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.
Yup, you've got me pegged! I've only lived in the Bay Area for 7 years (basically since a week after I turned 21), and bartended my way through college and grad school...
You like Boston better than SF? That's fine. You're totally entitled to your own opinion. I've been to Boston and really enjoyed myself- it's easily one of the best cities east of the Rockies.
But don't act like you know the City better than people who've actually LIVED here, worked here, went to college/grad school here, etc for longer than 'several visits'. You named three really popular bars that EVERYBODY (locals, transplants, tourists alike) knows about. Would you like a cookie for knowing where to find a good drink in a city with more bars per capita than most places in the world? Typical M@*shole thinking they've got it better than everywhere else. Thank God, I only encountered a few of your kind during my stays in the Boston area.
I'm not ragging on SF. I love the city.
But not for it's weather and glut of fanny pack wearing camera waving tourists.
I'm just giving my take:
1.) the weather is not peaches and cream like a few people on this thread had said ... far from it. It could actually be off-putting to many, many people.
2.) Tons of tourists. Tons of them. In almost every neighborhood. It's worth mentioning to someone who is going to *live* there.
3.) Crime/vagrancy/drug use is a visually perceptible problem that is backed by statistics.
The irony of this whole cycle is that you guys are pretty much blowing your top because someone said a few things you don't want people to hear. Yet, neither of you really refute what I am saying on any account.
Having been there a bunch ... I don't really care if you do because I know, and at this point it's obvious people are just trying to one-up in a silly internet battle.
Also, loling at the whole "cookie" thing.
Yeah I want a cookie? Or how about ... get off my back ... I've been in the Mission with people who live in the Mission/Castro ... drinking ... having fun ... doing stuff. I named those bars because I thought they were good!
I also went to some dives too. I also checked out another bar called Amnesia (90% sure of the name) too.
I'm naming one of the handful of bars in the Mission that I went too. I got some good greasy Mexican there too, my favorite was Farolito, though, again in a dicey area at night. And some real yuppified vegan nonsense as well, that was masquerading as Mexican -- but then I hate vegan food and really ust frown when someone brings me cashew cheese.
And the replies are ... that's a tourist spot ... try the Mission it's not for tourists ... you want a cookie?
a.) I've got some decent insight into the city ... get over it.
b.) I'm probably a bit more objective about it than you are being right now.
c.) You guys are crazy, crazy hostile ... and I'm supposed to be the Bostonian with a "bad east-coast attitude."
You guys do realize you aren't really painting your city in a great light right here, right?
Lastly, and this is sincere for the OP as well ... please don't go sending people into the Tenderloin or (willy nilly) into the Mission as "local" or "tourist spots". Parts of the Mission are alright ... it's also a really sketchy neighborhood too.
Tenderloin and Mission (large parts) aren't neighborhoods you just want to walk around in after dark if you don't know what you are getting into, do the OP the service please.
I could name a few really old-school and authentic Irish pubs in Boston that aren't in the choicest areas, but I wouldn't just tell people to "go check it out" on a forum to win points in some p!ssing match.
Don't put someone else at risk without mentioning the issues.
I really don't think the poster was ragging on the City (San Francisco).. She (or he) gave an interesting account. I've never been to Boston unfortunately, but it's really okay for people to have a preference and give their perspective. I didn't read into any angst/competition here.
Thanks! BTW ... I had a point or two I was trying to make ... if you are from SF ... you DO have a great city!!!
But not for it's weather and glut of fanny pack wearing camera waving tourists.
I'm just giving my take:
1.) the weather is not peaches and cream like a few people on this thread had said ... far from it. It could actually be off-putting to many, many people.
2.) Tons of tourists. Tons of them. In almost every neighborhood. It's worth mentioning to someone who is going to *live* there.
3.) Crime/vagrancy/drug use is a visually perceptible problem that is backed by statistics.
The irony of this whole cycle is that you guys are pretty much blowing your top because someone said a few things you don't want people to hear. Yet, neither of you really refute what I am saying on any account.
