If you could live in San Francisco or NYC...

[medawyn]

I've never been to NYC, but I've been to SF numerous times. Are you thinking about the actual city itself? The cost of living is through the roof. I lived in the East Bay (Concord) for a couple of years and, while the COL is high there, too, it's a little more reasonable and the area is more livable. Also, the SF culture may not appeal to some (trying to be diplomatic here), so, depending on your lifestyle, beliefs. Etc. you may want to investigate all that before making the move to the City itself.

 

I saw more public urination in NYC, and more public nudity in SF.  Is that what we're comparing?  :lol:

[umsami]

I love both, but I have an unnatural fear of earthquakes, so I'd choose NYC. 

[mommaduck]

SF hands down.

[idnib]

Yeah, the earthquake thing is real. Lots of people have moved here since the last big one (1989) and it's not on their radars enough. You do need to be prepared at all times.

[KrissiK]

I saw more public urination in NYC, and more public nudity in SF. Is that what we're comparing? :lol:

Well, it hit the news fairly recently that a wooden pole (or something) fell over in SF due to the fact that it rotted so much because of being urinated on. So, I'm tending to think it's a problem in SF, too. Lol. That, and the politics of that city are quite pronounced. SF has a reputation for being an extremely left leaning city, politically. If that political climate appeals to a person, then great. But I think it would be difficult for a person of a more conservative political/social leaning to live there.

[Guest]

 

 

Pros of SF:

-weather is always perfect

 

 

 

Erm...pardon me but you just made this expat San Franciscan laugh so hard that I almost spit my coffee out all over my monitor.

 

http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2013/06/14/karl-the-fog-explains-how-he-got-the-gig-as-san-franciscos-fog

 

I still agree with Ellie, though; when I lived near NYC I avoided it even if it meant a long detour to avoid driving through it to get from point A to point B.

[Pen]

If we do NYC, we'd do either Brooklyn (Park Slope) or the UWS or UES. We don't want any long commutes. We already have that here (in DC) and it has ruined our lives. Even if we stay here, we're going to move closer to DC, but dh is kind of looking forward to getting out of government work. He used to be excited about it, but he's just kind of tired of the constant crises, all-night emailing, urgent papers for high-level officials, etc. He doesn't get home until after 8:00 every night. And this is just our norm. We're used to it. All his friends who have left for the private sector rave about their new lives: they're eating dinner with their families every night, working from home a couple days a week, coaching their kids' soccer teams, etc. Oh, and making tons more money.

 

 

I prefer NYC as a city.

 

But if you are trying to have a decrease in pressure, my own experience is that NYC is more high pressure than...  well, than anywhere else I have been, including DC, London, LA, SF.  That was some time ago, so maybe if he can work from home a couple of days per week or something as in the above that would be different nowadays.  Where are your private sector friends with lots of time?

 

I do have one friend whose husband works at a bank in NYC (they live in Connecticut) who does seem to have time for his kids' activities and  does iron man decathlon himself. But mostly my experience of NYC was that it is fast paced and rarely sleeps...though Brooklyn sleeps more and better than Manhattan.

[Pen]

SF is fast-paced, intense, and with long hours for the west coast, almost like an East Coast city moved to the west, but it is still, IME, low key compared to Manhattan, NYC.  I am distinguishing Manhattan, because I think Brooklyn is far less intense, and Staten Island even less so probably though I've lived in Brooklyn and not in Staten Island, so not sure of that. I had a friend who lived in Queens by the ocean and that was like a different world from Wall Street even though close and part of the city.

[texasmama]

Neither, but if forced to choose, SF because of the weather.  I know a Texan transplant living in NYC.  Actually, she and her family live in a high rise apartment in NJ and commute to work in NYC because they can't afford to live in NYC.  She misses having a house.  

 

I've been to NYC.  It was scary.  So busy.  I've never been to CA.

Edited December 17, 2015 by texasmama

[texasmama]

I saw more public urination in NYC, and more public nudity in SF.  Is that what we're comparing?  :lol:

I choose nudity over urination. :hat:  :hat:

 

Are these the only choices? :lol:

[texasmama]

Just split the difference and Texas.  Because Texas.

