3 ms·

1) SF & Valley: Education levels of the people here. You can get that in a couple other places--DC, NYC, Boston--but not too many others. Relatedly, two easily

1) SF & Valley: Education levels of the people here. You can get that in a couple other places--DC, NYC, Boston--but not too many others. Relatedly, two easily accessible world class universities are in the Bay Area: Boston beats us here, but we beat NYC and DC. 2) SF & Valley: Diversity. Bay Area cities top the list of largest number of foreign born residents, with only LA and NYC being competitive. 3) SF & Valley: Weather. LA beats us here, but SF trounces NYC, Boston, DC, and Seattle. 4) Just SF: Walkability and street life. SF is more walkable than most cities (the weather helps with that), and although it has shitty public transit options, it's only shitty in comparison to places with actual good public transit, which more or less don't exist in the US. 5) Just SF: Weirdness. Okay, SF has driven out most of the interesting weirdo and artistic crowds and replaced them with CrossFitting Burners. But there are still remnants of that culture, more so than most places except perhaps NYC. 6) SF & Valley: Food. It's mediocre in comparison to the scenes in LA and NYC. But it's still worlds better than the rest of the country. 7) SF: Arts. Similar to food, it's mediocre compared to LA and NYC. But it's still worlds better than the rest of the country. 8) SF & Valley: Nature. West Coast cities are all competitive here, as is Denver/Boulder (though even they lack the beaches), but this is another place where East Coast cities fall short. In the end, the only plausibly competitive cities on this scoring matrix are LA and NYC. LA sacrifices a lot of the walkability and weirdness of SF. NYC sacrifices the weather, and moving to NYC from SF isn't going to get you of any the much vaunted coupon-cutting decrease in cost of living that everyone in these comments is so pumped about. Just to be fair, I'll also list disadvantages of SF: 1) Cost of living. "No one is willing to pay that much to live in SF, it's too expensive." 2) Dating scene for men. 3) Travel. Subjective, but East Coast cities are better situated for international travel than the West Coast. 4) Cleanliness. Yep, SF is an unhygienic shithole in many places. 5) Monoculture. Too many tech folks here, not enough diversity in industry.

rock_hard 6y ago
Agree with all points except "Dating scene for men" As somebody who has lived on three continents in major metro area's as well as countryside IMO SFBA has the best dating scene. I am married now, so I have been out of the single pool for a couple years...but before that I will say that SFBA had the most attractive pool of available woman in the world, if intelligence, creativity, independence, being self starters and physical attractiveness is what you value. I sure found the love of my life here.
- scarmig 6y ago
  I agree that the SFBA has a very attractive pool of women, I just question whether they're available =) I've lived in a similar variety of metro areas as you, in North America, Europe, and Asia. San Francisco ranks dead last. Pretty much any guy can improve his dating outcomes by moving from SF to NYC, no matter what his standards are and what he's looking for, mostly because you can actually get regular dates with the accomplished, independent women there. I have one friend who lived at a base in Antarctica for awhile, and he favorably compared the dating scene there to what's in SF.
  - rock_hard 6y ago
    There is likely a lot of factors at play But personally I had no game with woman in NYC or LA....in part because what each party wanted from a partner was incompatible.
dougmwne 6y ago
I have lived in both SF and DC and think a few of your points are maybe a bit unfair to the east coast. I found DC's public transit and walkability to be quite a bit better than SF. True, the weather is less perfect, and maybe I am resistant to humidity and mild cold, but I generally found it pleasant to be outside for 9 months of the year. DC absolutely had a lot of diversity, partially due to immigration, but also because the government pulls in people from all countries and all walks of life. It is really the opposite of a monoculture since there is really a bit of everything under the sun there. The Smithsonian is a worldwide magnet for art and culture. You also trade SF's weirdness for one of the most historically interesting places in the country. On the nature front, there are really a lot of great public lands on the east coast. They are a bit less iconic than what you can find on the west coast, but you can still hike, camp, climb, ski and beach to your heart's content. I think comparing SF to DC and Boston makes the most sense just due to similar size. LA and NYC are in a class of their own.
- scarmig 6y ago
  I've spent probably a month total in DC, so I don't fully know its charms. And it's certainly a city that I get the appeal of, and I wouldn't be opposed to moving there if circumstances brought me there. But some thoughts: Walkability: for pros, DC is flatter and cleaner. The Metro is cleaner and more reliable than Muni. For cons, the city itself is a bit more spread out, and its hinterlands (e.g. Tysons or Silver Spring), although accessible via public transit, are much less walkable than San Francisco's hinterlands (e.g. Berkeley or Palo Alto). But the biggest issue is that D.C. is just not really walkable in either the depths of winter or the heights of summer (although evenings can be pretty pleasant, and you can actually enjoy an evening out on a patio). Maybe I'm a wimp with low tolerances, but that's six months of the year gone right there. Diversity: SF is around 1/3 foreign born, while DC is like 1/6 or 1/8. Almost half of SF speaks a language other than English at home, while DC is more like a quarter. DC is diverse, just not as diverse as SF. I agree with the rest of what you said.
  - dougmwne 6y ago
    On the diversity angle, foreign-born is not the only metric. DC proper is about 45% Black which is an important part of its history and identity as a city. DC almost never gets snow so the "depths of winter" is a relative term. I walked and biked 365 days a year and so did most of my co-workers. It was common to not own a car, especially for younger people. In the hotter summer months I adapted by wearing lighter clothes or shoes for my commute and changing at work. I also kept a change of clothes at work in the event of a downpour, which was rare anyway. Everyone else deals with the same thing, so it's not weird to pop into the bathroom to change from shorts to pants on a hot day. Outdoor dining does shut down for a few of the colder months, but then when the first tables go outside again it can be a thrill. I get that the bay area weather is practically perfect every day; maybe I just don't require perfection. Metro absolutely does not serve many areas. It's a far cry from NYC or European cities, but was totally workable as long as you stuck to the city and certain suburbs.

