San Francisco’s tech workforce is still growing, outpacing other metro areas

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Haha obviously youre the one whose nerve was struck apparently by the fact that people in SF arent NY worshippers lmao.


Yawns. As far as the combination of urban bonafides and natural setting, San Francisco kills NYC and any other US city.

Period.

Please do everyone in NYC a favor by not mentioning San Francisco in the same breath. Thank you kindly.

San Francisco = "urban bonafide"? What a joke. No one on Earth (with a brain) would ever fix their mouth to suggest SF is remotely as urban as NYC, and people who live in NYC could give a rat's a$$ about "natural setting".

"Period".

[JManc]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Austin "more buttoned up" and "less down to Earth" than Houston???

I see very few corporate / "suit" types in Austin, yet many in Houston. I've seen people in Austin running around naked, but it's somehow "more buttoned up"? How??

And when it comes to "soul" in Texas, nowhere comes close to Houston.

That's the remnant of the 'old' Austin.



That Austin has largely been reduced to bumper stickers and street art. The new Austin is the Bay Area without the bay..and the sticker shock. Houston and Austin were at one point very similar in their 'low keyness'. Houston more or less remained the same even if it became more cosmopolitan and international over the years but still Houston.

as for San Francisco, I think it's one of the few American cities that can be aptly compared to NYC along with Boston, DC, Philly and Chicago. Just on a smaller scale.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

As far as the combination of urban bonafides and natural setting, San Francisco kills NYC and any other US city.

Period.

I think the people that try to compare SF to NYC, London, etc miss this point entirely. Obviously SF is not NYC or London, nor does it pretend to be. With that said, NYC and London are not SF either. It's really unlike any other city. I like how you can feel like you've escaped the city but still be in the city. The amount of outdoor activities readily available to its residents is unparalleled. I doubt there are many other large urban cities where you can hang glide off coastal cliffs within the city limits.

For one, they don't have this.

[iheartthed]

NYC's beaches >>> San Francisco's beaches

[The North One]

So no other city on earth has hills?

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by The North One

So no other city on earth has hills?

Reread my post carefully.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

NYC's beaches >>> San Francisco's beaches

SF beaches are more easily accessible for most people in the city. No so much for New Yorkers outside Brooklyn and Queens. Plus, NY's beach season is MUCH shorter. Never been to any beaches there but plenty in New England and Upstate NY but the window is fairly short for good beach weather.

[iheartthed]

SF is "cute" in that it has beautiful topography and architecture, but as an urban experience I would put it in a class with Boston and D.C. From an urban experience consideration, I would rank NYC, Chicago, and Philadelphia above it. But in terms of natural beauty it's hard to think of an American city that tops it.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

SF beaches are more easily accessible for most people in the city. No so much for New Yorkers outside Brooklyn and Queens. Plus, NY's beach season is MUCH shorter. Never been to any beaches there but plenty in New England and Upstate NY but the window is fairly short for good beach weather.

Definitely more easily accessible, but that's because SF is geographically tiny. As for beach season... that, for me, is +80F temperatures, so beach season in SF lasts for about 3 days versus NY's 3 months.

[bossabreezes]

I think the thing about certain places that makes them popular is their identity and feeling when you're in them.

For example, when you're in San Francisco, you know you're in San Franscico and it isn't like any other city in the world. Same goes for New York.

LA can be very generic outside of Hollywood. Philly, Boston and Baltimore are all similar, ect.

New York and San Francisco are, in my opinion, the only places no matter where you are in the city limits, you know you're in that respective city. I think that's why people group SF with NYC, not because they're anything alike. In fact, they're pretty different. But definitely the jewels of their respective coasts.

Not sure why this turned into a pissing match about beaches. Beaches in both NYC and SF suck. Try swimming in SF and get caught in a rip current or hypothermia. In NYC, that's just gross.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Reread my post carefully.

I read it, outdoor activities, cliffs and hills are not uber special things that nobody else has (even New York has the palisades). They do not make a city great, they don't change life. And we have to hear it a million times a day about this city in particular in case we all forgot.

This is why people get annoyed. What percentage of people in the bay actually hang glide? And who honestly cares? They're just things to rack up internet boasting points about.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by The North One

I read it, outdoor activities, cliffs and hills are not uber special things that nobody else has (even New York has the palisades). They do not make a city great, they don't change life. And we have to hear it a million times a day about this city in particular in case we all forgot.

This is why people get annoyed. What percentage of people in the bay actually hang glide? And who honestly cares? They're just things to rack up internet boasting points about.

Maybe not in other cities where the outdoors is not as readily accessible, but for a large proportion of Bay Area residents, it's an extremely important part of our lives. And yes, I do know quite a few recreational hang gliders. It's not that uncommon here.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Maybe not in other cities where the outdoors is not as readily accessible, but for a large proportion of Bay Area residents, it's an extremely important part of our lives. And yes, I do know quite a few recreational hang gliders. It's not that uncommon here.

The thing is this isn't at all exclusive to SF or the bay, most people in most cities have options for outdoor recreation in their lives and a culture for it including ones that aren't commonly cited for it or have city boasters who mention it every five seconds. People don't live in a wasteland outside of SF.

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by The North One

People don't live in a wasteland outside of SF.

Same goes for people who live outside of NYC. Looks like we've got snobbery on both side of the fence.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

Same goes for people who live outside of NYC. Looks like we've got snobbery on both side of the fence.

Well that's obvious.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by The North One

So no other city on earth has hills?

Exactly. Even Pittsburgh weighs in (heavily) in that department.

Thats one of the many reasons I couldn't wait to move away from San Francisco. People swear it's "all that", when in actuality it's far from it.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by craigs

None of us harbor ill will to SF like the usual haters on sad display here who religiously shit on the area, its people, its industries, its history, its culture, its politics, and so on. Haters gonna hate.

I lived in SF proper for 24 years because it's a great city, even now. The city is gorgeous, has a great climate, has outstanding parks and outdoor recreation, lots to do, some lovely vernacular architecture, is very walkable and bikeable, has decent public transportation, and so on, But I do agree with many of the reasonable criticisms--it is now thoroughly overpriced. It used to only be the housing costs, but now it's everything.

Agreed 100%. Post one nice picture of SF and the haters come out of the wood work. Right on cue!

[YSL]

Austin feels overal more yuppie than Houston, but Houston has actual rich areas Austin lacks. You definitely see way more suits in Houston.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by JManc

SF beaches are more easily accessible for most people in the city. No so much for New Yorkers outside Brooklyn and Queens. Plus, NY's beach season is MUCH shorter. Never been to any beaches there but plenty in New England and Upstate NY but the window is fairly short for good beach weather.

Unpopular opinion here (IDGAF), but beaches in and of themselves are super overrated, especially in urban or semi-urban areas. It's like you invest all this time fighting traffic, mass transit and / or parking to walk, lay or otherwise hang out on a filthy, littered, uncomfortably hot or cold swath of sand with a bunch of unsanitary, bad-habit having people overlooking ridiculously polluted water for hours on end.

And for what? So you can brag to "Phil" back in the office on Monday about how much fun you had out at the beach or down on the shore last weekend.

Yeah, I'm good.

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

New York and San Francisco are, in my opinion, the only places no matter where you are in the city limits, you know you're in that respective city.

While I think that's an exaggeration, I would add New Orleans to the list of instantly recognizable places. In reality, many cities have areas that are recognizable for their landscape or vernacular architecture, and other areas that are not.