New York Magazine: Is San Francisco New York? (San Jose, Oakland: renting, neighborhood)

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Actually, it sounds pretty accurate to me. SF has the inferiority complex, not NYC. I love both cities, but it's pretty obvious SF is trying to Manhattanize. SF is a wonderful city, but it will probably never be on NYC's level of global importance, no matter how hard it tries.

There's not even a hint of an inferiority complex in SF. If anything, it's the opposite. SF is often overly impressed with itself.

That said, there's no "Manhattanization" going on that I can see. SF is too inwardly-focused. It seems to go to great lengths to offer a self-conscious counterpoint to NYC (and really LA). I never get the sense it is trying to become NYC. I do see it trying desperately to recapture bits of its past that have been lost in the exodus of natives.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by Deezus

Also if SF is comparable to 80s Manhattan, what is the current drug of choice, because I heard cocaine had fallen out of favor again since the last decade... Or do people just get their rocks off trading bitcoins these days?

Rx pills, especially if you're homeless in SF.

[ttocs99]

Originally Posted by West Coast Republican

I don't know, I've never been to New York City, I don't think they have much in common other than being huge world class cities.

San Francisco has lots of hills and mountain views, it's a perfect blend of urban and Nature in one. NYC I've been told has no such natural beauty aside from some man made parks dotted throughout the city. The cultures are probably quite different too, but overall you'll find people from all beliefs and walks of life in any large city. Both are culturally diverse, but I'm not sure what city has more.

I think NYC would be cool to visit but wouldn't want to live there. The winters are way too harsh in the Northeast. San Francisco has great weather aside from the fog in the mornings, .

I was born and raised in NY, lived there from 1962-1999, then lived in the Bay Area (lived in Walnut Creek, worked in SF) from 1999-2006. NY is so crowded and hectic and crazy, I absolutely hate living here again. SF won my heart, I can't wait to move back to the Bay Area. I prefer everything about SF to NY, except Pizza and bagels, lol. The only times I'm truly happy, is when I'm in the SF Bay Area (every 2 years on vacation until I move back). I love everything about it. I hate the long, harsh, dreary NY winters. Hate how crowded NY is, how people will literally walk right into you like you aren't there. Then you have the long hot HUMID NY Summers. I only moved back in 2006, because I was going through a divorce and needed the support system of my family. Now I'm kinda stuck due to elderly parents whom I love dearly, and a nephew who is very attached. Otherwise I'd be living in the Bay Area in a heart beat, I plan on retiring there, and spending my retirement life in my favorite city (SF Bay Area really). It's beauty, and way of life just won me over when I lived there. My version of Heaven is a day spent in Napa or Sausalito

[sav858]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

There's not even a hint of an inferiority complex in SF. If anything, it's the opposite. SF is often overly impressed with itself.

Sometimes I can't decide whether its an inferiority or superiority complex with SF, either way it's had a complex lol.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Deezus

Also if SF is comparable to 80s Manhattan, what is the current drug of choice, because I heard cocaine had fallen out of favor again since the last decade... Or do people just get their rocks off trading bitcoins these days?

Buying an 8-ball with bitcoins....now that would be very SF lol.

[MikeNigh]

San Fran would be the next NYC over night if it simply improved it's public transportation.

[lrmsd]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I think people need to stop pretending SF is the same city that became famous back in the 1960s.

SO TRUE. It's not even the same place it was when the SV had the initial boom in the mid-late 90's [naturally it's not the same]. I mean, it was pricey and rental occupancy was high, but it wasn't the same landscape in terms of people, mindset or cost, that it is today. Still a beautiful city though.

Anyway, what SFO and the larger bay area helped to pioneer, has now morphed into consumer trends that are found in nearly every city and many small towns across the country now...it's not really alternative now, though it is a watered down version of the original, packaged for consumption. IMHO, of course.

[lrmsd]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Actually, it sounds pretty accurate to me. SF has the inferiority complex, not NYC. I love both cities, but it's pretty obvious SF is trying to Manhattanize. SF is a wonderful city, but it will probably never be on NYC's level of global importance, no matter how hard it tries.

But SFO is also a world renowned city and destination spot in its own right, regardless of 'how important' it is relative to NYC in terms of certain industries. That's where it becomes apples and oranges, in my view. SFO has 800k people, for goodness sake! How could one even compare them? NYC thinks that everyone wants to be it or strives to be it. And NYC thinks that it, as the natural center of the universe, sets the litmus test for criteria used to determine whether or not a place is 'of importance'. LOL.