Having been there a bunch ... I don't really care if you do because I know, and at this point it's obvious people are just trying to one-up in a silly internet battle.
Also, loling at the whole "cookie" thing.
Yeah I want a cookie? Or how about ... get off my back ... I've been in the Mission with people who live in the Mission/Castro ... drinking ... having fun ... doing stuff. I named those bars because I thought they were good!
I also went to some dives too. I also checked out another bar called Amnesia (90% sure of the name) too.
I'm naming one of the handful of bars in the Mission that I went too. I got some good greasy Mexican there too, my favorite was Farolito, though, again in a dicey area at night. And some real yuppified vegan nonsense as well, that was masquerading as Mexican -- but then I hate vegan food and really ust frown when someone brings me cashew cheese.
And the replies are ... that's a tourist spot ... try the Mission it's not for tourists ... you want a cookie?
a.) I've got some decent insight into the city ... get over it.
b.) I'm probably a bit more objective about it than you are being right now.
c.) You guys are crazy, crazy hostile ... and I'm supposed to be the Bostonian with a "bad east-coast attitude."
You guys do realize you aren't really painting your city in a great light right here, right?
Lastly, and this is sincere for the OP as well ... please don't go sending people into the Tenderloin or (willy nilly) into the Mission as "local" or "tourist spots". Parts of the Mission are alright ... it's also a really sketchy neighborhood too.
Tenderloin and Mission (large parts) aren't neighborhoods you just want to walk around in after dark if you don't know what you are getting into, do the OP the service please.
I could name a few really old-school and authentic Irish pubs in Boston that aren't in the choicest areas, but I wouldn't just tell people to "go check it out" on a forum to win points in some p!ssing match.
Don't put someone else at risk without mentioning the issues.
TL; DR, but it appears like your biggest gripes about SF are tourism, weather, and grit/crime?
For one, it's pretty ironic that you visited SF as a TOURIST, yet you complain that there are tons of other tourists visiting the city? Not even going to touch that one.
Yes, the weather in parts of the city (ironically, mostly in the NON-touristy areas near the ocean), does indeed leave a bit to be desired compared with the East Bay (where I live), SoCal, and Hawaii. But I, and many, many other people vastly prefer it to the hot/humid summers in MA and the bitter freezing cold and snow you have no way of escaping in the winter. We have a plethora of micro-climates unlike most places on earth, so if it's a bit too nippy for you, you can either put on a hoodie or drive inland. The last time I was in Boston it was 10 degrees, with a wind chill of -20. Seriously, if 55-75 degrees is too cold for you, I wonder how you survive the brutal winters of the NE. I'm genuinely curious. I don't think SF's weather is spectacular or anything, but people who live in the NE shouldn't throw stones about weather. I actually grew up on the East Coast, and the weather pretty much anywhere in California (with a few remote exceptions) on almost any given day is far more pleasant than the handful of 'nice' days you get back East.
And finally, yes SF does have crime, drugs, graft, what have you. It's crime rate is on par with most large cities in America. Last I heard, Boston had a huge problem with heroin, so I wouldn't exactly call it the safest city in America. After living there a while, you probably have some street smarts and common sense and know which areas to avoid- probably just like the people in SF do.
As I stated before, it's fine to have your own opinions about SF. But when you rag on the city for having 'touristy' neighborhoods and then rattle off three extremely popular bars that anyone with access to Yelp knows about, I had to laugh. I don't really care if you want to live in SF or not. I just thought it made you sound like a clueless tourist- the very same people that would make SF so unliveable for you.
I wouldn't put too much stock into what zbell says. Upon closer inspection of an earlier post, I found these gems, filled with either outright lies, inaccuracies, or opinions stated at truths:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbell
The night life in SF is tourist oriented. That's the thing. They do rate high in restaurants per capita, so does Boston. But when you spend a lot of time there, most of it is really not stuff you want to do when you are a local or with locals. Sure there are tons of overpriced places to go, packed with fanny-pack wearing tourists ... but it's not hip. Trust me. Boston, and specifically Cambridge/Somerville are much hipper and funner. Both are top ten, for sure, but Boston has SF beat for coolness ... to "tap into" the Berkeley thing, you are really travelling far outside of SF. SF is full of yuppies and homeless ... not so cool.
