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 am a young adult male looking to find a home for my young adult life. I've lived in the suburbs of Houston my whole life, so I don't really know what to expect if I were to move to the actual city area in a big city. After looking into it, I've narrowed my search down to these 3 cities. My question is, Which of these cities should i move to, or do you think i should move to another city entirely?
Important factors/things about me:
-must be near an ocean. i enjoy fresh seafood and occasional fishing trips.
-good night life
-relatively low crime, however i understand all cities have some crime
-lots of things to do
-my profession is finance
-must have good food and restaurants
-fresh produce/farmers markets
-i am neither liberal nor conservative - both have major flaws in my opinion
-i am ready for a change in style of living
-i love to watch sports
-i am single
-some parks and areas to exercise would be great
-id like to own a dog sometime
-im single
These are the main factors of importance to me. There may be more but i can't think of it right now. I also understand that the cost of living in San Francisco would be much higher, as would Boston's, than in Houston, but i'm sure i would receive a higher salary to compensate for that, so cost of living isn't too big of a concern. So knowing what's important to me, should i move to SF or Boston, is the lifestyle change worth it considering higher costs? or am i better off just relocating to more urban Houston?
Berkeley/North Oakland. Perfect weather, more affordable rent than SF, lots of fresh produce shops, locally-grown food markets, easy drive to the ocean (lots of choices for ocean), easy commute via transit to SF for work, parks galore, great restaurants ("Gourmet Ghetto" in Berkeley, among many areas to choose from), tons of stuff to do, including lots of great free stuff on weekends. Fishing in the Bay or on the ocean, as you wish, and some regional lakes. REDWOODS! Good nightlife, great entertainment in gen'l. Topnotch museums in SF, good local museums in Oakland/Berkeley. Low utility bills: barely any need for heating or cooling.
Boston: freezing cold in winter, hot & humid in the summer, prone to fierce snowstorms. Both Bay Area & Boston have highly-educated population. Lots of fresh seafood, like the SF area. No redwoods. High heating bills. Higher gasoline prices. Not sure about locally-grown produce, etc., but a subtropical paradise, MA is not. Probably higher prices for produce. Probably decent nightlife, I wouldn't know.
I've lived in both SF and Boston. Biggest difference by far is climate. While Boston will be cold, it ll have a better summer if you are insisting on living right in the city. If not, just outside SF cannot be beat weather wise. Seafood wise Boston is better. Sports wise Boston is a way better sports town. San Franciscans will jump on the bandwagon when a local team is winning, but rooting for the locals is in the blood of New Englanders. I would think finance opportunities would be greater in Boston. There's a fair amount of people who have fled NYC to work in Boston. Boston is cheaper, even with heating costs. IMO, it's all about how you feel about winter. If you like it or even can just ignore it, go for Boston. If it's a burden, head for SF.
I've also lived in Boston, San Francisco and just recently came to Houston. Contrary to the other views exposed here, I loved Boston and wasn't crazy about SF. Interestingly, the San Francisco is often called the Boston of the West (or I suppose some may say it vice-versa). While SF is currently on top in terms of being the high tech mecca, Boston's tech corridor is still strong and MIT and the other feeder schools aren't going anywhere.
Boston has beautiful architecture, think Brownstones, Charlestown, Newbury Street. I can't stand the Victorian homes, which is the "best" that SF has to offer architecturally. In fact, other than the bridges, the City of SF is ugly in most places. The houses especially. Just thinking about all the negative feedback I'll get on this one. Just my opinion. If you can't get to check out each city in person to judge for yourself, do as much research as you can especially trying to see how different the two cities LOOK.
I also think Boston has the better bar/club scene. SF is more of an outdoorsy kind of place. I admit though that I was in Boston at an earlier juncture in life so it may just be my bias as I saw more of the club scene in Boston that SF.
Yes, San Fran has all the eco-conscious organic markets and stuff, but if that is not up your alley, there is nothing that San Francisco has that you can't find in Boston. You can get into New York on the train for a weekend jaunt or go skiing in Vermont etc. . SF also has a lot to offer outside the City, but City-wise I'd pick Boston any day.
