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.
Location: at the foothills of the cascades, washington
234 posts, read 162,097 times
Reputation: 277
Advertisements
I guess I'm slightly biased to San Francisco as I've spent some time there over the years and I've only passed thru Boston once.
I like San Francisco for a number of reasons: great culture and entertainment, amazing culinary scene, epic history, you are near everything - you have beautiful beaches nearby (including nude beach), mountain forests above Berkeley to hike/camp in, numerous parks scattered throughout, great 420 and drugs (if your thing), good music scene, good public transportation, not too cold of winters, and a short drive to breath-taking northern California via Highway 1 along the coast that takes you through redwood forests.
Boston is "East Coast," so I'd exclude it for that reason alone. Too much of a "guilt trip" mentality.
San Francisco, on the other hand, is a breath of fresh air. I'm assuming money would be no object.
Money would be an object. I'd make around $55,000 in Boston and $60,000 in San Francisco. Same job, same company. My significant other would have an income too though probably around $45k-$50k in both. No car so no car payment, no car insurance, and no gas to pay for.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,962,945 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passion4_Cars_Travelling
Money would be an object. I'd make around $55,000 in Boston and $60,000 in San Francisco. Same job, same company. My significant other would have an income too though probably around $45k-$50k in both. No car so no car payment, no car insurance, and no gas to pay for.
Having lived in both, I found SF to mainly be more expensive in housing, and groceries. Oh, and the sales tax on clothing, but that didn't impact me much. The tax on meals, including that restaurant health care fee in the city added up, but I found eating out cheaper and the food generally better.
You won't be spending as much on utilities though, and you won't need the variety of wardrobe.
Just yeah, culturally its different. SF is great to visit, but socially it has a lot to be desired (in the city) for someone out of their 20s/early 30s.
Would you rather live in Boston or San Francisco? Please tell me why and explain your choice. Thanks!
That's like asking if I want my arms or legs broken. Mmmm...neither are appealing and I have been to both. 100 miles away from either is cool.
Boston is crowded like sardine can hell and people are Boston rude. I drive out of my way to avoid the place when going to ME.
Other than some touristy stuff SF is dippy la-la land. I try not to venture north of Monterey if out there. My brother will fly there to eat oysters at the wharf and go back home.
How so? That's hard to explain. From my experience, the whole East Coast has a certain mindset. The West Coast is something else entirely. I think it's one of those things you have to experience. Maybe it's beach the West Coast is more transient? I just don't know, but I know the phenomena is real.
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.