.
I didn't realize Berkeley was 'really far outside SF'. It's about a 20-25 minute BART ride or 20 min drive the last time I checked. Also, I didn't know that tourists brought their fanny packs to hip bars like Bourbon and Branch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbell
Boston and SF are really close to nature. Both have an impressive night life.I would have to say, though, that the skiing is much better in New England. To ski, to really ski, you have to drive for the better part of a day or fly from SF. In Boston, you are a few hours from literally world class skiing in NH, Maine, and Vermont.
Funny, but I've never flown from SF to Tahoe. I've driven there plenty of times and it's about a 4 hour drive. I'm also wondering where in Maine, NH, and Vermont is better than Squaw Valley, Heavenly, or Kirkwood?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbell
In Boston you are right near Montreal, New York, Philly, Providence, and Washington DC. As I really cannot recommend SoCal for a visit, and the cities around SF are kind of lame (Berkeley not included) it's not even a competition really.
Montreal= 5 hours from Boston
NYC= 4 hours from Boston
Philly= 5 hours from Boston
DC= 7 hours from Boston
Last time I checked, LA is about a 5.5 hour drive, but I guess the second largest city in the US is 'lame'. Same with Oakland (15-20 mins), San Jose (1 hour), Napa/Sonoma (1 hour), Sacramento (2 hours), Monterrey (2.5 hours).
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbell
Boston and SF are great cities for foodies and both are surrounded by foodie places.I'd have to give the edge to Boston, though, because it's actually within an hour of these other places, whereas those others cities are quite far from SF, not including wine country, which is great.
Funny, but I'm pretty sure Alice Waters and Chez Panisse (soooooo far from SF in Berkeley) revolutionized the local/organic/sustainable restaurant movement that eventually spread to the rest of the country in the form of local farmers markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbell
Boston in particular, and the greater New England area in general are pretty much the cream of the crop for CSA and farmers markets. There are literally hundreds in the Boston area. And no, they don't grow year round produce in Northern California either. They also have things "shipped in" from SoCal in the winter too ... I've been there. Don't fall for the bait and switch ... they aren't growing things in the winter ... that's SoCal ... which is almost as far away from SF as Georgia and Florida are from Boston.
Wow! I also didn't know that SoCal was 17 hours away from SF- which is about how far Boston is from the Georgia/Florida border. I was also unaware that NorCal became entirely barren and incapable of yielding crops in the winter. So glad SoCal is a 17 hour drive OR can get our produce flown in!
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbell
SF get's the slight nod for fine dining, Boston taking a few points for local gastro-pub type places that are all the rage on the East Coast.
Pretty sure this one is 100% bs, but I could always be wrong!
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbell
Boston is the most sports obsessed city in America, in the most sports obsessed region. The Northeast corridor is great for rivalries and sports bars in general.
Wow! I also didn't know that the Giants, A's, Sharks, 49ers, and Warriors playoff appearances this past year didn't count...
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbell
Both have good nightlife ... but Boston has more quirky fun bars.
I'd love to see some hard data on this one. SF must have lost its reputation for being weird and quirky recently!
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbell
Please, also, I've tried the SF thing. Don't get lured in by talk of nice weather.It rains ... like all the time .. it rains. Almost every day. Yes, the winters are only in the low 40s as opposed to low 30s, but the summers are in the mid-50s quite often and wet. Imagine a summer free life with cloud cover?
I was also unaware that it rained every single day in SF and that winters in Boston were only 10 degrees cooler than SF! I also didn't know that it rained in SF during the summer, so I'm wondering why the hills have turned from green to brown recently?
For what it's worth, I moved hear for the weather but I know this puts me at odds with what most people consider "good weather"
The weather in SF is generally good. Except for in the summer. Summer weather is chilly because expect it to be hot and toasty. Reality is cool or mild. So you will never wear shorts, other than the 5 super warm 80 degree days. You will need a sweater in the evenings, it is rarely warm at night in any part if the day although some areas do get proper summer warmth.