[regentrude]

San Francisco.

I love California, the outdoors, it is less hustle&bustle. I get depressed in NYC - too many people.

SF is just a short drive to the Sierra Nevada, one of my favorite places in the country.

Edited December 17, 2015 by regentrude

[umsami]

Regarding public urination, apparently San Francisco has special paint designed to splash the person back.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-35120259?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

[gardenmom5]

If i had to choose one them (re: I couldn't choose option c.)

I'd go with SF. more outdoor opportunities.  west coast. better weather, mts/yosemte are an easy distance.  redwoods to the north. 

[gardenmom5]

Yeah, the earthquake thing is real. Lots of people have moved here since the last big one (1989) and it's not on their radars enough. You do need to be prepared at all times.

 

most places on the west coast get earthquakes.  even portland/seattle.  cascadia is sitting there just off-shore.  and it's not moving . . . . . it can make a really big quake and tusnami - like the one that hit japan in 2011.  (japan's orphan tsunami came from cascadia.)

[Arcadia]

SF because SF is already too cold. Also our extended family are in Asia and Australia. It is a lot easier to fly there from the west coast compared to the east coast.

Besides hubby has been in NYC downtown area and didn't like the vibe even more than SF downtown.

 

We are 45mins south of SF so it is easy for us to fetch our relatives from SFO and to take them touring round SF, Napa and the surrounding areas.

[DawnM]

I would choose SF without even hesitating.  NYC is just not my place and SF is on the West Coast and I am a West Coast girl to the core.

 

 

[MooCow]

I grew up as a so-cali girl...... so NYC

 

Northern California is way different than southern

[Aspasia]

What may be a deal breaker or maker for any of us may be inconsequential to you, so I think you need to describe what you are looking for a bit more (and not looking for) in more detail.

 

For me, though, when I've visited San Francisco proper, the city has always struck me as kid-unfriendly, in a way that's hard to put a finger on.  I've never gotten this vibe from NYC.

 

This is what I've heard a lot. We've been to NYC with kids and it was fine. Brooklyn was even better than Manhattan, though both are very kid-friendly. If he did the SF job, we'd probably live in the East Bay. That seems to be where the families are.

 

I've never been to NYC, but I've been to SF numerous times. Are you thinking about the actual city itself? The cost of living is through the roof. I lived in the East Bay (Concord) for a couple of years and, while the COL is high there, too, it's a little more reasonable and the area is more livable. Also, the SF culture may not appeal to some (trying to be diplomatic here), so, depending on your lifestyle, beliefs. Etc. you may want to investigate all that before making the move to the City itself.

 

Haha! The politics of the Bay Area are right up our alley. And yeah, like I said, we'd probably go for the East Bay, because that's where the families are. I actually love Berkeley. My dad lived there for several years, so I've spent a lot of time there. And then he lived in Walnut Creek for several years, so I've hung out on that side of the mountain as well.

 

Just shoot me now if I had to choose either city. I do not even like visiting them. Ask your DH to find a job in a coastal Florida town.

 

Ick! I was just telling someone today that I would never, ever want to live in Florida. The furthest south I can go on the East Coast is North Carolina. I don't care for the swamp vibe.

 

I love both, but I have an unnatural fear of earthquakes, so I'd choose NYC. 

 

Me, too! And this is a legitimate plus for NYC.

 

I prefer NYC as a city.

 

But if you are trying to have a decrease in pressure, my own experience is that NYC is more high pressure than...  well, than anywhere else I have been, including DC, London, LA, SF.  That was some time ago, so maybe if he can work from home a couple of days per week or something as in the above that would be different nowadays.  Where are your private sector friends with lots of time?

 

I do have one friend whose husband works at a bank in NYC (they live in Connecticut) who does seem to have time for his kids' activities and  does iron man decathlon himself. But mostly my experience of NYC was that it is fast paced and rarely sleeps...though Brooklyn sleeps more and better than Manhattan.

