October 15, 2007
NYC vs. SF?
And speaking of New York, The Front Steps has a battle brewing over whether to live in New York City or San Francisco. (Naturally, we choose more modern SF. While we heart NY with its thin pizzas, tall and aggressive men, supposed sparkling conversation, and phenomenal buildings, California, as they used to say, totally shreds. And, as we've mentioned before, anything east of [the] 5 freeway petrifies us.)
It's a strange debate, one that gets bandied about during drunken bar conversation all of the time. Strange because who moves here thinking they'll reside in a compact version of New York, and not a better version of California?
| Advertisement: SFist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
This native New Yorker votes SF.
NYC has a few things over SF...it's more urban, and it's more glamorous in terms of trendiness, celebrities and the share it commands of the world's attention. Maybe because of that, you get more bragging rights living in NYC and LA than you do in SF. (All these things should be followed up by the phrase "if you're into that")
But SF wins out on a lot of livability-related factors as well as weather and proximity to nature.
In the end, it's such a personal thing as to which city one will prefer.
I always try to have this debate between DC and SF; however, it always turns into NYC vs SF. I've never lived in NYC, but I'm pretty sure my vote goes for SF. What surrounds a city is important to me (as well as what the city offers). I get more of what I want in SF than I would in NYC.
Brock, dahling. You don't have an apartment in Chelsea that you can toggle to?
People not already in either of these places should go to NYC, only because San Francisco is full. If there was a Vacancy sign, I'll go and turn on the "No" in front.
That said, I vote SF over NYC, and hope to stay here for a long time.
New Yorkers don't have debates like this, they already know they live in the most exciting city. San Francisco is like an overgrown West Village filled with passive agressives and their entitlement problems. It's not NY, never will be, so lets just suck it up and move on.
Meh, in my experience there's nothing New Yorkers love more than to run around declaring how infinitely superior their city is - which just shows that at their core they have severe low self-esteem issues and are self-conscious about their small penises.
It's one thing to look down at Oakland or LA. But New York? New York? C'mon. Even my ego's not that big. NYC is not having this conversation with San Francisco. They're having it with London, Paris, Tokyo et al.
We are not an alpha city. We are a beta city. Or should SF just revert to a geocentric solar system and place the center of the universe at Market & Van Ness?
You think Pompeii was having this same pissing match with Rome circa 78 A.D.?
sangfroid gets to the heart of it. I went to New York in 1987 for the first time and was genuinely shocked. I realized that this was the center of commerce and distribution for the western world, with all the highs and lows that go along with that status, and it made me realize that I lived in a provincial burg in San Francisco.
A very interesting provincial burg, but provincial nonethless. We're a petri dish, an incubator, a mixer, but New York is where you need to go if you are serious about being a worldwide ambitious character in your particular field.
It's also an ecological disaster zone and I'm glad I don't live there, but that's another story.
You do not need to go to NYC to be a "serious worldwide ambitious character in your particular field" - jesus, people, get over your insecurities. I'm from back East and NYC is the end all and be all shiznit. Maybe the first time you go there, it seems all like "OMG THIS IS THE AWESOMEIST SHIT EVAH!!!!1" But after a while, you realize that while it is indeed quite a cool burg, its not all that and a bag of chips.
And yes, if you are in certain specific industries, its the place to be - such as media & publishing, the visual arts, fashion and finance. On the other hand, it is decidedly NOT the center of the universe in a lot of industries, computer tech being the most obvious. Biotech & drug research being another. Medicine being a third. The film industry being another. Venture capital being another. Energy being another. Seriously, outside of a few narrow, specific industries, you really need to be outside of NYC in some other part of the country if you want to be at the top of your particular field.
CORRECTION: that should be "is NOT the end all and be all"
People who define themselves by where they live are retards. New Yorkers are the MOST guilty of this. People in SF just seem to enjoy their lives because of the extremely high standards of living they enjoy. New Yorkers get off on just "making it" which means having a roof over your head. Not impressed.
Then again, don't listen to me. I'm from Chicago the world's most neurotic and self-loathing city.
San Francisco is not "full"; there are still some vacancies.
I understand there's at least one house in the Sunset that's unoccupied.
