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.
Given a choice between NYC, LA or SF (strictly SF, not the broader Bay Area), I'd pick SF, if I could afford it. Better weather (LA gets too hot, unless you're on near the beach), access to great entertainment around the Bay, scenic as hell, REDWOODS nearby, and I'm not the party type, so I don't care if everything shuts down by 1:00 a.m. Lots of good restaurants, parks, museums, BEACH, and a mellower vibe, IMO, than in NYC and LA. NYC and LA are much too big; SF is compact. And did I mention the proximity to the redwoods?
But, to each his/her own. OP, if you want to pay less and put up with sweltering heat/humidity for 4-5 months, and snow, winter storms, power outages, by all means, move to NYC. I'll admit, though, I can see your point as someone who moved to SF to start a career; it feels like you're paying through the nose for rent, and you're trying to figure out what you're getting for your money. To people who have been raised in the Bay Area, the perspective is different. Do what works for you.
Eureka literally has everything you mentioned but the entertainment and since the cost of living is 1/5th as much you can create your own entertainment
Eureka literally has everything you mentioned but the entertainment and since the cost of living is 1/5th as much you can create your own entertainment
No, I can't create my own entertainment; I can't create a great jazz club that attracts top national groups and international groups, I can't create museums, a good film venue, or an annual Native American film festival. And the high-quality entertainment in the Bay Area is half the fun!
You really can't compare SF to the east coast cities, or Chicago, or any cool international city. SF is really really small, and dumpy, with poor architecture. Unless you're passionate about food (especially ethnic food), SF is really nothing special as far as cities go and its grotesquely expensive. The reason that people love SF is not because of the city itself, its because of all the wonderful stuff you can do in the region. There's a ton of stuff. You have to enjoy doing some outdoors stuff to appreciate it all. The problem is there are so many people here now that you can't routinely do the cool stuff in the region because of traffic. In my opinion, traffic has completely and entirely eliminated the compelling reasons to live here. Remember when most people refer to SF they are really referring to the region, not the city itself. But again, its all ruined now because its impossible to get anywhere due to traffic. SF has become the city to leave, not to move to.
Seriously? If you want to see poor architecture, spend some time in Seattle. Or anywhere in the NW. The architecture is one thing I've always loved about SF. Much of the residential architecture has that Mediterranean look, or a modified version of it. And then there are the Victorians. People like SF for the views from the hills, the cable cars, the museums, GG Park, the beach, Chinatown, Russia town (a personal fave), and so much more!
I relocated to SF 6 months ago and I think that this is the most overrated, filthy city in the county. I don't work in tech so for me this place is not worth it at all. SF is like living Seattle lifestyle for Manhattan price (actually even more expensive).
SF Negatives:
-No diversity among the 20s something population (meaning that 99.9% of ppl I meet here who have recently relocated here in the last few years all work in tech)
-Insane cost of living...I am jealous of my friends in Manhattan who pay much less than I do for their rooms in high-rise buildings.
-Horrible male/female ratio. This is the only city I've been to where the men's bathroom lines are longer in bars. 49ers is also a big issue here (not talking about the football team).
-Horrible and expensive public transit. If I were to live in Oakland and commute to SF it would cost $6.90 each day since the crappy BART doesn't offer monthly pass and stops running at midnight.
-Slow MUNI buses (its often times faster to walk)
-Bars close at 1:30am! Yet Californians think that they live in such a big party state.
-SF snobs! People in this city have such an inferiority complex. Always comparing themselves to NYC, London, Paris. SF is NOT on the same level as those cities. SF is a 7x7= 49 sq mile toilet sitting on fault lines.
-Bad Summer weather. Sure the weather is "mild" but its summer. I don't want to wear a jacket/scarf in June/July/August. In SF you need to wear a jacket after 6pm 360 days a year.
-California bubble! I have met many people here who have never been outside of California (besides Vegas) and they think that SF is so cool because it's walkable, dense, and has BART. These idiots have never been to Northeastern cities so they think that SF is very unique since they only compare it to LA/OC/SD. They are the people that tell you that they could never live on the east coast because it snows all the time on a 55 degree foggy/windy SF summer day. They also wont't believe me when I tell them that beaches on the east coast even as far north as New England are warmer than SF beaches in summer.