 

His private sector friends are all working at banks in NYC and DC, in the same field (sanctions/AML) as he would be. Some work for Ernst & Young, which is actually really grueling, because of the travel, but when they're home, they're just home. The overall vibe of the cities may be different, but his particular office in DC is extremely high pressure, high stakes, and intense. And it's all classified, so working from home is never an option (except all night and all weekend long with the crisis emails). Even the global head of the NYC position (dh's friend who reached out to him about this job), who lives in London, works from home a few days a week.

 

Edited December 17, 2015 by Bucolic

[Pen]

This is what I've heard a lot. We've been to NYC with kids and it was fine. Brooklyn was even better than Manhattan, though both are very kid-friendly. If he did the SF job, we'd probably live in the East Bay. That seems to be where the families are.

 

 

Haha! The politics of the Bay Area are right up our alley. And yeah, like I said, we'd probably go for the East Bay, because that's where the families are. I actually love Berkeley. My dad lived there for several years, so I've spent a lot of time there. And then he lived in Walnut Creek for several years, so I've hung out on that side of the mountain as well.

 

 

Ick! I was just telling someone today that I would never, ever want to live in Florida. The furthest south I can go on the East Coast is North Carolina. I don't care for the swamp vibe.

 

 

Me, too! And this is a legitimate plus for NYC.

 

 

His private sector friends are all working at banks in NYC and DC, in the same field (sanctions/AML) as he would be. Some work for Ernst & Young, which is actually really grueling, because of the travel, but when they're home, they're just home. The overall vibe of the cities may be different, but his particular office in DC is extremely high pressure, high stakes, and intense. And it's all classified, so working from home is never an option (except all night and all weekend long with the crisis emails). Even the global head of the NYC position (dh's friend who reached out to him about this job), who lives in London, works from home a few days a week.

 

 

Then it sounds like either way it would be a lot less pressure in his particular circumstances than he under now.

 

Does your family like doing NYC type things (theater, dining out, museums...) especially?

 

Or are you more the outdoors activities type of family, which may lend itself better to SF area?

 

 

Do you like hills or flat? 

 

Lots of public transportation not only in your city but to connect easily to other cities? Or driving more?

 

Would your kids keep homeschooling or would schools available be important?

 

What about colleges? Do you think they would be likely to go to college on the East or West coast (if either)?

[idnib]

most places on the west coast get earthquakes.  even portland/seattle.  cascadia is sitting there just off-shore.  and it's not moving . . . . . it can make a really big quake and tusnami - like the one that hit japan in 2011.  (japan's orphan tsunami came from cascadia.)

 

Yep. Subduction faults keep me from moving north, along with feeling unwelcome.  ;)

[umsami]

If you do move to NY, we lived in two different areas of Brooklyn which were reasonably affordable (no place really is), but not as bad as Park Slope.  Bay Ridge would be my first choice, followed by Bensonhurst.  Both were an easy subway ride into the city, but it wasn't that bad getting out and going to Staten Island or Jersey.  We lived in Bay Ridge back when I had one one kid.  I loved walking along this park on the water...where you could see the Verrazano Bridge and the Statue of Liberty.  

[MBM]

My daughter's company is based in Brooklyn and San Francisco. She lives in San Fran and works for periods of time in Brooklyn. Maybe that would be the best solution!

[MyThreeSons]

I would choose San Francisco without a second thought. 

[SeaConquest]

Yeah, the earthquake thing is real. Lots of people have moved here since the last big one (1989) and it's not on their radars enough. You do need to be prepared at all times.

 

That's how the natives clear everyone else out every few years. ;)

 

We are so due...

[SeaConquest]

Yep. Subduction faults keep me from moving north, along with feeling unwelcome.  ;)

 

That's why we are considering Bend. It's cheap and no Cascadian quakes to worry about. We'd still be unwelcome, but did I mention that it is cheap? ;)

[Guest]

 

 

Would your kids keep homeschooling or would schools available be important?

 

Another plus for Karl the Fog: California is just a simple online affidavit once a year:

 

http://www.hsc.org/establishing-your-own-private-school.html

 

New York....um...doesn't look very appealing:

 

http://a2zhomeschooling.com/laws/united_states/new_york_home_school_laws/

 

but maybe dh could commute from New Jersey:

 

http://a2zhomeschooling.com/laws/united_states/new_jersey_home_school_laws/

[Alicia64]

Depending on how much money your dh will be making, it is somewhat doubtful that you will be living right in the middle of NYC. You are more likely to live in a suburb and your dh will commute in and out of the city for work every day -- which can add up to a long and stressful day for him.

