Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: London vs SF
London 96 70.59%
San Francisco 40 29.41%
Voters: 136. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-14-2014, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,628 posts, read 67,168,373 times
Reputation: 21164

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmptrwlt View Post
The Tesla Model S looks so cheap. It is actually the best-selling car here in Norway. The new Volkswagen Passat
Speaking of Norway.

Individuals worth $30 Million+, 2013
San Francisco 4,840
Norway 1,450

But back to the topic at hand

Individuals worth $30 million+, 2013
New York 8,025
London 6,360
Los Angeles 4,945
San Francisco 4,840
Paris 3,195
Hong Kong 3,180
Washington DC 2,675
Chicago 2,665
Beijing 2,320
Mumbai 2,135
Delhi 1,980
Zurich 1,940
Shanghai 1,410
Singapore 1,355

http://wuwr.wealthx.com/Wealth-X%20a...ort%202013.pdf

see you at the club darling. LMAO.

 
Old 05-14-2014, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Westminster, London
878 posts, read 1,379,866 times
Reputation: 726
This thread is rapidly devolving into the social media equivalent of a very bad Harry Enfield sketch.

 
Old 05-14-2014, 02:57 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,011 posts, read 53,168,450 times
Reputation: 15174
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
This is so ironic.

London has 72 resident billionaires
London is the super-rich capital of the world with 72 billionaires | City A.M.

The Bay Area has 71 resident billionaires
Bay Area Billionaires, 2014

It would appear that we have quite a few people that can afford Aston Martins as well. LOL
I'm not surprised. But what why is that ironic? It's rather irrelevant to what's the better place.

Yes, San Francisco (and the entire Bay Area) is more affluent and it has a major impact on a new economic sector globally important, the tech sector. London doesn't have anything quite as unique. London is well off and doing well economically. I'd say London is the better city, much more urban, event-wise has more going on. The setting and climate of San Francisco is much more appealing. Depends on what you value.

London seems to have a very stuffy work culture: very formal dress code and formal work environment. San Francisco's work culture is the opposite: causal dress and for many tech-startups don't have much of a hierarchy (Steve Job's NeXT paid all employees two different salary rates based only on seniority). On the downside, many Bay Area tech firms are work = you entire life and don't seem to believe in much off time.
 
Old 05-14-2014, 03:00 PM
 
6,458 posts, read 8,122,940 times
Reputation: 5491
Agree. I could not care less about billionaires.
 
Old 05-14-2014, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Blighty
532 posts, read 591,230 times
Reputation: 605
I agree, but for what it's worth, London's billionaire list is for pound billionaires. SF's list linked above is for US dollar billionaires.
 
Old 05-14-2014, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,625 posts, read 14,396,140 times
Reputation: 4191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
Haha. I repped you both.


Although I live across the bridge in Oakland and love SF, London is the winner hands down. There is really no comparison. It would be much fairer to compare Washington DC with London which are far more similar.

San Francisco is seriously grubby and run-down these days compared to London - even since I first visited 18 years ago. The freeways are an absolute joke - I don't know what the city planners were thinking when they built those. They completely ruin the landscape from every conceivable angle. And the BART compared to the tube? It isn't even a comparison worth making.

The museums in SF are very nice and fine for what they are. But go visit the Cal Academy of Science Evolution of Man exhibit. It's quite laughable - don't blink or you'll miss it.
London museums are comparable with DC museums. Excellent.

The weather in SF might be better but it is certainly nothing to write home about.

London is far cleaner and better maintained. You notice it as soon as you get off the plane.
The homelessness situation in SF is out of control.

Food experience in both cities is about the same.


I like both cities a lot and I am here for the experience and to live in another culture, but someday I will be heading back.
Are you sure you're from the Bay Area? If you haven't realized, as a Bay Area forumer it's your solemn duty to absolutely sh*t on any city which is compared to the Bay and talk down to the other forumers. In all seriousness though, good post. I'm glad someone can show some objectivity and doesn't need to put others down to make their own city look better (though one UKer here has been as guilty as anyone).

For me, it's London hands-down. I had the good fortune of making a (very short) trip there a couple of months ago and it instantly became my favorite city in the world. I haven't had the good fortune of visiting SF yet, but I'm sure I'd like it. However I don't think there's much I would prefer there over London. London has an incredible regal vibe which I loved from top to bottom. The architecture and streetscapes were absolutely gorgeous in West London, where I spent basically all of my time (I was only there a few days unfortunately). Every step I took in that city was a happy one. The British Musuem, V&A, and Natural History Museum were all magnificent and lived up to their lofty reputations. Moreso than any other city I've ever been in, London urged me to keep walking to see what was around the next corner (though Paris is a close second). Walking through the City is a maze of pleasure for any architectural enthusiast, with some world-class structure--old or new--waiting for you nearly every step of the way. Even thinking of it makes me feel tingly. If I'm ever fortunate enough to strike it rich, the first city I'll buy in (outside of São Paulo and my home city of Boston) would be London, no doubt about it. I'll visit every opportunity I get. I say all this without even having the opportunity to explore areas like Camden, Islington, Canary Wharf, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, among many other neighborhoods. My trip was more/less confined to the City, Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster.

