SF equivalents to NY neighborhoods? (San Jose, San Francisco: middle-class, crime rates, to live)

[Wes927]

Originally Posted by cvanripe10

I love Manhatten, but it is a shame that is surrounded by junk. Manhatten is one of my favorite places but as soon as you step outside it's like "uhg wtf am I". Except for Hoboken. Hoboken is very nice.

There are so many dirty and seedy places surrounding that it really brings it down though.

I've never been to San Fran, but i hear it is so much smaller and they have rules on anti-development, which sounds excellent.

NYC would be the best city in the world if it was just Manhatten. But seriously you drive for hours and its just industry and messy.

As someone who was born and raised in Queens, I can say with certainity that you cannot be more mistaken. Every city has its ghettoes, and there are many industrial areas across the East River from Manhattan: but even these areas are qucikly gentrifying (DUMBO, Long Island City, Williamsburg) and becomeing livable.

Some of the most charming neighborhoods w/ 24/7 life in NYC are in the outer boroughs: Forest Hills, Queens; Bay Terrace, Queens; Woodhaven, Queens; Greenpoint, Park Slope, Bensonhurst, Bay Ridge, Sunet Park in Brooklyn. Riverdale and Woodlawn in the Bronx.

The list could go on and on. You are simply misinformed.

[nyasiandudeinnj]

Your slam against the other 4 boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and Bronx as "junk" lacks support in your opinion. If you're going to slam a neighborhood, please provide real areas that you're slamming.

I believe that you may not have had the opportunity to check out the "junk" Park Slopes or Brooklyn Heights area filled with luxury brownstones and condos as well as the "crappy" dog-run parks.

To be balanced here, the Brooklyn ghettos are not that close to Manhattan, which I believe you're trying to describe as seedy and junky. You would have to go to East New York to see that environment, although you will need to be trained with hand-to-hand combat skills and weapons usage skills to be safe.

I also believe that you have not been to the Long Island City area of Queens and see their "crappy" waterfront park and "junky" condos surrounded by awful sushi joints. How terrible are these ethnic restaurants? Have you been to Astoria? To say that it's seedy may really upset the Greek majority in that area. They might not let you in to their great restaurants. No gyros for you.

I hope that you will have the opportunity and time to visit these areas and then make another review of the outer boroughs by reassessing what you've stated below.

To add to the original post of "San Francisco equivalent to NYC", I would say that it's like comparing apples to grapefruits. SF is unique with its own special charm with different neighborhoods. NYC is unique in its own ways with the different personalities involved. To make a long analysis short, there is no comparison. NYC has energy and toughness. Not too many things can rattle a true native New Yorker, but can moan and ***** about everything. SF has beauty and zen. San Franciscans are calm by nature. Totally different from each other.

Originally Posted by cvanripe10

I love Manhatten, but it is a shame that is surrounded by junk. Manhatten is one of my favorite places but as soon as you step outside it's like "uhg wtf am I". Except for Hoboken. Hoboken is very nice.

There are so many dirty and seedy places surrounding that it really brings it down though.

I've never been to San Fran, but i hear it is so much smaller and they have rules on anti-development, which sounds excellent.

NYC would be the best city in the world if it was just Manhatten. But seriously you drive for hours and its just industry and messy.

[skatealoneskatetogether]

to act like sf and nyc don't have similarities is blind. how ever i do agree with kurd that this subject is rather tired.

Similiarities:
sf the second most dense city in the country, second only to nyc
sf has decent public transit
sf is expensive and can range from cosmopolitan to trendy

sf how ever how ever in terms of economics, politcs, culture, ethnicity, is very different from nyc

[Lurker]

Does the density measure compare SF to NYC or just to Manhattan? Just from my travels I can't imagine SF's density is anywhere near Manhattan's. It seems relatively few SF'ans live in high rises, which is the norm in Manhattan.

[skatealoneskatetogether]

the density measure goes for all of new york, not manhattan which most new yorkers would rather you think is all new york city is.

[Joe Bama!]

Almost on point with most, but Sunset and the entire boro of Brooklyn? and Richmond with the entire boro of Queens. You already compared parts of SF to parts of Brooklyn. On my visit 2 weeks ago to SF, I was naturally doing the same thing. comparing neighborhoods. At the same time i was trying to stop myself and trying to just enjoy the city for what it was, beautiful, cool, and most of all dirfferent from NYC. I cant help but to compare to NYC cause thata all I've ever known since a little boy.
Welll over all i agree that there are similiarities in the demographics of neighborhoods but the underlying difference is the "flavor." Flavor is the most important distiction here. Both city's seem to be losing it, FAST!

[hsw]

Biggest differences....

In SF, the few affluent who work in City's financial dt (most work in SiliconValley, some 40-60mis South of SF), live in houses w/ample garages and simply drive the 10mins down the hills from PacificHts to FinDt in their own new, big Mercedes....in Manhattan, same crowd calls for a driver to pull up in front of co-op/townhouse (w/lame views) in a scuffed-up MB S-Class to drive the 10-15mins to Midtown office, which typically lacks underground garages, unlike SF (or Chicago or LA)....

SF financial guys often arrive in office <<6AM; in NYC, senior financiers arrive in office <<7AM.

Manhattan and Greenwich are clearly dominated by financial industry; SF is dominated by SiliconValley's tech industry and, to lesser extent, by SV and SF's financial industry....

[Joe Bama!]

Originally Posted by hsw

Biggest differences....

In SF, the few affluent who work in City's financial dt (most work in SiliconValley, some 40-60mis South of SF), live in houses w/ample garages and simply drive the 10mins down the hills from PacificHts to FinDt in their own new, big Mercedes....in Manhattan, same crowd calls for a driver to pull up in front of co-op/townhouse (w/lame views) in a scuffed-up MB S-Class to drive the 10-15mins to Midtown office, which typically lacks underground garages, unlike SF (or Chicago or LA)....

SF financial guys often arrive in office <<6AM; in NYC, senior financiers arrive in office <<7AM.

Manhattan and Greenwich are clearly dominated by financial industry; SF is dominated by SiliconValley's tech industry and, to lesser extent, by SV and SF's financial industry....

Actually, lots of the wealthy in New York take the train from Long Island and WestChester. The young yuppsters take the train or taxi when they are late. People drive alot more in SF.

[Joe Bama!]

The demographics of neighborhoods across the nation changed dramatically in the 80's due to a shift in the perception of urban living. Out of no where it became "cool" to live in the city, and the city became a desired place of dwelling once again since the "white flight" of the 1940-50's.
Long Island and Near Upstate New York property taxes have gone through the roof and more young people are returning to places their relatives haven't been since the turn of the century.
New York is Disney land now and I imagine long term residence of SF feel the same. get ready people cause I'm coming to gentrify a neighborhood near you next year in the Bay Area!

[NYSD1995]

Western Addition = Carroll Gardens??? Maybe they meant Boerum Hill (PJ's are right there)

I disagree with a lot of that list. SF is not comparable to NYC.

SF is much sketchier than NYC and many of these neighborhoods are great in NY but somewhat scary in SF.