 

I have never lived in SF, but as someone who has lived in NYC, I have to say that it may not be as glamorous as you anticipate unless your dh will be paid a very, very high salary.

 

Exactly the same for SF. My dad worked in SF for 30 years and commuted in by BART. We lived in a beautiful suburb that you might want to consider: Moraga. Orinda and Lafayette are great too.

 

Alley

[medawyn]

Exactly the same for SF. My dad worked in SF for 30 years and commuted in by BART. We lived in a beautiful suburb that you might want to consider: Moraga. Orinda and Lafayette are great too.

 

Alley

 

Just tossing it out there (I don't know when you lived in Moraga) but traffic around there is brutal now.  Moraga is really lovely (as are Orinda and Lafayette), and we looked at homes there.  My husband actually works in Livermore, which is south, so we ended up a little further down on 680 than Walnut Creek.  

 

Bucolic, if you really would end up in the East Bay, we have truly loved living here.  If we were moving urban, I would absolutely choose NYC hands down.  I was single when I was living in NYC, but I nannied for a family of 6 and later taught elementary school; it can be a great city for kids.  But for suburb living with access to all sorts of wonderful outdoor options (awesome hiking, truly fantastic parks) then I would choose California.  

 

As it is, we're moving to Iowa, which isn't really SF or NYC  :lol: But housing is definitely cheaper!

[Aspasia]

Then it sounds like either way it would be a lot less pressure in his particular circumstances than he under now.

 

Does your family like doing NYC type things (theater, dining out, museums...) especially?

 

Or are you more the outdoors activities type of family, which may lend itself better to SF area?

 

 

Do you like hills or flat? 

 

Lots of public transportation not only in your city but to connect easily to other cities? Or driving more?

 

Would your kids keep homeschooling or would schools available be important?

 

What about colleges? Do you think they would be likely to go to college on the East or West coast (if either)?

 

These are the kinds of questions that have me leaning toward SF. I personally love theater and museums, but our kids are little enough that those experiences are not so enjoyable at this age. We prefer outdoor activities. The advantages of NYC are things that we wouldn't really get to enjoy on a daily basis, but the advantages of SF (like weather and outdoor fun and the fact that we can go outside year round) WOULD be experienced every single day. Half the year in NYC, we'd just be cooped up in that tiny apartment or trudging through the slush to get somewhere else.

 

We're pretty sure we'll be homeschooling. 

 

Not sure about colleges yet. But I generally favor state schools, because even though I believe in education and dh and I both have advanced schooling, I don't think it's worth $50k a year! So California is kind of nice in that regard, because options. But in all honesty, I don't see us staying in any place for more than 5-7 years. We like the adventure. We'll probably move on after awhile (hopefully to Europe, but maybe to NYC to enjoy those theater and museum opportunities when our kids are older!).

[TKDmom]

Just shoot me now if I had to choose either city. I do not even like visiting them. Ask your DH to find a job in a coastal Florida town.

Oh goodness no. I live in a coastal Florida town. After 12 years here, I still hate the climate. No seasons, except rainy and dry. This year, we're not even getting dry. It's supposed to be cool and pleasant in December, not 80 degrees and humid.

 

I grew up in S. California and lived in Utah for 7 years. Dh had an internship in the Bay Area when oldest dd was a baby, and I Loved it there. Except for earthquakes. Earthquakes terrify me, which is one reason we won't ever move to CA. But I do really miss the mountains and the seasons (yes California has seasons--just mild ones).

 

I've never been to NYC, so I can't vote for you. SF had the best public transportation of anywhere I've lived--it made it possible for us to live there with only one car and go into the city without a car. It may not be as good as NYC, but it was better than SLC and much better than the hour-long waits for buses in my current town.

Edited December 18, 2015 by TKDmom

[Snickerdoodle]

Half the year in NYC, we'd just be cooped up in that tiny apartment

 

Only if you were totally unimaginative.