There can be no real winner here. I'm glad our great country has cities with character on both sides and people enjoy life in both places. Sure, some of us prefer one over the other but so what? There's no real way to judge if you will like to live in a city other than going there, checking it out, and speaking to as many people as possible when you are there. Even then, you can make it mistake. It's fun to discuss though��
����
As for the weather, only the western 1/3 of the City (you mention West Portal) really experiences what you are talking about and it's marine layer, not rain. It's 50s and humid, to be sure, but it doesn't really fall in droplets. On most days in the summer, it burns off by 10:30 am and doesn't return until about 7:30 in the evening.
You are misleading people. The fog burns of east of twin peaks by noon. West of twin peaks the fog usually doesn't go away at all in summer from Mid June- mid september. You will see sun on average once every 2 weeks or so. West of twin peaks you have pretty much rain season and fog season and probably about 15 days of nice weather in a whole year.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,135,780 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyadhi01
You are misleading people. The fog burns of east of twin peaks by noon. West of twin peaks the fog usually doesn't go away at all in summer from Mid June- mid september. You will see sun on average once every 2 weeks or so. West of twin peaks you have pretty much rain season and fog season and probably about 15 days of nice weather in a whole year.
Dude, I'm sorry you hate your life and you never leave the Sunset. I wear shorts in warm, sunny upper 60s and 70s all summer long in Russian Hill. There are odd foggy days when it's too cold, sure. Evenings, in summer, it is usually jeans weather. But 90% of summer days are completely free of clouds in my section of the City. In the sun, it is warm and spectacular. I have the sunburn to prove it and I didn't leave the City for 4th of July.
Then, in October, Indian Summer comes and the temps go up to the upper 70s and 80s IN SAN FRANCISCO for a month or two, depending on weather systems.
You picked a crappy place for someone who doesn't like fog. Why not move? There are plenty of places within about a 30-minute drive or ride on transit where the temps are in the 80s and 90s almost all summer long.
i wouldn't put too much stock into what zbell says. Upon closer inspection of an earlier post, i found these gems, filled with either outright lies, inaccuracies, or opinions stated at truths:
i didn't realize berkeley was 'really far outside sf'. It's about a 20-25 minute bart ride or 20 min drive the last time i checked. Also, i didn't know that tourists brought their fanny packs to hip bars like bourbon and branch.
actually i cited b&b as a place without many tourists ... Then you blasted me because you said it was a tourist bar. Now you are talking about it no being a tourist bar. Ok.
Hmm. It's a train (not subway) ride over a giant bridge. For a night out, by someone who wants to cab or take a train it's not really an option, or at least not a good one. Those trains on the bart run every 20 if they are on time o the weekends, and last train is at midnight. I've actually done this the one time i visited berkeley. If you want to get back, you are closing your tab out at 11:00 or 11:15 to make the train.
No,they don't but you are being argumentative for the sake of it and missing the point. Places like ... Columbus ave, all over north beach too, so doesn't the half of the castro near twin peaks bar, the mission dolores part of the mission, haight st, etc. That doesn't mean there aren't cool local things to do ... Just take it at face value ... There are a lot of store fronts that someone wouldn't want to go into as a local unless they had a high tolerance for tourists.
The alembic, magnolia, hobson's choice, for instance. Three places i *have* had drinks at were all mostly tourists -- especially magnolia. None of them were "bad" per se. But if i *lived* there ... I simply wouldn't go to them, because they would never feel like a bar of my own or a community space.
Don't take it personally, really. I'm not attacking you ... Or sf (even though you seem to be from oakland so i don't know why you are taking this so personally).
But when i moved to new orleans i knew there would be tourists ... But it wears you down. Boston has about 5.8 bars per 10,000 residents, sf 6.0, new orleans a staggering 8.6. Living here, living there, and having a good amount of experience i can say a few things. In new orleans, the vast majority of those bars are not places locals actually go. They are crammed in around bourbon st, some are bars hat swing between tourists/locals around frenchman or out on st charles.
