Living - New York vs. San Francisco

I'm in NY and like it, but objectively if you didn't have family or friends or a job in one or the other to swing the balance, I'd have to say SF has a lot going for it.

As you say the running and access to outdoor stuff is just in a whole different category in SF, and the climate's milder. Seems to me the choices of places to live, between the city itself, the east bay, Marin county represent probably more diversity (of lifestyle/geography, not demographics - both cities are about as demographically diverse as it gets) than the immediate NY area.

NY's obviously bigger and simply has more of some things, but again unless you have a special interest that's better-represented in NY, SF's probably got more than enough of whatever interests you.

OTOH I kinda like LA even better than SF, but you didn't ask about that. And it's a very different flavor of city, mostly not walkable just for starters.

I can't speak for SF but in NYC you'll go much further with a roommate. If you come hunting for apartments, keep in mind that most people don't live like Willis and Arnold Drummond. Apartments are small and amenities are sometimes defined by proximity to subways, parks, employer.

There's no shortage of social opportunities every night of the week and in nearly every part of the city. Tons of people in similar life situation as you. Obviously, you're a runner, so go through the list of running clubs and you'll quickly latch onto an active network.

I've been in NYC 21 years. It's great for a lot of things - career, culture of pretty much every stripe, range of people you'll meet on a daily basis - but running isn't one of them. There's a very active running scene, with multiple races every weekend, but that's just a function of population density. But good places to run are in short supply, as has been discussed ad nauseum on other threads. There's some decent hiking and camping within one to two hours from the city, and you can get there by public transportation, but nothing like what you'd find by heading over the Golden Gate Bridge and into Marin County.

There is no argument against the fact that NYC is the greatest big city in the US (if not the world). I unfortunately have never lived there but have visited and always found it such a great place. I think if you are serious about running broklyn might be a bit more runnable.

That being said I belive that San Francisco has the best training weather, year round, in perhaps the world; definitely in the US. The club scene is competitve and there are races alomost ever week and an awesome cross country series.

San Farncisco is expensive, 70k doesn't go very far there, but I've gotten by on 35k (barely) so it can be done. Oh and the running is awesome, great natural trails,beaches, ggp, marin and east bay trail running. And it can be 60 degrees in february.

I say go Left Coast.

thanks for all the insights so far. LA is ok, but every time i've been it feels more like a giant suburb to me than a centralized city. i'd like to be somewhere i don't need a car and can just take public transportation or ride my bike. i know i'll be living fairly modestly on 70k in those places but as long as i have a clean place to live, proximity to some lively and diverse places, and a few dollars to go out a few times a week, i'm fine for now.

anyway, any more insights would be appreciated..

I live in Jackson Heights Queens, and it's really not bad for running. I'm not going to reiterate all the things that have been said about NYC as far as a social and cultural city, we all know how great it is. I think that living in Astoria or Long Island City in Queens is a great option you should look into. They are both very hip and happening while also very cultural neighborhoods. They are right across the river from Manhattan and there are plenty of subway options. You can run to a couple of parks in Queens in about 30min(Forest Park, Flushing Meadow Park). You can do that on long runs, for regular runs, you can take the subway to those parks, or you can just run around the neighborhoods. You can get to VanCortland in about an hour and twenty minutes. I do all the things I just mentioned all the time when I come home from school and it's really not that big of a hassle, but of course I'm a student and don't have a full time job. Central Park is about a 20min subway ride from Astoria also.

Personally I say SF is way better and I've gone to both. Besides nobody ever made a song about why can't all the girls be NY girls. (and the running/outdoors venues and the polution/weather is way better).

wondering wrote:

thanks for all the insights so far. LA is ok, but every time i've been it feels more like a giant suburb to me than a centralized city. i'd like to be somewhere i don't need a car and can just take public transportation or ride my bike. i know i'll be living fairly modestly on 70k in those places but as long as i have a clean place to live, proximity to some lively and diverse places, and a few dollars to go out a few times a week, i'm fine for now.

anyway, any more insights would be appreciated..

Not even close. SF blows NYC away. You can always find good weather in the Bay Area, just go south or north, whatever the season calls for. You have plenty of hills in Marin county and the Santa Cruz mountains, and the city, and plenty of flat down by the bay. Can get south on Bart or Caltrain and north via ferry.

If you don't have to worry about a car or parking, you can get yourself a nice place for $1200 in SF easy.

And SF has MUCH better restaurants. That and the weather seals the deal for me. Plus, people in NYC are pretentious.

............... wrote:

Not even close. SF blows NYC away...And SF has MUCH better restaurants...

I live near SF and love the Bay Area, but you lost most of your credibility with your absolute statement about SF blowing away NYC, and the rest was gone with your claim that SF has MUCH better restaurants than NYC.