[idnib]

Not sure about colleges yet. But I generally favor state schools, because even though I believe in education and dh and I both have advanced schooling, I don't think it's worth $50k a year! So California is kind of nice in that regard, because options. But in all honesty, I don't see us staying in any place for more than 5-7 years. We like the adventure. We'll probably move on after awhile (hopefully to Europe, but maybe to NYC to enjoy those theater and museum opportunities when our kids are older!).

 

Here's a good thread if you're considering college aspects. Scroll down to ~post #40 if you want to read more about that topic, but read the entire thing if you want some discussion about East Bay cities.

[Aspasia]

Oh goodness no. I live in a coastal Florida town. After 12 years here, I still hate the climate. No seasons, except rainy and dry. This year, we're not even getting dry. It's supposed to be cool and pleasant in December, not 80 degrees and humid.

 

I grew up in S. California and lived in Utah for 7 years. Dh had an internship in the Bay Area when oldest dd was a baby, and I Loved it there. Except for earthquakes. Earthquakes terrify me, which is one reason we won't ever move to CA. But I do really miss the mountains and the seasons (yes California has seasons--just mild ones).

 

I've never been to NYC, so I can't vote for you. SF had the best public transportation of anywhere I've lived--it made it possible for us to live there with only one car and go into the city without a car. It may not be as good as NYC, but it was better than SLC and much better than the hour-long waits for buses in my current town.

Very helpful. We're from the Salt Lake area!

 

Only if you were totally unimaginative.

Do you live in a 1,000 square feet with 4 small children, in a city that's cold and wet 5-6 months of the year? If so, I'm very open to ideas for coping with cabin fever.

[Aspasia]

Here's a good thread if you're considering college aspects. Scroll down to ~post #40 if you want to read more about that topic, but read the entire thing if you want some discussion about East Bay cities.

Thank you for this link! It's gold!

[Snickerdoodle]

.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Snickerdoodle

[Tanaqui]

Do you live in a 1,000 square feet with 4 small children, in a city that's cold and wet 5-6 months of the year? If so, I'm very open to ideas for coping with cabin fever.

 

There's no bad weather, only bad clothes. Learn it, live it, love it.

 

When the girls were small, and it was cold and wet, I dressed them in long undies and raincoats and took them to the playground anyway. Or to the Children's Museum - some weeks we were there every single day. Or to another museum, if I was bored of the three children's museums in the city. Or to the zoo. And if we were the only ones there, so much the better!

[Pen]

These are the kinds of questions that have me leaning toward SF. I personally love theater and museums, but our kids are little enough that those experiences are not so enjoyable at this age. We prefer outdoor activities. The advantages of NYC are things that we wouldn't really get to enjoy on a daily basis, but the advantages of SF (like weather and outdoor fun and the fact that we can go outside year round) WOULD be experienced every single day. Half the year in NYC, we'd just be cooped up in that tiny apartment or trudging through the slush to get somewhere else.

 

We're pretty sure we'll be homeschooling. 

 

Not sure about colleges yet. But I generally favor state schools, because even though I believe in education and dh and I both have advanced schooling, I don't think it's worth $50k a year! So California is kind of nice in that regard, because options. But in all honesty, I don't see us staying in any place for more than 5-7 years. We like the adventure. We'll probably move on after awhile (hopefully to Europe, but maybe to NYC to enjoy those theater and museum opportunities when our kids are older!).

 

It doesn't necessarily work that way. Theater and museums are (IMO) better in NYC for children too, not just adults. That is, there will be better children's theater, children's music, etc. in NYC.  Museum of Natural History and planetarium, Bronx zoo, Botanical gardens in Bronx and Brooklyn...all very child friendly.  Shakespeare in the Park in the summer in NYC is world class...  Thus much education in NYC can be had at the things that exist there. And kids do not necessarily gravitate to such things when they are older. It may be that when they are older they will want to do sports more, might more enjoy rock climbing at Yosemite as teens than as an 8 year old, if ever, for example--an young kid would likely be just as happy climbing the rocks in central park. The type of outdoors that a young child needs can be provided by NYC. It is really adult needs, if you are campers, backpackers, mountain bikers...that would be harder there.  And you can certainly go outside year round in either place.  My experience of NYC is that there was more daily outdoors and walking than in many other places precisely because one was always going somewhere to do something, and that involved at least walking to public transportation, rather than only to the car. Or even if there was a car in NYC, unless it was in parking in one's own apt bldg, it was still an outdoors walk. And it was not slushy all that many days of the year. Anyhow, it is kids who most appreciate snow except for skiers, I think.