-flaky ppl (look up "SF Yes")
-Most 20's something SF Bay Area natives I meet want to move out of here (unless they are in tech) and surprisingly many of them that probably grew up hating LA are even considering it due to lower cost of housing and real diversity.
To the pro SF folks here please tell me what makes SF so great?
Is it really worth it to live in such an overrated boring city and pay the Manhattan price?
Is is worth living in college like housing situation with a bunch of roommates or spending most of your income on rent to live in a crappy studio?
Is it worth it to have a million+ dollar mortgage for a very basic home on an earthquake fault, while almost everywhere else in the county 1 million+ property is going to be something upscale.
-Is the so called "mild weather" here really worth it? Especially the very miserable weather of SF (West of Twin Peaks), Daly City, Pacifica, South SF? I think something much be wrong with the people that are paying over a million for homes in Sunset District because you get a yard. When can you ever get enjoy being out in that yard?
I am a Bay area native who grew up in Walnut Creek and lived in the Urban East Bay for many years, now living in San Diego. I agree with a lot of your graipes about San Francisco. Even before the tech boom, I never thought San Francisco was worth the money and aggravation. You always got very little housing for the money, and the weather was a huge negative for me. But living in the East Bay was always a great experience. Between the lower cost of living, the nicer climate, the absence of all the tech douchebags comma even if you had to commute in by public transit, it's well worth the trade-off. People have been taking Bart for decades. Sure, it's not cheap, but you save a lot on housing and have a better quality of life. 90% of your complaints would be erased if you just moved into the East Bay and commuted into the city.
Los Angeles is a realistic alternative these days, and it has a lot of amenities to offer. However, the traffic is absolutely horrendous at most times of the day, even worse than the Bay Area, Public Transit is sparse and much worse than in San Francisco, and it's kind of an ugly City. There are nice pockets of course, but most of LA is flat, badly planned, and pretty Industrial. I would say the ugliest Urban parts of the state are in Los Angeles. Of course, that may not matter to everyone. Some people absolutely love the scenery of San Francisco, with its beautiful Hills, Skyline, Bridges, Bay, and Islands. Very few cities in the world have such a natural beauty, and LA has only small pockets of natural beauty. But there are other cities to move to besides just Los Angeles. San Diego has an amazing cost of living , much lower than LA, with much less pretension and traffic to boot. Sacramento is possibly the most underrated City in the state, with an amazing cost of living, relaxed but fairly vibrant Urban core, nice neighborhoods, and incredible weather 10 months out of the year, provided you don't mind the Heat in summer. Plus quick access to Lake Tahoe and Napa. Just keep in mind that every city has its pluses and minuses. San Francisco has its own. The biggest problem is that it is so insanely expensive that it just may not seem worth putting up with them.
SF is lovable but not very livable, LA is just the opposite.
LA lacks SF's Je ne sais quoi. But the region is cheaper, and offers somethibg for everyone.
In the bay you really just can not escape the higb cost of housing unless you go like 40-60 miles out in farm country, or live in sketchy areas.
That lovable vs livable quote is perfect. As I had mentioned in another response, I live in San Diego, which is much more beautiful than Los Angeles, and even people here really dislike Los Angeles and hates being associated with it because we are all part of Southern California. Honestly, San Diego is both lovable and livable, way better than Los Angeles. It reminds me the Bay Area 15 years ago when the Bay Area was still perfect.
Seriously? If you want to see poor architecture, spend some time in Seattle. Or anywhere in the NW. The architecture is one thing I've always loved about SF. Much of the residential architecture has that Mediterranean look, or a modified version of it. And then there are the Victorians. People like SF for the views from the hills, the cable cars, the museums, GG Park, the beach, Chinatown, Russia town (a personal fave), and so much more!
Agreed. At least by West Coast standards, you can't beat San Francisco. I do prefer a lot of the European influenced architecture of the East Coast cities as well, but you certainly can't move to Los Angeles expecting beautiful urban planning. What other West Coast City is as nice as San Francisco in that regard? And yes, agree about Seattle. Kind of dull in that regard. I know a lot of people are moving to Seattle, but if you think San Francisco's Marine layer is annoying, try Seattle. It gets three times as many rainy days, and the five coldest months of the year are colder than any month in San Francisco, meaning that it's colder in Seattle for 5 months than it is in the middle of winter in San Francisco. With real estate prices skyrocketing, it will surpasses San Francisco as not being worth the money. No thanks!