In sf a lot of the bars are in heavily touristed areas and would feel alien to me if i lived there very long. It's not quite as bad as nola, but it's a notable feature ... Sf gets millions of visitors every year. It's good and bad ... For some people it won't matter, for others it might matter less, for me (and coming from my experience in a tourism hub) it has a big impact.
It's not that there aren't bars in boston that are touristy. I mean really, cheers (go figure), the green dragon, the union oyster house, the black rose. But they are pretty easy to spot and they don't take up whole main streets in different areas.
If someone were to ask me about the cape, one of the first things i would say is it's great, but there are a ton of tourists. If you are vacationing, here is a mellow place with some inns, if you want to live there, avoid these communities that are over-run with fanny pack wearing tourists.
funny, but i've never flown from sf to tahoe. I've driven there plenty of times and it's about a 4 hour drive. I'm also wondering where in maine, nh, and vermont is better than squaw valley, heavenly, or kirkwood?
oh my my. Stowe, sugarloaf, sugarbush, killington, tuckermans, north conway, bretton woods nh where they hold g8 summits ... Shall i continue??? Smuggler's notch, cannon, wildcat, stratton, loon. Almost every one of these has been named top-10 skiing destinations in the world at one point or another for one aspect or another (resorts, verticals, snow quality/quantity, grade). What you don't know is really surprising when you've never been to a place or really even read about it. New england is literally one of the globe's skiing capitals.
It doesn't mean that there isn't skiing near sf ... But really ... This other guy started a response that said there was nothing to do around boston, and gave sf points for skiing. He is the guy you should be ragging on right now, not me.
Give me a break.
Montreal= 5 hours from boston
nyc= 4 hours from boston
philly= 5 hours from boston
dc= 7 hours from boston
last time i checked, la is about a 5.5 hour drive, but i guess the second largest city in the us is 'lame'. Same with oakland (15-20 mins), san jose (1 hour), napa/sonoma (1 hour), sacramento (2 hours), monterrey (2.5 hours).
Monterrey is a town ... But if we are talking about towns ... Hyannis, martha's vineyard, trouro, chatham, provincetown, portsmouth, portland, kennebunkport, i mean towns lined with mansions they are in such a nice part of the country. Vermont valleys to cities like burlington, pastoral western massachusetts and connecticut (places so pretty norman rockwell built his career off of them). Upstate ny.
But imo for the op ... Yeah. San jose = lame. Sacramento = lame. These aren't fun cities. They are not like sf, they are like big strip malls. Oakland is ok, but it's not a destination, it's part of the bay and i count it in the sf area like berkeley.
But in reality ... How often do sf guys say ... I'm going to the vibrant capital of san jose ... Really ... Be honest. San jose has a lot going for it if you want a job in the tech sector, sure. It's not pretty like sf or boston, it doesn't have history, culture. Google it if you haven't been (i have). It looks like anywherewest, usa. Or google san jose tourism ... Where you find articles about the fact that that city cannot attract tourists at all (the inverse of sf).
Why, in heaven, would you go to sf?
You can't really be comparing these to montreal, washington dc, and philadelphia, major cities, world cities with major metros and world history, right?
Yeah, l.a. Is 6 hours away (driven it) without l.a. Traffic (get ready for that). And no ... It doesn't hold a candle to nyc. Not on it's best day and nyc's worst. But again ... I'm not a fan of cities that sprawl like that. I like compact historical cities like sf or boston. Not plastic-fantastic places where every looks like a strip mall.
funny, but i'm pretty sure alice waters and chez panisse (soooooo far from sf in berkeley) revolutionized the local/organic/sustainable restaurant movement that eventually spread to the rest of the country in the form of local farmers markets.
and yet ... Sf is behind boston in farmers markets per capita 29.6 to 21.8 per million, and that doesn't even count cambridge, brookline, and somerville. These are stats op, btw, not anecdotal comments.