 

 

Very helpful. We're from the Salt Lake area!

 

Do you live in a 1,000 square feet with 4 small children, in a city that's cold and wet 5-6 months of the year? If so, I'm very open to ideas for coping with cabin fever.

 

 

I don't think you would stay indoors 5-6 months of the year. You would go places and enjoy the city. Or you might want to live further out where you had some more space.

 

Though probably if I lived in NYC and could afford it, and they could get in, I would send my dc to one of the excellent schools there and would not home school.

[foxbridgeacademy]

I would choose SF, because of the weather, COL, and I have this perception that the people are friendlier, but mostly the weather.

[Aspasia]

It doesn't necessarily work that way. Theater and museums are (IMO) better in NYC for children too, not just adults. That is, there will be better children's theater, children's music, etc. in NYC.  Museum of Natural History and planetarium, Bronx zoo, Botanical gardens in Bronx and Brooklyn...all very child friendly.  Shakespeare in the Park in the summer in NYC is world class...  Thus much education in NYC can be had at the things that exist there. And kids do not necessarily gravitate to such things when they are older. It may be that when they are older they will want to do sports more, might more enjoy rock climbing at Yosemite as teens than as an 8 year old, if ever, for example--an young kid would likely be just as happy climbing the rocks in central park. The type of outdoors that a young child needs can be provided by NYC. It is really adult needs, if you are campers, backpackers, mountain bikers...that would be harder there.  And you can certainly go outside year round in either place.  My experience of NYC is that there was more daily outdoors and walking than in many other places precisely because one was always going somewhere to do something, and that involved at least walking to public transportation, rather than only to the car. Or even if there was a car in NYC, unless it was in parking in one's own apt bldg, it was still an outdoors walk. And it was not slushy all that many days of the year. Anyhow, it is kids who most appreciate snow except for skiers, I think.

 

 

These are some very good points. And my kids do love climbing the rocks in Central Park. These are all the things that made me want to go to NYC in the first place. Hmmm.....

[Pen]

If you like cities, and you want an adventure, they are both good options, actually.

[TranquilMind]

...which one would you choose?

 

My husband is still in process with the NYC bank opportunity I mentioned a few months ago. But now a head hunter has contacted him about a job at a bank in San Francisco. This is a hard decision for us! I mean, he doesn't have an actual offer or salary figure from either bank (though NYC bank is flying him up for a 7th and final interview right after Christmas and the head hunter for SF seems sure he could get a very good amount in SF, and says NYC won't be able to match it—who knows? He sort of has an ulterior motive.)

 

The cost of living seems comparable. 

 

Pros of SF:

-weather is always perfect

-access to outdoor activities

-closer to our families, in Utah

-closer to Hawaii

-we can get more living space for the same price

 

 

Pros of NYC:

-It's NYC! It's the capital of the world!

-more diversity

-access to more museums and theater opportunities

-the adventure of city living (SF just isn't the same)

-closer to Europe

-I've always wanted to live there

 

What do you guys think? 

I would take San Francisco, I think.  New York City crowds would bother me.  I feel stressed out watching the crowds on TV. 

 

I think closer to families, especially if your kids are young, is important. 

 

 

[Alicia64]

Just tossing it out there (I don't know when you lived in Moraga) but traffic around there is brutal now.  Moraga is really lovely (as are Orinda and Lafayette), and we looked at homes there.  My husband actually works in Livermore, which is south, so we ended up a little further down on 680 than Walnut Creek.  

