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 see what you are saying but thought I made it clear at the very beginning of my opinion that it had nothing to do with geography , architecture or density. My opinion has more to do with the psyche of the native inhabitants of Boston and New York and it's manifestations in the day to day life in non downtown neighborhoods, which is where the heart and soul of each city is.
While I agree with the types of similarities that you see in SF and Madison,I have been to both( lived in SF briefly) and the psyche,attitude...whatever is just not the same.I never found any neighborhoods or neighborhood hangouts in those (or any other) city where I could actually be tricked into thinking I was in NY when interacting with the locals...Except for the accents ,which also have more similarities than most people realize.Some of the micro neighborhood Boston accents are very close to some of the ones in parts of Brooklyn and The Bronx.
And forget the parallels with Brooklyn.There are many neighborhoods in Brooklyn that look exactly like some of the neighborhoods in Boston.
Easy, because SF is measured with the surrounding area too which some people might not consider SF itself.
anal, that was my point up above: the Bay Area and the Boston area have huge populations. That the key city in each represents a far smaller percentage of its area's population doesn't diminish their power.
If San Francisco could incorporate southern Marin, the peninsula down to San Mateo and the East Bay core of Oakland, Berkeley and Alamada, its population would be huge. But if such were to happen, it would change little in NoCal other than to rearrange the deck chairs on the Bay Area Titanic.
I see what you are saying but thought I made it clear at the very beginning of my opinion that it had nothing to do with geography , architecture or density. My opinion has more to do with the psyche of the native inhabitants of Boston and New York and it's manifestations in the day to day life in non downtown neighborhoods, which is where the heart and soul of each city is.
While I agree with the types of similarities that you see in SF and Madison,I have been to both( lived in SF briefly) and the psyche,attitude...whatever is just not the same.I never found any neighborhoods or neighborhood hangouts in those (or any other) city where I could actually be tricked into thinking I was in NY when interacting with the locals...Except for the accents ,which also have more similarities than most people realize.Some of the micro neighborhood Boston accents are very close to some of the ones in parts of Brooklyn and The Bronx.
And forget the parallels with Brooklyn.There are many neighborhoods in Brooklyn that look exactly like some of the neighborhoods in Boston.
you're right. no matter how decidedly urban San Francisco can be, it's west...not east coast. The cultural differences are enormous. You have brought the Yankees and Red Sox into the discussion and with good reason: five straight pennants and WS championships would not stir San Francisco's soul the way the Yankees and Red Sox do among their fans win or lose. Of course, that culture spreads East to Midwest....ask and Cardinal or long suffering Cub fan (that's me) on that one.
Washington, DC - I didn't include them in my list because I think like NY, but in a very different way, they are a unique city. Lots of diversity, lots of sprawl (especially in the last 2 decades, and more so now that they and Baltimore make up one big urban block), but (purposely by legislature) a lack of a skyline and tall buildings. Also, many people live there very temporarily, so you don't have the kind of say, fervor for sports teams that you have in NY, Chicago, Boston, Philly, etc. Maybe they should've been a 3rd "honorable mention" in my posts.
Boston - I wholehartedly agree with the post that I tried earlier to describe as "neighborhoodliness" (I even essentially called Boston "NY in miniature" in a past post). And NY-Boston sports rivalries are far stronger both now and historically than NY-Philly, despite twice the distance and a bigger population in Philly. Possibly it's because historically NYC has always looked more to the north and east for it's "regional soul" than to the south and west (partially because most of it's own state is north of it, partially because Boston is on the ocean and Philly/Baltimore are not, so more trade in the days when waterways were a factor were in those directions).
I don't see how California is "falling apart" more than the rest of the United States, Desi. The entire nation is in crisis. That Michigan we always looked at as the failed economy has become us.
And I wasn't talking about current economic conditions in my comments. My point is simply this: I take a far less hierarchial view of cities than most people do here. I honestly believe that the age of New YOrk being leap years ahead of other US cities once existed in a developing US that, in many ways, lasted up through WWII. US cities during that time did tend to be more backwaters in a nation that was so centralized in NYC. Even DC at that time was not a major city and much of the decisions it made were actually made on Wall Street first. To prove that power of NY over Washington, one of the clearest routes to being president was being governor of New York. American cities have come of age in last half century and have so much within them that used to have to be accessed with a trip to New ork in simplier, less technological times and times when our nation was more connected, more homogeneous, more centralized in our focus.
That is so far removed from today's situation. erous talks about what happens 100 years from now and he misses my point: i'm not talking about the future. I'm talking now. Chicago and Los Angeles have, for how little it is worth, alpha global city status like the ones he mentions and says is out of their reach. And neither Chicago or LA preceives itself as being lesser New Yorks nor views itself in terms of how it compares to New York.
I don't know how we will emerge from the current economic problems we're in. My sense is that we are in far worse shape now than most people realize. One thing is for sure: our days on top as nation are toast. We have squandered so much of what was our strengths.
I say that because New York is an American city. New York's influence has come from an inflatted nature of American influence and from the ability to manipulate money that simply is not there anymore.And its relative position within the world will be hurt by that fact, just like LA's, Chgo's, SF's, etc., will be. And that matters because we will never look at the US again in this global world as being the focus of our lives. People in no country will see it in that light. We're global, not national now. And the global world is, if you will, flatter than the American world: one city does not dominate in people's perceptions.