BTW, there are many finance jobs in SF and Boston. SF has venture capital firms. Boston has mutual funds. You haven't really told us what you do in Finance but unless it is very specialized, I think with a good education and first job experience you will be fine in either city. I do think though it is naive to think that the salary offset will put you even where you are today for buying power, certainly not in the Bay Area, but probably not in Boston either.
I also do think it is important to think about which city you would prefer to be in long-term. You never know, you could meet your significant other in your new town and I think it is more likely you will settle where you are for awhile. SF is not an easy place to have a family due to the high COL. If we weren't comparing it to the Bay Area, however, I would say that Boston is an expensive place.
Another observation, SF is very Asian, mostly Chinese in the City itself. Also, Boston is not as diverse as Houston. In Boston, you will come across lots of folks in academia while in SF it will be a lot of tech. You'll have to judge how these factors play for you.
Sports is certainly a passion and very long-standing tradition in Boston. Yet, having been in SF when the Giants won two pennants, SF has has plenty of sports fans and high caliber teams, think Sharks.
I'm not sure I've been helpful but I do know that these are both great cities for a young professional to have opportunities and be among a well-educated cohort.
Location: Central Bay Area, CA as of Jan 2010...but still a proud Texan from Houston!
7,484 posts, read 10,447,145 times
Reputation: 8955
Quote:
Originally Posted by htown96
I am a young adult male looking to find a home for my young adult life. I've lived in the suburbs of Houston my whole life, so I don't really know what to expect if I were to move to the actual city area in a big city. After looking into it, I've narrowed my search down to these 3 cities. My question is, Which of these cities should i move to, or do you think i should move to another city entirely?
Important factors/things about me:
-must be near an ocean. i enjoy fresh seafood and occasional fishing trips.
-good night life
-relatively low crime, however i understand all cities have some crime
-lots of things to do
-my profession is finance
-must have good food and restaurants
-fresh produce/farmers markets
-i am neither liberal nor conservative - both have major flaws in my opinion
-i am ready for a change in style of living
-i love to watch sports
-i am single
-some parks and areas to exercise would be great
-id like to own a dog sometime
-im single
These are the main factors of importance to me. There may be more but i can't think of it right now. I also understand that the cost of living in San Francisco would be much higher, as would Boston's, than in Houston, but i'm sure i would receive a higher salary to compensate for that, so cost of living isn't too big of a concern. So knowing what's important to me, should i move to SF or Boston, is the lifestyle change worth it considering higher costs? or am i better off just relocating to more urban Houston?
Thanks for responses!
Can't speak for living in Boston but I can for living in SF. Believe it or not Houston has a much better food scene than SF. You will not find SF to be all that impressive of a place to live unless you like throwing your money away to have a comparable lifestyle to that of Houston. First you will not find modern places to rent. We are very spoiled in Houston when it comes to renting a nice place to live. Just do a quick search on SF craigslist to get a good idea of what I am talking about.
If I had to choose between living in SF or Houston I would take Houston hands down. By all means move closer in. I lived inside the loop for most of my life in Houston and I loved it! Can't imagine living in the burbs of Houston.
I have nothing against SF. I love the city but I would never consider living there. It is not a warm and fuzzy place to live IMO. Very filthy compared to Houston's downtown area. Much higher observable homeless rate and drug infestation issue than what you will find in Houston.
I moved here 3 years ago and love love love where I live. But do some serious research and spend some time in SF before making the move.
San Francisco. Everyone I meet from Boston wants to move here. I have never met anyone in the Bay Area who wants to move to Boston. And I understand. Once you get used to the city, 14,000 ft mountains, high quality wine, local produce, etc etc it is very hard to move anywhere. Also, if you get a finance job in a tech company, you literally cannot move anywhere. The flat organization, dress down culture, innovation spirit, free food, campus like offices, collegial and collaborative work environment is unmatched. The work culture extends to finance departments in tech companies as well.San Francisco is home to WWDC, I/O, F8. Also, has Giants, 49ers. etc.