NYC has a diversity and energy that SF can't match in every category except running choices. I like SF because I need more room and a bit more relaxed vibe, but SF doesn't match NY as a city.

Both are major cities where you will find every type of person, lots of restaurants, lots of bars, lots of young people, lots of jobs, public transportation, cultural activities.

New York, being bigger, probably has more of those things. If you want non-stop excitement, NYC is probably for you. The city that never sleeps and all that.

SF has less of that, but you are able to get away to beaches and mountains with a 20 minute drive. It's a beautiful city, and really just a beautiful region.

For me it's no contest.

San Francisco has all I would ever need.

Suprised wrote:

............... wrote:

Not even close. SF blows NYC away...And SF has MUCH better restaurants...

I live near SF and love the Bay Area, but you lost most of your credibility with your absolute statement about SF blowing away NYC, and the rest was gone with your claim that SF has MUCH better restaurants than NYC.

NYC has a diversity and energy that SF can't match in every category except running choices. I like SF because I need more room and a bit more relaxed vibe, but SF doesn't match NY as a city.

NYC is boxed in, can't get out easily, people aren't as nice, weather is much worse, the airports suck(this is the gospel truth and not debatable), its not nearly as physically beautiful, no advantage cost or job wise, harder to fine decent housing, zero college football, and I firmly stand by my restaurant comment.

I rank NYC 3rd nationally in restaurants behind SF and Vegas.

wondering wrote:

factors to take into account - I'm 26, single, straight, fairly liberal, a runner, like the occasional outdoors weekend trip and would be making around 70K.

Well, I moved to SF in 1998, 4 days before my 26th birthday, single, straight, fairly liberal, a runner. Sound familiar.

I meant to stay for 3-4 years, just to check it out but still here, no longer 26 or single, but still straight, liberal and a runner.

I scraped by on an internship salary of 45K the first 8 months, then landed a job with a starting salary of 70K. Shared a fantastic apartment with a roommate, but I will say that what we paid $1550 for would now probably about $2400 or more. I've lived in four different neighborhoods and loved them all. And still many more that I'd love to try.

The running is simply exceptional, both terrain- and climate-wise. I do 9 out of 10 runs in the city without getting bored with it, but when I do head north or south for a wilder setting I'm never disappointed. The race calendar and running club scene is fantastic too.

I've always wanted to live in NYC but there's just no way I can give up SF even for a year or two.

San Fransisco is a great place to live....I lived in Napa for years and loved it out there. The climate is wonderful, the people are easy going....food is great.....it is an awesome city. NYC is also a great place to live, but if you are a runner, I would live in SF....but there are those pesky earthquakes...

SF all the fucking way. Don't even consider NY

Earthquakes rule. Just don't live in the Marina (which you can't on 70K/year anyway) and you'll be fine. A big one will drop the real estate prices to affordable levels, so I'm kinda hoping for one. Plus if the Bay Bridge collapses we'll have less of the fuc\king East Bay trash running around our beautiful city. It's a win-win.

San Francisco is expensive, yes, but it's not as bad as some people are making it out to be.

Myself and most of my friends all make $45 to $55k and we are fine. If you're lucky and have roommates, you can find a cheap apartment in a decent neighborhood.

For the neighborhoods with the most nightlife - Marina and North Beach - rent will start at $900-1,000 per person with roommates. If you go just outside those neighborhoods (Presidio, Russian Hill) you can get lucky and find something for $750-800. Rent is cheaper the further west you go. The Haight is a great area near GG Park that you can find rent for around $700.

Since you're making $70k you should be fine. My buddy had a 1 bedroom (not a studio) at Powell and Chestnut (North Beach) for $1,150. I'm sure you could find something like that.

Frisco is too cold year around. Nice place to visit. Recently I stayed at the hostel in Ft. Mason with a great view of the GG Bridge. New York is too cold, a filthy dump, the people a total bore. Everything in NY is about 1870's Old World immigrant dreams. New Yorkers are obsessed with the past, a world long since past. I like San Diego. That's where I live now.

I live in NY and LOVE it. And at 70K you'll be fine, especially if that's what you make in a smaller town. Your salary should adjust accordingly when you move to either city. I live in the Upper East Side on about 35K a year...although, I am 23 and live with two roommates. But I think your situation is definitely doable.

And actually I think the running scene is good here, but it depends on what you like. If you're into nature, NY isn't the place. The scenery of central park can get boring, but to me nothing beats the energy of it. It carries me through long and/or bad runs. You can be running by yourself but still have plenty of other people around you. I like that, but I can see how others wouldn't.

That being said, the nightlife, daylife, and everything in between is amazing. You have bars, parks, museums, theaters, sports teams, etc., etc., right here. I wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

Oh and FYI - the food here is amazing, despite what others say.