Why Are People In The Bay Area So Soft? (San Francisco: activities, car)

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by sav858

It's just a side effect of the local affiction "Bayarrhea" lol.

Urban Dictionary: Bayarrhea

You need a new sound bite. That one is tired.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

The point of my sarcastic humor isn't that SF is the best, end all be all place. It's that saying that NYC, or any other city, is better than SF because there's "more to do" is silly. Silly because there's so much activity and variety in the Bay Area no one - and I do mean no one - could ever exhaust the possibilities. Like saying that more infinity is better than infinity.

Yes and no.

You're right that the Bay Area has tons and tons of stuff to do. It might be #3 in the U.S., after NYC and LA.

But, if you want urban, big city amenities, one could argue that the Bay Area is a bit lacking. SF is not really a huge city, and if someone wants a NYC/London/Tokyo/Paris type mega-metropolis, they will find the Bay Area lacking.

In terms of "urban stuff", the Bay Area is probably closest to Boston, Philly and DC in the U.S. Maybe Chicago too, but that might be pushing it. Seattle is a little too small. SF has good urbanity, but not top-tier, urbanity, and will not be ideal for someone who wants an overstimulated, all hours, culturally vibrant, huge urban city.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

...It's that saying that NYC, or any other city, is better than SF because there's "more to do" is silly.

There certainly is more to do in NY than in SF. Much more. The only other city I've spent time in which compares with NY is Tokyo. SF has the weather, a great park and you don't need a car. Also, the home I own is in the Sunset which is a quiet area and I like that.

But having lived in various cities over the past 25 years (NY, Tokyo Dallas and San Diego) I'm not keen on living in SF again. However, I grew up in SF and always enjoy visiting.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

You need a new sound bite. That one is tired.

Eh, I like and will keep using it. It's amusing because of how true it is LOL.

[Ruth4Truth]

[quote=NOLA101;37840592]Yes and no.

You're right that the Bay Area has tons and tons of stuff to do. It might be #3 in the U.S., after NYC and LA.

But, if you want urban, big city amenities, one could argue that the Bay Area is a bit lacking. SF is not really a huge city, and if someone wants a NYC/London/Tokyo/Paris type mega-metropolis, they will find the Bay Area lacking.

\[quote] Very true, and this is why we like it so much. Somehow, SF manages to have a lot to do while remaining compact. And including the Bay Area at large, there's a ton of high-quality stuff to do and entertainment.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Yes and no.

You're right that the Bay Area has tons and tons of stuff to do. It might be #3 in the U.S., after NYC and LA.

But, if you want urban, big city amenities, one could argue that the Bay Area is a bit lacking. SF is not really a huge city, and if someone wants a NYC/London/Tokyo/Paris type mega-metropolis, they will find the Bay Area lacking.

In terms of "urban stuff", the Bay Area is probably closest to Boston, Philly and DC in the U.S. Maybe Chicago too, but that might be pushing it. Seattle is a little too small. SF has good urbanity, but not top-tier, urbanity, and will not be ideal for someone who wants an overstimulated, all hours, culturally vibrant, huge urban city.

You two are saying the exact same things. The difference is, your perspective is not an NYC one. His is an SF one. He's even granting you that NYC is the bigger city. Everyone knows that. His point is about variety and lifestyle.

The Bay Are is lacking in big city amenities? Are you serious? You just just placed it at #3 overall in the country (and you are quite biased against it, judging from your post history). How can this be?

The Bay Area has restaurants that set the tone for the country, world-renowned art collections and museums, well-attended sports teams with ardent fans, world-class shopping, world-class universities, signature architecture and monuments known worldwide, is a technological, transportation, and travel destination leader of the Pacific Rim, is a world-class economic and cultural center, etc.

How is this lacking in urban amenities?

Add to that weather that is pleasant year-round, encouraging explorarion of its incredible vistas, an active, outdoor lifestyle, exploration of small nearby towns, and a growing season that bolsters a farming culture that is the envy of the world right at its borders. That last bit has given rise to one of the world's leading wine regions, which itself has spawned a culture in culinary ingenuity that sets trends in cities across the globe.

Does that make SF "better"? For me, yes. For you? Perhaps not. I live here and love it. I can drive 20 minutes from my apartment and be in absolute untouched wilderness, or walk 5 minutes and be in the center point of a bustling, vibrant urban metropolis of over 8,000,000 people. That is a choice not afforded to residents of most places in the world that I know of.