As a New Yorker coming to San Fran to visit in two weeks for the first time, I would love to know what you locals think I should see/experience for entertainment, dining, etc. that wouldn't make me think "Meh, it's better in New York..."
san francisco is nyc without the attitude. although we are headed that way awful fast if we don't do something about the same things that probably caused all the new yorkers to get so bitter in the first place. can we hire guiliani for a few years?
To rocknrope: Depends. A lot of what make SF interesting is in the area of recreational options. If your idea of recreation is sipping cosmos in chi-chi singles bar, you probably won't enjoy your visit very much, or be left with the impression that SF is second-rate.
On the other hand, if you do enjoy getting out and smelling the air, as it were, there are some things around here that NYC just doesn't have. A bike ride along the Embarcadero through Fort Mason, Marina Green and along Crissy Field is a can't miss. And if you have the energy, head from Crissy Field up to the Golden Gate Bridge and then bike over the bridge - I've done the walk over the Brooklyn Bridge and it just doesn't compare to Golden Gate. I've had friends from NYC visit who are pretty avid bike-commuters and they all admit that the in-city recreational biking option out here are way better.
I'd also highly recommend driving out through Golden Gate Park to Ocean Beach and then heading down Highway 1 for a cruise. I'm a native northeasterner and the coastline out here is just light years more in your face impressive.
If you mountain bike, I'd spend a day over in Marin biking around Mt. Tamalpais, where mountain biking was invented.
Wine Country, although a bit touristy, still seems to please most out-of-towners, and it rates fairly high on the self-indulgence scale. For that matter, if you can score reservations, Thomas Keller's French Laundry in Napa is considered by many the best restaurant in the country, and one of the world's top 5 restaurants. Keller has a similar place in NYC called per se, but French Laundry is the mothership. Course, if you can't get reservations, you could always hit Chez Panisse of Alice Waters fame, she who completely changed the face of American cuisine in the 1970's with her concept of "California cuisine" (or "New American" cuisine) centered on fresh, locally sourced ingredients.
So you've got food, you've got wine, you've got the great outdoors. I guess if you want more, you could always ride a cable car up california street and then tour alcatraz, if you really feel the need for touristy stuff.
rocknrope,
Be sure to take a slow stroll down 6th St between Market and Howard. Hope you know karate.
Uh, there are no genuine grounds for the whole SF v. NY debate. New York is a real city. San Francisco is an over glorified gated community for self absorbed urban hipsters and the obnoxiously rich - sorta like Scarsdale meets Williamsburg. Of course, just the fact that NYC is about 14 times the size of SF makes the entire debate moot. San Francisco is NOT a world-class city. I wish people would accept that already.
SF is not a great place to live if you work in entertainment or fashion. Otherwise, it's got everything NYC has in terms of career and usually without an 80-hour workweek. It's more beautiful with great culture and fewer hassles. NYC is also the only city that can make SF cost-of-living look cheap.
On the other hand, crime is much worse in SF (sad but true), there is more governmental corruption in SF (seriously) and MUNI makes the New York Transit Authority look spectacular.
These last three problems are pretty big, but all in all, SF still wins in my book.
I always find it funny when my friends in Silicon Alley back East have to come out here to meet with the VC money on Sand Hill Road and go pimpin' for engineering talent in SJ/SV. It so obviously gets their goat that in the tech world, New York is the branch office and SF is the mothership.
Wait, there's life west of the Hudson river?
What is this "Hudson river" of which you speak?
This native new yorker turned Oakland residents says NYC. Hands down. This town feels entirely provincial compared to the big apple. Every city competes with NY, but NY competes with no one. Seriously, when I lived in NY no one cared about silly city rivalries. The closest thing to that is with Boston and only because they've got such a Napoleon complex that it's amusing.
I especially enjoy the argument that since New Yorkers never compare NY with other cities that means that New York can't be compared to other cities. Glad I escaped the city of superiority complexes. But really, I heart NY and I heart SF. SF just suits me better.
I have been to both cities and without a doubt I would choose Las Vegas.
Thanks for the suggestions ChinaNob and Mariconsoy, I'm all about the outdoors, food, and wine, so your suggestions were spot on.