I've also lived in Boston, San Francisco and just recently came to Houston. Contrary to the other views exposed here, I loved Boston and wasn't crazy about SF. Interestingly, the San Francisco is often called the Boston of the West (or I suppose some may say it vice-versa). While SF is currently on top in terms of being the high tech mecca, Boston's tech corridor is still strong and MIT and the other feeder schools aren't going anywhere.
Boston has beautiful architecture, think Brownstones, Charlestown, Newbury Street. I can't stand the Victorian homes, which is the "best" that SF has to offer architecturally. In fact, other than the bridges, the City of SF is ugly in most places. The houses especially. Just thinking about all the negative feedback I'll get on this one. Just my opinion. If you can't get to check out each city in person to judge for yourself, do as much research as you can especially trying to see how different the two cities LOOK.
I also think Boston has the better bar/club scene. SF is more of an outdoorsy kind of place. I admit though that I was in Boston at an earlier juncture in life so it may just be my bias as I saw more of the club scene in Boston that SF.
Yes, San Fran has all the eco-conscious organic markets and stuff, but if that is not up your alley, there is nothing that San Francisco has that you can't find in Boston. You can get into New York on the train for a weekend jaunt or go skiing in Vermont etc. . SF also has a lot to offer outside the City, but City-wise I'd pick Boston any day.
BTW, there are many finance jobs in SF and Boston. SF has venture capital firms. Boston has mutual funds. You haven't really told us what you do in Finance but unless it is very specialized, I think with a good education and first job experience you will be fine in either city. I do think though it is naive to think that the salary offset will put you even where you are today for buying power, certainly not in the Bay Area, but probably not in Boston either.
I also do think it is important to think about which city you would prefer to be in long-term. You never know, you could meet your significant other in your new town and I think it is more likely you will settle where you are for awhile. SF is not an easy place to have a family due to the high COL. If we weren't comparing it to the Bay Area, however, I would say that Boston is an expensive place.
Another observation, SF is very Asian, mostly Chinese in the City itself. Also, Boston is not as diverse as Houston. In Boston, you will come across lots of folks in academia while in SF it will be a lot of tech. You'll have to judge how these factors play for you.
Sports is certainly a passion and very long-standing tradition in Boston. Yet, having been in SF when the Giants won two pennants, SF has has plenty of sports fans and high caliber teams, think Sharks.
I'm not sure I've been helpful but I do know that these are both great cities for a young professional to have opportunities and be among a well-educated cohort.
Agreed! Boston has beautiful architecture and a far more clean and pleasant place to walk around.
From OP's post I couldn't help thinking of the Inner Sunset District in SF. Maybe the towns of Pacifica or Alameda if he wants something a bit quieter.
A few things to note:
a) owning a dog is extremely tough in the Bay Area, especially in SF. Landlords can afford to be super picky.
b) nobody in the Bay Area really wants to live near or on the beach because it's so windy, foggy and cold. Alameda has a little beach on the bay and is a lot sunnier and warmer.
As for picking SF instead of Houston or Boston, it really depends on whether you can get a good job in SF or not. Rents are insane there now, imo it's not worth it unless you can make a lot of money, and because of this SF is not an interesting or worthwhile place to live anymore, at all. But if you can get an overpaid techie position and are ok with spending a big chunk of change on a tiny dingy apartment, go for it. It's a cool place to live, just overpriced these days. Plus the weather will be way better than Boston or Houston, year-round.
Boston has beautiful architecture, think Brownstones, Charlestown, Newbury Street. I can't stand the Victorian homes, which is the "best" that SF has to offer architecturally. In fact, other than the bridges, the City of SF is ugly in most places. The houses especially. Just thinking about all the negative feedback I'll get on this one. Just my opinion.
I happen to dislike the Victorians for the most part too, but to say that SF is ugly in most places could not be further from the truth. Here are a few (mostly) bridge-less and Victorian-less views of San Francisco that I would not call ugly.
And that's just a few of my own photos. If anything, SF is the most charming city in the US, as you put it, just my opinion.