It occurs to me that the people most vocal in this debate of proving which city is "better" are chiming in from other cities, while those who actually live in the cities in question (and by that virtue have a much more valid take to me) are simply saying the two are different and it's a matter of preference.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Yes and no.

You're right that the Bay Area has tons and tons of stuff to do. It might be #3 in the U.S., after NYC and LA.

But, if you want urban, big city amenities, one could argue that the Bay Area is a bit lacking. SF is not really a huge city, and if someone wants a NYC/London/Tokyo/Paris type mega-metropolis, they will find the Bay Area lacking.

In terms of "urban stuff", the Bay Area is probably closest to Boston, Philly and DC in the U.S. Maybe Chicago too, but that might be pushing it. Seattle is a little too small. SF has good urbanity, but not top-tier, urbanity, and will not be ideal for someone who wants an overstimulated, all hours, culturally vibrant, huge urban city.

Originally Posted by john3232

There certainly is more to do in NY than in SF. Much more. The only other city I've spent time in which compares with NY is Tokyo. SF has the weather, a great park and you don't need a car. Also, the home I own is in the Sunset which is a quiet area and I like that.

But having lived in various cities over the past 25 years (NY, Tokyo Dallas and San Diego) I'm not keen on living in SF again. However, I grew up in SF and always enjoy visiting.

Somehow, several of you have missed my point repeatedly. I never argued that SF had as much "to do" as NYC. In fact, I acknowledged that it doesn't. What I have been humored by is the notion that anyone could think they could ever run short of "things to do" in the Bay Area. Every kind of "thing to do". If you could never begin to "do" all there is "to do" in the Bay Area, how would it make NYC a better place because there was even more "to do"?

Now, if you posted you simply enjoy the character of NYC more than that of SF, I'd have not even bothered to respond. I don't care when people prefer NYC, Houston, Detroit, Miami, or TimbukTu more than SF. I like that people prefer other places so they won't clog up the bay anymore than it already is.

But craving "more to do" is like craving "more infinity". Knock yourselves out. You'll never be satisfied.

[likealady]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

Agreed that Seattle is an awesome place. NYC, too. But New Yorkers are "less full of BS"?!?

I mean that in terms of there's less PC, I dont want to hurt anyone's feelings mindset.

I agree with others in saying SF is more along the lines of Chicago or Boston. By no means is it a world class city, imho. It's practically dead by 11pm, which is kinda sad.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Somehow, several of you have missed my point repeatedly. I never argued that SF had as much "to do" as NYC. In fact, I acknowledged that it doesn't. What I have been humored by is the notion that anyone could think they could ever run short of "things to do" in the Bay Area. Every kind of "thing to do". If you could never begin to "do" all there is "to do" in the Bay Area, how would it make NYC a better place because there was even more "to do"?

Now, if you posted you simply enjoy the character of NYC more than that of SF, I'd have not even bothered to respond. I don't care when people prefer NYC, Houston, Detroit, Miami, or TimbukTu more than SF. I like that people prefer other places so they won't clog up the bay anymore than it already is.

But craving "more to do" is like craving "more infinity". Knock yourselves out. You'll never be satisfied.

You are like that annoying little kid in 3rd grade who would **** off the class and then cry to teacher the second someone slapped you upside the head.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

SWhat I have been humored by is the notion that anyone could think that they could ever run short of "things to do" in the Bay Area. Every kind of "thing to do". If you could never begin to "do" all there is "to do" in the Bay Area, how would it make NYC a better place because there was even more "to do"?

Because there are things available in NYC that aren't available in SF, that's all.

If you want a functional, world-class transit system, then SF will fall short. If you want to live in a truly urban neighborhood, where normal families live in apartments, and most people don't own cars, then SF will fall short. If you want to have an environment of 24-hour stimulation, then SF will fall short. If you want miles and miles of urbanity, then SF will fall short. If you want a million cultural options every night, and every type of cuisine, then SF will fall short. If you want distinct ethnic enclaves, and rooted urban neighborhoods of every type, then SF will fall short.

I can go on, but obviously if you want to live in a really big city, SF will feel kind of sleepy and lacking. It isn't really a Type A, overstimulated-type place. It's a fantastic city, pound-for-pound, but just not big enough for big city types. But it has other advantages, which makes it a very desirable place nonetheless.