I do agree with others' opinions that SFO thinks a bit too highly of itself; I find it very pretentious. But I don't think it's trying to Manhattanize itself whatsoever. Not intentionally or inherently, anyway.

I am originally from the NE, currently in so cal, FWIW.
I actually have zero interest in ever visiting NYC again-it does nothing for me. I've been a few times, lucky tov visit folks living there and see lots of great stuff, not major touristy only, etc. But the world really doesn't revolve around NYC, anymore than it revolves around DC [another place of inflated self importance]. I understand and agree that what NYC offers cannot be found elsewhere. That's okay with me, b/c I'm not interested regardless.

I just find it silly to compare SFO with NYC in terms of, well, anything. If anything, compare LA and NYC, though even that is about half the size, both metro and city wise. San Francisco has 800k+ people. NYC has 8 million in the city alone. LA 4 million. NY is the largest metro in the USA with almost 20 million people. People on this forum often compare SFO to Boston, and that is a much more reasonable comparison.

What is telling is that opinions such as yours show that people *do* think of SFO in the same breath as NYC, enough to discount its comparison. 'How does SFO compare to NYC' is fairly common to ask, for example. SFO, LA, NYC are often discussed and contrasted in the same sentence, sometimes Chicago is added. Next would be san diego, Miami, seattle, denver etc, and so on. The fact that SFO comes to mind so readily (and despite being a fraction of the size of the other two) shows its standing, IMO. It would never need to be Manhattan; it already has stature.

SFO, like NYC and LA, is not busy *trying* to be anything else. It is not the least concerned with that type of striving. I do think it is morphing as we speak and is not sure what its identity will be, as it has largely rested on its counter culture, free spirited reputation. It will continue as a tourist destination, for obvious reasons. Sonoma, Napa, Marin, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley-they are all big draws. And it will continue to be a global destination, regardless of how important it is or isn't as a financial or higher education center of the US/world. I do think that SFO creates trends; NYC seems to get miffed about that, b/c it is the bigger player and used to being the head honcho.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by lrmsd

[/b][/u]


Anyway, what SFO and the larger bay area helped to pioneer, has now morphed into consumer trends that are found in nearly every city and many small towns across the country now...it's not really alternative now, though it is a watered down version of the original, packaged for consumption. IMHO, of course.

This has been happening for decades. Places like SF, NYC, and LA set trends that are eventually adopted across the country and across the world. The recent trend has been how quickly trends are disseminated. That is also San Francisco in its origins. Soon, many like you will bemoan again how many places nationwide have taken on SF's characteristics and SF is no longer on that vanguard. By then, it'll be on to something else.

[lrmsd]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

There's not even a hint of an inferiority complex in SF. If anything, it's the opposite. SF is often overly impressed with itself.

That said, there's no "Manhattanization" going on that I can see. SF is too inwardly-focused. It seems to go to great lengths to offer a self-conscious counterpoint to NYC (and really LA). I never get the sense it is trying to become NYC. I do see it trying desperately to recapture bits of its past that have been lost in the exodus of natives.

Not really. It may seem that way now, but SFO was the counter culture epicenter. People mock that now-but it is huge in terms of impact on popular culture, lifestyles, etc. And Berkeley was its east bay counterpart. SFO has had no need to contrive a self conscious image. It WAS that very thing in real life. LOL. Nobody in the 60's or 70's was saying 'oh, man, we should try to be offer something totally different than LA'. There was so much happening in LA, too-Topanga Canyon, etc. but the movements that came out of the bay area, not just hippies and beat poets but alternative medicine, organics, farm to table, artisan, etc. have greatly influenced the entire country. And that is not a recent 'counterpoint' to LA. SFO naturally was this counterpoint, through just doing its San Francisco thing.

Though, I am wondering with the new influx of residents in SFO and the departure of long term natives, how much the 'inferior or superiority complex' has become a reality now? I could see a bunch of young professionals thinking they are cream of the crop b/c they are there working in SFO's hey dey of tech, on the front line...and having no real clue about SFO's history and self image. But, c'est la vie, b/c this latest wave will create the new impression of the city. I just know too many natives [some very old, too-when the Mission was Irish and working class, for example] and other leftover relics from the 1960's, to know that there is no way it was trying to create anything relative to LA or NYC. And, haight ashbury anyone? SFO doesn't need to follow Manhattan's drug trend, unfortunately. It's got a home grown one and has for decades plus. And Italians actually lived in North Beach; fisherman fished off the wharf.

As always, just my .02