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.
That difference in attitude is one I see in between Atlanta and London all the time. In Atlanta (and the mind of Monclair), public transport is seen as something to be derided. Something that the 'poor people' yet to move upward in society use.
In London and other cities with proper urban transport, it is embraced by the population. Used by all, from blue collar workers to executives. It's reflected in the vibrancy of streets and pedestrianism you see in the city. Thank goodness that London alone has less registered vehicles than the entire San Francisco Metropolitan Area, despite having a higher population.
I've never seen someone diss London so much. Have you been there? If you have any affinity for urban environments (which I think you would since you post on C-D a lot), I would not see how's it's even remotely possible to not like (love), or at least "appreciate" London as a multi-cultural, vibrant, historic, diverse, dense, incredible effing cool city. On a scale of interesting cities (that I've been to, so note this is subjective), London is tops, followed by NYC, then Paris, then Chicago. Sorry, there would be several other city names before I got to San Francisco.
You're pressing awfully hard here. SF is a good, maybe great, city, but it is entirely outclassed by London in nearly any urban-centric metric imagineable.
That difference in attitude is one I see in between Atlanta and London all the time. In Atlanta (and the mind of Monclair), public transport is seen as something to be derided. Something that the 'poor people' yet to move upward in society use.
In London and other cities with proper urban transport, it is embraced by the population. Used by all, from blue collar workers to executives. It's reflected in the vibrancy of streets and pedestrianism you see in the city. Thank goodness that London alone has less registered vehicles than the entire San Francisco Metropolitan Area, despite having a higher population.
San Francisco actually has below average car ownership for American city standardsm and higher "pedestrianism". But Montclair ignored that.
That difference in attitude is one I see in between Atlanta and London all the time. In Atlanta (and the mind of Monclair), public transport is seen as something to be derided. Something that the 'poor people' yet to move upward in society use.
The difference clearly is, whereas people in London have no choice but to travel in cramped trains everywhere, people in the Bay do NOT have to do that. If I want to do that I can, but my Tesla Model S is more than sufficient to transport myself around town. Thanks tho.
So brag about trains all you like, but there are other means of transportation that you all clearly don't want to talk about.
Registered Automobiles: Bay Area CSA 7,155,367
London Region 2,951,900
You're pressing awfully hard here. SF is a good, maybe great, city, but it is entirely outclassed by London in nearly any urban-centric metric imagineable.
Oh that's nice but after one prances around crowded streets and what not, at night you need to lay your head somewhere and CLEARLY the average person in the Bay is laying their head on much a nicer pillow.
That's more important to me than all of the peripheral nonsense you all think is more important.
I've never seen someone diss London so much. Have you been there? If you have any affinity for urban environments (which I think you would since you post on C-D a lot), I would not see how's it's even remotely possible to not like (love), or at least "appreciate" London as a multi-cultural, vibrant, historic, diverse, dense, incredible effing cool city. On a scale of interesting cities (that I've been to, so note this is subjective), London is tops, followed by NYC, then Paris, then Chicago. Sorry, there would be several other city names before I got to San Francisco.
You're pressing awfully hard here. SF is a good, maybe great, city, but it is entirely outclassed by London in nearly any urban-centric metric imagineable.
Come on, as if it's not patently obvious enough already that montclair has even yet to set foot in London. (Lived in Knightsbridge - haha, good one).
This is what happens when someone who is actually AWARE of statistics is forced to educate misinformed and ignorant masses.
Ultimately what you are all having difficulty accepting is the fact that we are comparing quite possibly the most dynamic region in the world, to London.
This is what happens when someone who is actually AWARE of statistics is forced to educate misinformed and ignorant masses.
Ultimately what you are all having difficulty accepting is the fact that we are comparing quite possibly the most dynamic region in the world, to London.
LOL Oh really? SF is like Atlanta as far as transit? That's rich.
I compared your attitude to the typical Atlanta attitude regarding public transport.
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.