I am a young adult male looking to find a home for my young adult life. I've lived in the suburbs of Houston my whole life, so I don't really know what to expect if I were to move to the actual city area in a big city. After looking into it, I've narrowed my search down to these 3 cities. My question is, Which of these cities should i move to, or do you think i should move to another city entirely?
Do not go to Boston. That's where we are now, and we could not get out of here fast enough. We've never lived in SF, but we love to visit from LA. Happily, we're headed back to SoCal as I type.
We thought Boston would be the SF of the East, but it just isn't so. The town is great to visit, and it's lots of fun for about 2 weeks in early summer. After that, the Northeastern attitude, cloistered insular society, terrible roads, nasty weather, and lack of interesting nearby destinations (except NYC) starts to get you down. If you're a young hetero (or homo) man, I'd say SF has MANY more prospects than Boston. The people in Boston are generally less attractive than those in NYC, SF, or LA.
Now for your specific factors:
Quote:
-must be near an ocean. i enjoy fresh seafood and occasional fishing trips.
Boston seafood is overrated EXCEPT for Lobster. For a few months out of the year, you can buy about 8 pounds of live (or freshly steamed if you prefer) lobster from the supermarket for about $15. So if you like giant sea cockroaches, Boston is for you. Otherwise the resturant scene in general is pretty poor compared to SF.
Quote:
-good night life
SF hands down. Boston pretty much shuts down around midnight when the T stops running. SF has night owl busses which will whisk you around 24/7. On our visits to SF, we thought nothing of wandering around eating, dancing, and drinking into the wee hours. The city is lively all night long. In Boston it's a chore to find anything open after 1AM. Also, the terrible winter weather is a drag on the club scene for 8 months of the year. Plus, anyone over 24 is considered too old for the party scene, so expect a bunch of college kids and the lack of variety that comes with that sort of scene. The one bright spot is locally brewed craft beers if that's your thing.
Quote:
-relatively low crime, however i understand all cities have some crime
Boston probably has lower crime. It's a very safe city.
Quote:
-lots of things to do
SF by miles and miles and miles. Besides the standard city stuff (bars, clubs, parks, etc.) SF has world-class skiing, surfing, hiking, etc. nearby. Vegas is a long drive or a short flight, same for LA.
Boston has enough interesting things to fill up a month or two. After that, we found ourselves making the bus trip to NYC about once a month just to have something to do on weekends. A lot of Boston-area activities are family-based and the society is pretty insular. So if you don't have family in the area, you can be left out in the cold. The scenery of New England is pretty dull. The coast is flat and swampy, and you can only stare at so many lighthouses, scummy ponds, and old forts before you start to go insane. The hills and skiing nearby are hardly worth the effort compared to Tahoe. The coast of Northern California is gorgeous as well.
Quote:
-my profession is finance
No input. Lots of that in Boston.
Quote:
-must have good food and restaurants
SF. We've given up trying new resutrants in Boston after a long string of disappointments. On the plus side, we've learned to cook some interesting dishes.
Quote:
-fresh produce/farmers markets
SF hands down. Boston has fresh food during the growing season, but everything is chemically ripened and shipped in (from California) for the other 7 months of the year.
Quote:
-i love to watch sports
You will be right at home in Boston.
Quote:
-i am single
SF. There is a decided lack of competition thanks to the rainbow nature of the city.
Quote:
-some parks and areas to exercise would be great
SF. Boston parks are pretty heavily regulated and small. There's lots of running going on, if that's your thing, but the variety of options in SF and the surrounding coast/hills/parks/beaches is better.
Quote:
-id like to own a dog sometime
Can't say which is better.
Quote:
These are the main factors of importance to me. There may be more but i can't think of it right now. I also understand that the cost of living in San Francisco would be much higher, as would Boston's, than in Houston, but i'm sure i would receive a higher salary to compensate for that, so cost of living isn't too big of a concern. So knowing what's important to me, should i move to SF or Boston, is the lifestyle change worth it considering higher costs? or am i better off just relocating to more urban Houston?
I wouldn't even consider Houston. It seems hot, flat, and swampy. I don't know why anyone would put a city in such an awful place. Even though I strongly dislike the city, I'd stay in Boston over Houston.
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.