I'll keep saying this one over and over again, folks: Nothing I've said here attacks the undeniable greatness of New York. That would be insane. I'm talking merely about how many of us see a far less hierachial US and world than the time when NYC was preceived as being A number one, top of the heap. It is certainly not an effort on my part to interject my own city, Chicago, as a "challenger". Chicago faces many of same problems that New York does and during our "Second City" era, we too were seen having amenities that other cities didn't have....and that era has passed, too.
You may have a New York worship here on this thread and elevate it to the point that you look at other cities and try to deem what qualities they have that may, in some small way, measure up to the glories of New York. But that isn't the conversation people have in LA or other US cities where they need fear dominated by New York or have desire to be it.
And a thread like this one would appear to many across the Hudson to be very provencial indeed.
Lol why would you say that. U certaintly come across like you are. Every post you make you try to point this out. An attempt to humble the situation without making it seem that way. How is nyc still clearly not number one? Not trying to sound Mod cut: language, but im just saying
Last edited by Viralmd; 04-19-2009 at 06:31 PM..
Reason: Language
Lol why would you say that. U certaintly come across like you are. Every post you make you try to point this out. An attempt to humble the situation without making it seem that way. How is nyc still clearly not number one? Not trying to sound Mod cut: language, but im just saying
I never once suggested that if a single metropolis in the naiton were to be identified as #1 it wouldn't be New Yprk. Not once. If you asked me what is the single greatest city in the United States, I would say New York.
All I said was that the distance between New York and other American cities is less than a lot of you think here. Yes, I believe New York is America's most complete city i don't, however, have a view of other cities being in its shaddow and New York towering above them.
I'm not sure exactly what you don't don't understand, KONY. I never said your belief was wrong; I merely said that these questions are about opinion and not fact.
Many, many people would agree with your view point and that's fine. Others would agree with me: Great cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco are great in their own right, not due to any comparison to New York and share attributes with New York and with ohters.
I don't have anything to prove here; I merely am stating that others see things a lot less hierarchial than you and others do here. I also am of the opinon that the hierarchial framework for New York hurts the city because it assumes a greatness overothers, constant, and unchangeable, and does not recognize how the gap between New York and other cities has closed.
no matter how decidedly urban San Francisco can be, it's west...not east coast. The cultural differences are enormous.
exactly, i've never seen a compariosn with SF...its a west coast city in every possible way.
why because its dirty? got tall buildings? gimme a break....
if anything, SF reminds me of Madrid
there is no city in america even close.....
if anything, boston, philly chicago, detroit, hartford, newark, elizabeth, bridgeport, passaic, patterson, even asbury park remind me of cetain parts of nyc.
Last edited by john_starks; 04-19-2009 at 09:08 PM..
The East Bay is not San Francisco by a long shot man...Parts of SF are very busy with foot traffic. My sister lives in DC (dupont circle)...definitely not as busy or urban as SF--although it does have better museums and transit
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastBay-NowDCarea
I'm originally from the bay area and I'm surprised to read that someone from Denver thinks that SF is the closest thing to NYC. The Op must have visited SF during some sort of festival or some big event because I have relocated to DC and I think DC is much more faster paced than SF. Many parts of DC to me seem much more higher paced, and many more people on foot, and many more cars than compared to SF.
Maybe I'm new to DC and everything I see is so new - so it could be the reason I'm thinking that, but knowing every nook and cranny of SF and its surroundings, to me DC seems much more happening and people and cars and events left and right are just everywhere. So it blows me away to see somone think that SF is the closest thing to NYC.
I've been to NYC a few times since I relocated to DC, but NYC is a different dimension. And SF is no where even close to NYC. From what I have experienced so far, to me DC is much closer to a NYC feel than SF.
But again, I'm a newbie to DC so I may have a different opinion in 6 months.
I live in Seattle. I love this city, but no...it is nowhere near SF. I mean, even in Capitol Hill and Queen Anne you'll find houses with yards. That says it all right there. Ballard and Fremont are great, but have a more suburban feel as well. And downtown Seattle is far less vibrant, interesting, and not nearly as large as downtown SF. Not to mention, Seattle is way less diverse and does not feel like a 'world' city the way SF does. The reason I prefer Seattle to SF is convenciences like parking, cost, and not having crackheads blasting their radio outside your door at 3am! Also, great local culture here. But NOTHING like NYC. SF is similar at least in its urbanity, density, diversity, and vibrancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolhand68
Not really, walking around it has a mixture of old and new architecture and a busy feel to it. It has a waterfront, pubs, dining, public transit, and it's fairly diverse. If S.F. is constantly compared to Seattle as being similiar, than it stands to reason that Seattle compares to NY.
San Fran is kind of like a smaller version of NYC specifically Manhattan. But the thing I can't figure out is San Fran is supposed to be bigger than Manhattan; 49 sq miles versus Manhattan's 33. Go figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by analyticalkeys
Easy, because SF is measured with the surrounding area too which some people might not consider SF itself.
Not in this case. SF itself is 49 sq miles.
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.
Go figure.
