Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-23-2007, 11:00 PM
 
539 posts, read 1,920,368 times
Reputation: 436

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmann304 View Post
Im suprised Boston is in the top three.

They only have 550,000 folks.

I think population has every bit to do with it cuz more people live in a city, more city runs rail transit. More people means more money made for rail. rail gets more money to make it bigger and better to facitiate 8 million people vs 700,000 people which isn't nothing to NYC or Chicago.

SF is a far cry from ever being a Chicago or NYC.



Well this is my personal opinion, and this is coming from someone who's been to virtually every major U.S. city and who's about to earn a Master's degree in Urban Planning with a concentration on Transportation Planning. The reason I rate Boston so high is because regardless of its size, Boston's "T" system (or MBTA as it's officially known) covers a pretty good amount of ground, making it relatively easy to get around the city without a car. I say relatively because no American city has anything on places like Europe and Asia when it comes to public transportation, not even New York which by far has the most extensive system in the U.S. In cities like London and Tokyo driving is not even an option, public transit is a must. New York is like that but mostly only in Manhattan. Plenty of people from the outer boroughs, Long Island and New Jersey still have no qualms about driving into Manhattan to work every day. If even New York is far behind the world standard for good public transit systems think how far behind cities like San Francisco are. SF is actually one of the better systems IMO though. You want to see a mediocre example of a public transit system? Go to Atlanta and ride the MARTA or as I call it "the subway to nowhere." BART is light years ahead of MARTA believe it or not.



I live in Chicago now but I'm considering a job in Northern California (Sacramento). I may end up flying out there to the Sacramento/ San Francisco bay area later on this year to check it out (again). I've been to the area before and quite frankly I said to myself that I couldn't live in California, but I don't know. I'm becoming more and more open to things because to be fair, there were SOME things about California (particularly the northern part of the state) that I liked and i realize that no place is perfect anyway, so you may see me participate a little bit more and become more active in the California / Bay Area forums.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2007, 11:09 PM
 
8,256 posts, read 17,293,109 times
Reputation: 6225
sacramento is pretty much the farthest you can get from stereotypical, large californian cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AQUEMINI331 View Post
Well this is my personal opinion, and this is coming from someone who's been to virtually every major U.S. city and who's about to earn a Master's degree in Urban Planning with a concentration on Transportation Planning. The reason I rate Boston so high is because regardless of its size, Boston's "T" system (or MBTA as it's officially known) covers a pretty good amount of ground, making it relatively easy to get around the city without a car. I say relatively because no American city has anything on places like Europe and Asia when it comes to public transportation, not even New York which by far has the most extensive system in the U.S. In cities like London and Tokyo driving is not even an option, public transit is a must. New York is like that but mostly only in Manhattan. Plenty of people from the outer boroughs, Long Island and New Jersey still have no qualms about driving into Manhattan to work every day. If even New York is far behind the world standard for good public transit systems think how far behind cities like San Francisco are. SF is actually one of the better systems IMO though. You want to see a mediocre example of a public transit system? Go to Atlanta and ride the MARTA or as I call it "the subway to nowhere." BART is light years ahead of MARTA believe it or not.



I live in Chicago now but I'm considering a job in Northern California (Sacramento). I may end up flying out there to the Sacramento/ San Francisco bay area later on this year to check it out (again). I've been to the area before and quite frankly I said to myself that I couldn't live in California, but I don't know. I'm becoming more and more open to things because to be fair, there were SOME things about California (particularly the northern part of the state) that I liked and i realize that no place is perfect anyway, so you may see me participate a little bit more and become more active in the California / Bay Area forums.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2007, 04:39 AM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,286 posts, read 51,826,004 times
Reputation: 23660
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
sacramento is pretty much the farthest you can get from stereotypical, large californian cities.
Yes, that's fairly true... which is why I don't particularly like that area. Not that it's a bad place, but I prefer the weather and culture of San Francisco. Anyway, we look forward to hearing more from you "Aquemini!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2007, 04:27 PM
 
812 posts, read 4,074,257 times
Reputation: 389
People never think of the Metro area, though... everyone always does the "San Francisco is small, not even a million..." but the Bay Area itself has to be considered, especially since BART serves the East Bay. The whole picture should be the Bay Area... A huge chunk of the people that don't live in SF itself need to get into the city every day for work, and it's simply not a car city.

Plus, driving in SF usually isn't that much better of an idea than driving in New York. Density matters, people.