Agreed. At least by West Coast standards, you can't beat San Francisco. I do prefer a lot of the European influenced architecture of the East Coast cities as well, but you certainly can't move to Los Angeles expecting beautiful urban planning. What other West Coast City is as nice as San Francisco in that regard? And yes, agree about Seattle. Kind of dull in that regard. I know a lot of people are moving to Seattle, but if you think San Francisco's Marine layer is annoying, try Seattle. It gets three times as many rainy days, and the five coldest months of the year are colder than any month in San Francisco, meaning that it's colder in Seattle for 5 months than it is in the middle of winter in San Francisco. With real estate prices skyrocketing, it will surpasses San Francisco as not being worth the money. No thanks!
Agree on all counts. I get the feeling that part of the problem w/out-of-state transplants to SF (the city proper), is that they come expecting someplace with busy nightlife, a real happening place, like Manhattan. They don't know it's not that kind of city. The reason there's such a disconnect between how transplants view it, and how local/natives view it, is that the locals know it's low-key, and they love it for that. The Bay Area ethos used to be about enjoying the outdoors, so that's one way natives relate to SF: enjoying the beach, the parks, the views, the Bay, walking or biking the Bridge, as well as enjoying other amenities like the museums, Exploratorium, the high-end and medium-end shopping (are the Parisian designer stores still there?), the multi-cultural niches.
I think us natives and the techie transplants are talking apples and oranges at each other. Totally different mindsets.
Agree on all counts. I get the feeling that part of the problem w/out-of-state transplants to SF (the city proper), is that they come expecting someplace with busy nightlife, a real happening place, like Manhattan. They don't know it's not that kind of city. The reason there's such a disconnect between how transplants view it, and how local/natives view it, is that the locals know it's low-key, and they love it for that.
Totally agree with this. I was in San Fran last week for a job interview. Was my 3rd time actually visiting the city. The perception I had of the city during my first two visits completely changed after my visit last week. Didn't realize just how low key and relaxed the city actually was. Took 3 visits for me to finally see this. Completely different pace and vibe than say an NYC or Chicago. Lots of good looking people. Great urban downtown core. But not a 24 hour city in my opinion. I really like San Fran, but wouldn't consider living there unless I receive a significant pay increase and/or met a great gal that made lots of money and had ties to the area.
With that said...I think San Fran is still a great city with lots to offer.
Last edited by usamathman; 11-23-2016 at 01:40 PM..
That lovable vs livable quote is perfect. As I had mentioned in another response, I live in San Diego, which is much more beautiful than Los Angeles, and even people here really dislike Los Angeles and hates being associated with it because we are all part of Southern California. Honestly, San Diego is both lovable and livable, way better than Los Angeles. It reminds me the Bay Area 15 years ago when the Bay Area was still perfect.
SD sucks. Everyone is from some cheeseball town back east.
Given a choice between NYC, LA or SF (strictly SF, not the broader Bay Area), I'd pick SF, if I could afford it. Better weather (LA gets too hot, unless you're on near the beach), access to great entertainment around the Bay, scenic as hell, REDWOODS nearby, and I'm not the party type, so I don't care if everything shuts down by 1:00 a.m. Lots of good restaurants, parks, museums, BEACH, and a mellower vibe, IMO, than in NYC and LA. NYC and LA are much too big; SF is compact. And did I mention the proximity to the redwoods?
But, to each his/her own. OP, if you want to pay less and put up with sweltering heat/humidity for 4-5 months, and snow, winter storms, power outages, by all means, move to NYC. I'll admit, though, I can see your point as someone who moved to SF to start a career; it feels like you're paying through the nose for rent, and you're trying to figure out what you're getting for your money. To people who have been raised in the Bay Area, the perspective is different. Do what works for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
No, I can't create my own entertainment; I can't create a great jazz club that attracts top national groups and international groups, I can't create museums, a good film venue, or an annual Native American film festival. And the high-quality entertainment in the Bay Area is half the fun!
So, when are you moving to Eureka?
You can do all those things in 1 day. And then what? You're still paying 4000 to share a single bedroom
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.
).