A few years ago my wife visited SF and wasn't a huge fan. In fact she cut her visit short in order to visit other places. She said in a way it reminded her of São Paulo because it was very dirty and had a load of homeless people. I know that this isn't representative of the whole city and I don't think this would turn me off because I love São Paulo. Either way, London is more my style. There's really no comparison between the two architecturally, culturally, or from an urban perspective (the Tube is to die for)...and those are all pretty important to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Speaking of Norway.

Individuals worth $30 Million+, 2013
San Francisco 4,840
Norway 1,450

But back to the topic at hand

Individuals worth $30 million+, 2013
New York 8,025
London 6,360
Los Angeles 4,945
San Francisco 4,840
Paris 3,195
Hong Kong 3,180
Washington DC 2,675
Chicago 2,665
Beijing 2,320
Mumbai 2,135
Delhi 1,980
Zurich 1,940
Shanghai 1,410
Singapore 1,355

http://wuwr.wealthx.com/Wealth-X%20a...ort%202013.pdf

see you at the club darling. LMAO.
Why are you so fixated on showing billionaire & median income statistics of areas in every comparison and then use that as the reason the Bay Area is better than City X? When it comes to a city-vs-city comparison, that's such a small piece of the pie. Personal wealth can of course affect a city due to its connection with the economy, but you are so focused on that being the only factor in an argument. You talk about how San Francisco looks down on cities like NYC, London and Paris, yet comparatively it's blown away in every single metric outside of money.

I don't get it.

You look down on (or at least try to) one the best cities on the planet and act as if they're street vermin leaving in squalor and you're oh-so-civilized living in some paradise...but in 2012 your city of Oakland (city population: 400,000) had more than 30% more murders by itself than all of Greater London (population: 8,196,000)....and that's using raw numbers! Oakland had 131 murders in 2012 while Greater London had 99. Why do you always seem to skip over this stat when doing your quantitative assessments of awesomeness of a region?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU View Post
This thread is rapidly devolving into the social media equivalent of a very bad Harry Enfield sketch.

That is legit the most accurate representation of all of Montclair's arguments ever put forward on this website.

Last edited by tmac9wr; 05-14-2014 at 03:26 PM..
 
Old 05-14-2014, 03:13 PM
 
Location: SE UK
14,808 posts, read 11,888,893 times
Reputation: 9789
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
There is no burden hun. The OP is not asking whose hosted big events-lol

San Francisco is wealthier, better educated and generally more sophisticated than London so this strange notion that having large events is supposed to mean something is laughable.

London is larger than SF but to say therefore its actually 'better', is once again laughable.
What makes you think San Francisco is 'more sophisticated' than London! lol, you are obviously on a p*ss take if you think San Fransisco has more to offer than London and New York! (the worlds only alpha ++ cities), I'm guessing San Francisco is an American equivalent of Bradford.
 
Old 05-14-2014, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,628 posts, read 67,168,373 times
Reputation: 21164
Anyway, I don't deal with crying-see a therapist.

In the meantime this is what I was talking about:

2012 Population
Greater London & SE England 17,033,069
San Francisco & San Jose Metro Areas 6,349,000

2012 GDP
Greater London & SE England $829.336 Billion
San Francisco & San Jose Metro Areas $534.303 Billion

2012 Per Capita GDP
San Francisco & San Jose Metro Areas $84,171
Greater London & SE England $48,689

I had to combine London and SE England because I didn't quite agree with 501 Billion Dollars(Greater London) being a correct characterization of London's GDP so I added SE England.

Likewise I combined SF and SJ.
 
Old 05-14-2014, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,625 posts, read 14,396,140 times
Reputation: 4191
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Anyway, I don't deal with crying-see a therapist.

In the meantime this is what I was talking about:

2012 Population
Greater London & SE England 17,033,069
San Francisco & San Jose Metro Areas 6,349,000

2012 GDP
Greater London & SE England $829.336 Billion
San Francisco & San Jose Metro Areas $534.303 Billion

2012 Per Capita GDP
San Francisco & San Jose Metro Areas $84,171
Greater London & SE England $48,689

I had to combine London and SE England because I didn't quite agree with 501 Billion Dollars(Greater London) being a correct characterization of London's GDP so I added SE England.

Likewise I combined SF and SJ.
What exactly were you talking about, and how does this make San Francisco a more enjoyable city to be in?
 
Old 05-14-2014, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,628 posts, read 67,168,373 times
Reputation: 21164
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome View Post
What makes you think San Francisco is 'more sophisticated' than London! lol, you are obviously on a p*ss take if you think San Fransisco has more to offer than London and New York! (the worlds only alpha ++ cities)
LMAO The Alpha++ cities nonsense is nothing more than the number of office locations of certain companies-in other words, to leap from that to somehow a sign of global primacy, which is what too many people errantly do with that ridiculous ranking, is hilarious-because it's tosh.

New York and London offer more but they don't offer better. San Francisco is better. Considerably so.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top