, isn't likely to get an apartment in a nice part of NYC ..... that means living in an area with higher crime and fewer amenities within easy walking distance. SF definitely has fewer slummy areas, and there are some places with slightly lower rents but still not much crime, out in the fog belt on the west end.
I guess if the OP can get a job with a high income, and is a bit of an adrenaline junkie who likes lots of hustle and bustle, NYC would be better.
For NYC, the money thing will be huge. You cannot just move there. You will not be able to get a place to live without verifiable income or enormous cash reserve. When I left in 2005, I believe the income to rent ratio was around 45x (think $2000 monthly rent would mean $90,000 annual salary). And $2k per month won't get you much and definitely a push that would house a family. Also, even if you do qualify rent wise, be prepared to lay out a decent amount before you even get into the apt. - first/last months rent plus 1 mth rent broker fee. Then deposits, etc for utilties. You are approaching $8-9k out of pocket before even getting there (based on the $2k rent). That being said and without making comparisons, the NYC experience, provided you can afford it, is amazing.
If you want to do playwriting/theatre, Chicago is an excellent choice. Chicago has over 200 small and medium sized theatre companies that are often critically acclaimed. NYC has Chicago beat when it comes to Broadway and musicals, but for smaller critically acclaimed theatre and stage acting, Chicago is on par with NYC. Its especially great for newcomers or for people coming in from other cities, as it can often time take more time in NYC to get on your feet due to the more competitive landscape.
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.