As far as the earthquakes go, I've always thought as a native San Franciscan, you just have to live life. If it's that big a deal, I could leave... but even if it's earthquake land, people still need to get to work every day. That being said 1) buildings and infrastructure are very heavily earthquake-resistant compared to other cities, and 2) just ask a miner, aside from being on the fault itself, underground or underwater is quite a safe place to be during an earthquake compared to a building. Oftentimes you wouldn't even feel much if you were deep enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
sacramento is pretty much the farthest you can get from stereotypical, large californian cities.
I gotta ask, what do you mean by this.... I would have said SF's pretty much the furthest away.... a European City when every other one is beltway dominated... just curious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2007, 04:28 PM
 
8,256 posts, read 17,293,109 times
Reputation: 6225
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
Yes, that's fairly true... which is why I don't particularly like that area. Not that it's a bad place, but I prefer the weather and culture of San Francisco. Anyway, we look forward to hearing more from you "Aquemini!"
its too government-y type and not real california. its not like SF, LA, SD, etc. (places with mountain backdrops, on the coast, suburban and urban areas)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2007, 04:50 PM
 
8,256 posts, read 17,293,109 times
Reputation: 6225
Quote:
Originally Posted by tande1n5 View Post
I gotta ask, what do you mean by this.... I would have said SF's pretty much the furthest away.... a European City when every other one is beltway dominated... just curious.
its extrememly suburban. even SD and LA have more of a downtown. its the only large city in CA not on the coast. its flat. its hot. theres farms nearby. you will never find never any of that in LA, SF, or SD
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2007, 07:47 PM
 
812 posts, read 4,074,257 times
Reputation: 389
Gotcha... coastal metropolis versus a little more midwestern vibe. Downtown Sac is pretty worthless... I say that having been born in SF and growing up in the Sac area. I like the town in Sac I'm from, but I always thought that I wouldn't live anywhere else in the Sac area. if my particular town didn't exist tomorrow, I'd be gone, gone from Sacramento.

Actually, living in SD, you'd be surprised how rural San Diego gets... East County, still well within SD proper. But I get what you're saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2007, 09:30 AM
 
4 posts, read 32,697 times
Reputation: 11
Hello, I suppose this thread is over but I wonder if anyone could respond to me. I currently live in San Francisco, my hometown, and am absolutely an urban girl. After living in NYC for 10 years I find this place pretty provincial, and I hate hiking and camping, which is pretty important to people here. I work in arts administration and find very few employment opportunities here for that, (unless I want to work in advertising, which I don't) plus the cost of living here makes that nearly impossible. And I hate the public transportation, but of course, I am used to NYC.

Anyway, I am ready to move, and I wonder if anyone has suggestions for cities around the world that are comparable to San Francisco in climate and beauty but also have world class arts institutions, great public transportation, and that I could afford on an arts administration salary (roughly 50,000USD a year). Moving to NYC is an option just because so many employment opportunities are there, but somehow it seems even too congested for me now that I am 38, and I don't know if I could go back to being that strapped for cash all the time.

Okay, thanks for reading! Look forward to learning more about cities on this forum...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2007, 10:01 AM
 
Location: San Jose, CA
7,688 posts, read 29,100,370 times
Reputation: 3631
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
I thought we were talking about BART (see now you were also talking about Muni)... and we just got the "T" a few months ago, so I guess that's some progress. But I want BART, dammit! As you said, Muni is fairly moronic - LOL.
You get Caltrain and Samtrans in the Bayview district - what's to complain about?? And anyway, I think you have more to worry about over there than how to get to Oakland!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2007, 10:13 AM
 
Location: In my mind
630 posts, read 2,223,934 times
Reputation: 704
[quote=milagroperro;1850757]Hello, I suppose this thread is over but I wonder if anyone could respond to me. I currently live in San Francisco, my hometown, and am absolutely an urban girl. After living in NYC for 10 years I find this place pretty provincial, and I hate hiking and camping, which is pretty important to people here. I work in arts administration and find very few employment opportunities here for that, (unless I want to work in advertising, which I don't) plus the cost of living here makes that nearly impossible. And I hate the public transportation, but of course, I am used to NYC.

Anyway, I am ready to move, and I wonder if anyone has suggestions for cities around the world that are comparable to San Francisco in climate and beauty but also have world class arts institutions, great public transportation, and that I could afford on an arts administration salary (roughly 50,000USD a year). Moving to NYC is an option just because so many employment opportunities are there, but somehow it seems even too congested for me now that I am 38, and I don't know if I could go back to being that strapped for cash all the time.

Okay, thanks for reading! Look forward to learning more about cities on this forum...[/quote

Just a suggestion but have you thought of Boston? I only state that because you mentioned NYC as a possibility.

Best of Luck to you !!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top