Here is the secret ... New england didn't need a 'farmers market revolution' from chez panisse the way california, texas and the heartland did. Mass agro-capitalism never really reduced the area. I grew up getting corn and strawberries by the beach at local farmers markets that were always there before chez panisse existed. Apples, cheese, etcetera.
Farmers markets? It's called how people shopped for food new england when sf was a few guys panning for gold, and the carmel valley was a depression era mas farm cranking out tons of lettuce and places around there were basically growing mass market food for canning and shipping.
Yes, chez panisse is legendary, but it was a fine dining revolution, not a farmers market revolution. Locavorism is a thing that is separate. I mean, really, the fanieul hall market is a farmers market that has been essentially continuously operated (outside of renovations to the buildings) since 1824. I think sf was a few dilapidated churches at that time.
wow! I also didn't know that socal was 17 hours away from sf- which is about how far boston is from the georgia/florida border. I was also unaware that norcal became entirely barren and incapable of yielding crops in the winter. So glad socal is a 17 hour drive or can get our produce flown in!
they aren't growing things in norcal in the winter man ... I've been there. I have a friends who are cooks/chefs in st helena and carmel ... I've been there ... They aren't. Go down to salinas where the weather is in the 30s ... They aren't ... You are making stuff up.
I live in louisiana (you might have heard of it) it's quite a bit warmer in climate down here than the bay area (just a little, hehe) they aren't growing things here in the winter. California has things that are year round but they are a lot farther than l.a.
And flying in is a euphamism. No one is flying fruit around the stats. You put them on refrigerated box cars and ship them because most of it is a few days direct-freight away. The point being ... The places on the east coast that have a year round growing climate are as accesible to markets up north (day train ride) as the places on the west coast , and sf is not south of san diego where there a few things actually growing in the winter.
wow! I also didn't know that the giants, a's, sharks, 49ers, and warriors playoff appearances this past year didn't count...
well, for one ... Boston, just boston (not san jose + sf + oakland) has 34 championships ... It would pretty much take la + sf + san jose + oakland + anaheim + san diego to top that with 35. Basically boston owns the entire state of california as a sport scene. Really, in the last decade alone you are talking about 12 championship appearances with 7 championships. In the last decade alone that is as many championships as sf has won *ever.*
but it's really about this ... The red sox ... In a year where they traded away two of their best players for draft picks and pretty much consigned themselves to a rebuilding season sold 105% of their tickets ... The year after the giants won their world series they sold 90% of their tickets. It was the same year.
It's really not even a competition, in fact, i don't know why i'm even having the conversation.
i'd love to see some hard data on this one. Sf must have lost its reputation for being weird and quirky recently!
well, here is some hard data. The average age in sf is 38.5 ... The average age in the college town berkeley is 36.6, and in boston it's 31.2, and it gets into the high 20's if you go over to cammy. You've never even been to boston, so please you can't really comment.
It makes a difference. It's like being in williamsburg or south manhattan. When there are young people going to bars, and young entrepreneurs it makes for a more lively scene. Sf isn't bad by a mile stretch ... But i'd give boston points for youth factor, and hip factor over sf, especially in cambridge/somerville areas of greater boston.
I was also unaware that it rained every single day in sf and that winters in boston were only 10 degrees cooler than sf! I also didn't know that it rained in sf during the summer, so i'm wondering why the hills have turned from green to brown recently?
Well, anyone watching the thread can look beneath your post and see the comments from other people who live in the bay talking about fog. It's the same as rain. You are cold, you are damp. The average temperature in boston in january i found was 27 and in sf it was 43. My guess was just off hand thinking it was about 30 each day in boston. Sue me, the extra couple degree is really a mountain. ~15 degrees, to the average person, is't going to make a mountain of difference because you are dressed for cold either way.
On the back swing ... The average summer temps are mid 60s in sf and low 80s in boston ... Boston gets mid 60s in october/november and april/may.
There is a big difference there: In one you have to wear a jacket and pants. In the other, it's summer. Shorts, sunlight, etc.