rock_hard 6y ago

Agree with all points except "Dating scene for men" As somebody who has lived on three continents in major metro area's as well as countryside IMO SFBA has the best dating scene. I am married now, so I have been out of the single pool for a couple years...but before that I will say that SFBA had the most attractive pool of available woman in the world, if intelligence, creativity, independence, being self starters and physical attractiveness is what you value. I sure found the love of my life here.

scarmig 6y ago
I agree that the SFBA has a very attractive pool of women, I just question whether they're available =) I've lived in a similar variety of metro areas as you, in North America, Europe, and Asia. San Francisco ranks dead last. Pretty much any guy can improve his dating outcomes by moving from SF to NYC, no matter what his standards are and what he's looking for, mostly because you can actually get regular dates with the accomplished, independent women there. I have one friend who lived at a base in Antarctica for awhile, and he favorably compared the dating scene there to what's in SF.
- rock_hard 6y ago
  There is likely a lot of factors at play But personally I had no game with woman in NYC or LA....in part because what each party wanted from a partner was incompatible.

dougmwne 6y ago

I have lived in both SF and DC and think a few of your points are maybe a bit unfair to the east coast. I found DC's public transit and walkability to be quite a bit better than SF. True, the weather is less perfect, and maybe I am resistant to humidity and mild cold, but I generally found it pleasant to be outside for 9 months of the year. DC absolutely had a lot of diversity, partially due to immigration, but also because the government pulls in people from all countries and all walks of life. It is really the opposite of a monoculture since there is really a bit of everything under the sun there. The Smithsonian is a worldwide magnet for art and culture. You also trade SF's weirdness for one of the most historically interesting places in the country. On the nature front, there are really a lot of great public lands on the east coast. They are a bit less iconic than what you can find on the west coast, but you can still hike, camp, climb, ski and beach to your heart's content. I think comparing SF to DC and Boston makes the most sense just due to similar size. LA and NYC are in a class of their own.

scarmig 6y ago
I've spent probably a month total in DC, so I don't fully know its charms. And it's certainly a city that I get the appeal of, and I wouldn't be opposed to moving there if circumstances brought me there. But some thoughts: Walkability: for pros, DC is flatter and cleaner. The Metro is cleaner and more reliable than Muni. For cons, the city itself is a bit more spread out, and its hinterlands (e.g. Tysons or Silver Spring), although accessible via public transit, are much less walkable than San Francisco's hinterlands (e.g. Berkeley or Palo Alto). But the biggest issue is that D.C. is just not really walkable in either the depths of winter or the heights of summer (although evenings can be pretty pleasant, and you can actually enjoy an evening out on a patio). Maybe I'm a wimp with low tolerances, but that's six months of the year gone right there. Diversity: SF is around 1/3 foreign born, while DC is like 1/6 or 1/8. Almost half of SF speaks a language other than English at home, while DC is more like a quarter. DC is diverse, just not as diverse as SF. I agree with the rest of what you said.
- dougmwne 6y ago
  On the diversity angle, foreign-born is not the only metric. DC proper is about 45% Black which is an important part of its history and identity as a city. DC almost never gets snow so the "depths of winter" is a relative term. I walked and biked 365 days a year and so did most of my co-workers. It was common to not own a car, especially for younger people. In the hotter summer months I adapted by wearing lighter clothes or shoes for my commute and changing at work. I also kept a change of clothes at work in the event of a downpour, which was rare anyway. Everyone else deals with the same thing, so it's not weird to pop into the bathroom to change from shorts to pants on a hot day. Outdoor dining does shut down for a few of the colder months, but then when the first tables go outside again it can be a thrill. I get that the bay area weather is practically perfect every day; maybe I just don't require perfection. Metro absolutely does not serve many areas. It's a far cry from NYC or European cities, but was totally workable as long as you stuck to the city and certain suburbs.