My point is, to the op, the sf guys on this thread make it seem like your choice is winter or no winter, and it's sheer boosterism ... Coming from my perspective it's 'do you value a real summer.'
if someone asked me about boston i'd give them an honest account foibles and all. It's not a perfect city by any means. No city is.
But i have to note this: As everyone can see my handle is changed. Banned after what, five or six posts. Obvisouly oakland here or caldale or both are basically tryign to bang away to the moderators to stifle an opinion they don't like. It's not right.
I've been pretty polite. I haven't cursed. (unlike some others in this thread). I have an opinion, most of it backed fact some of it by experience. And it's a pretty fair assessment. Sf is agreat town, with a few things that bother me that the op should know about in my opinion.
So please leave off the complaint button, i didn't insult you in any way.
And as evidenced by the thread from *actual bay area people about cold and fog and damp" i've pointed out something about the city that is worth mentioning. Telling someone you get year round warm weather, when to many people it's more like year round cool to cold weather with a heavy dose of damp fog misting that is like rain is not really a fair assessment and could result in someone going somewhere and then not actually liking it.
If people think 75-80 is bad weather (who really does) then the sf summer could be a feature. It is really mild and cool in the mid 60s. The fog is really pretty when you are viewing it from above on one of the hills too. But i consider that spring weather, and a drag if it's going to be all year and you don't get a warm summer.
Yeah, so no snow in sf ... But at what cost? No real summer of course. People should know that.
I wouldn't sit here and say boston doesn't get "snow" ... Yeah it's cold ... It's also really, really pretty. And in a couple months it's over and you get nice cool springs with (yeah) spring rain if you can't tolerate rain at all, and cool dry autumns with the best foliage in the country, both without daily fog and a great warm sunny summer.
So again to summarize:
Both cities are great but in response to the guy on page one of the thread:
Things around the city -
natural stuff, depends on what you are into, but boston has better swimming beaches, though the rugged mountains are a little bit farther away (hour and a half).
Urban stuff: Boston and it's not really close. Sf is amazing. The cities outside the bay area (by bay area i mean sf/berk/oak) are not nearly as big, fun or interesting, outside of l.a. Which is big but not my definition of pretty at all. San jose? Sacramento? Really? I'll counter boring cities with boring cities like stamford ct, hartford, ct, worcester, ma. Jersey city.
Urban safety: Boston again.
Food; both are great ... Boston is a more a pub culture, it's an irish town, and has a host of great gastro-pubs. Sf has some good ones too, but a handful of them are really in tourist areas and wouldn't be great for me for a night out as a real resident. Sf gets the edge in fine dining as they do have that down pat, not that you can't get boatloads of $200 a plate restaurants in boston, but there are a few more in sf.
Weather: I'd take boston ... Maybe you like sf ... But it's not sunny and warm year round.
Farmers markets: Both are great for it the statistical edge goes to boston but you'll hardly go without in either city (what are you going to visit six or seven different fms a week?)... But unlike the guy on page one said ... You aren't growing year round produce in the bay sorry it's a fiction.
Seafood: Puleeeeease .. Boston is usually rated #1 in the nation on polls, and the sheer bounty is basically unmatched. Sf is good ... But if seafood is really, really this guy's thing ... Look no further than that hub.
Sports: Again ... The east coast (factually) is the best sports market in the states. The west coast in general lags here. It's a valid cultural difference the same way that i wouldn't compare college sports enthusiasm with the deep south and texas, i wouldn't compare pro-sports enthusiasm with the east coast in general, let alone boston which is the most sports-obsessed city in the states. This might be a turnoff for some people. I know people who moved around boston to quieter areas in the city to avoid the sports madness in sections. But not this guy who asked about sports and said he loves them.
He sounds more like a bostonian to me. Finance, beaches, seafood, big sports fan? That"s boston!
If he came in hear and was like "i'm an avid oenophile who loves to tour vineyards often, i surf, and i'm looking to start a tech company" i wouldn't be here arguing that boston is the *best* place for him.
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.
well