 

Bucolic, if you really would end up in the East Bay, we have truly loved living here.  If we were moving urban, I would absolutely choose NYC hands down.  I was single when I was living in NYC, but I nannied for a family of 6 and later taught elementary school; it can be a great city for kids.  But for suburb living with access to all sorts of wonderful outdoor options (awesome hiking, truly fantastic parks) then I would choose California.  

 

As it is, we're moving to Iowa, which isn't really SF or NYC  :lol: But housing is definitely cheaper!

 

Well, for the record: we called it "Boraga" when we were kids. And we all thought it was a haven for snoot bags. I live in the South now, but lived in Virginia for five years. I love the East Coast/South. I won't go back to CA. Period. I was there a long, long time and saw most of it from San Diego up to Tahoe which is my very favorite. I miss Tahoe like crazy.

 

All that said, I have friends who lived smack in NYC and were there when 9/11 hit. All three friends moved within a year and don't intend to go back. They visit friends and relatives but the won't live there again after what they've been through. One had a tiny baby and they lived within the cordoned-off area after the attack.

 

My choice -- if you have it -- would be to be in VA.

 

Alley

 

[Seeking Squirrels]

I'd pick SF. I hate snow so that's admittedly a big part of it. It's also closer to where we are now (we're in Utah, too) so easier to visit family and friends. I would absolutely LOVE to visit NYC (and really, really wish I could in April to see DT in Richard II), but I don't think I'd like living there. However, I've never visited either city, so I don't know if doing so would change my opinion.

[Tsuga]

I was not impressed by New York. Same stuff as anywhere but more people competing to make it there in the self-proclaimed "capital of the world" (because investment banking rules us all), so they do have fancier stuff.

 

If you are drawn to "capital of the world" then nothing but New York or possibly London and Beijing will do.

 

If you want a better QOL, then I'd go for San Francisco.

 

Also, New York is diverse but more segregated than San Francisco:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

 

Fremont being a lovely SF neighborhood...

 

You've mentioned a lot of brand-conscious things (well... I guess not technically "brand" conscious but very status-conscious) here. But frankly we never run out of stuff to do in little backwater Seattle. SAM and the Asian Art museum and the ballet have everything we need for most of the year. We literally never run out of things to do but yeah, the ballet is not as fancy. The principles are not as highly ranked. That's not a problem for us, KWIM? There is lots of culture outside of New York. It isn't as world class. But in my opinion, it's just as enjoyable.

 

At the same time, if you are in finance, fashion or the arts, then I hear absolutely nothing replaces New York for the connections and so on.

 

 

 

 That is, there will be better children's theater, children's music, etc. in NYC.  Museum of Natural History and planetarium, Bronx zoo, Botanical gardens in Bronx and Brooklyn...all very child friendly.  Shakespeare in the Park in the summer in NYC is world class...  Thus much education in NYC can be had at the things that exist there.

 

What I hear from New Yorkers and Los Angelenos about Seattle, San Francisco, Santa Fe, Portland, even Minneapolis, is not that we don't have awesome things to do. You could EASILY educate a child in Miami, Seattle, Portland, Seattle, Colorado Springs, even Salt Lake City god forbid  :001_rolleyes: . We have a lot of really nice things and museums around here. And yes, I have seen museums in London, Paris, New York, and Moscow, and yes, they're bigger. You know that after visiting like, 25 times I guess.

 

The problem with SF is not that they don't have enough things to do for like, the rest of your life. It's that it's not something you can brag about. It's not as big. Not as "world class". No big names. No Kenneth Branagh. 

 

But--here's what people here enjoy:

 

You are more likely to know the artist. You are more likely to get to know people at the ticket counters. It's more human-scale.

 

I admit it: our opera building is smaller and less fancy than SFs, and theirs, probably smaller and less fancy than New York's. We have been to the AMAZING California Academy of Sciences museum in SF and we were blown away. It's much bigger than our museums, proportional of course to the California and SF population.

 

But it's not as cool as New York's. It just isn't. It's not as big. There isn't as much money.

 

But the guy saw us struggling with whether or not to pay--we are a family of six--and when we said we took the bus from our little rental, and when I explained we didn't have a bus pass as we are from Seattle, he gave us a couple of gift tickets, you know?

 

He was just NICE. When I needed to borrow a lighter for my dad's birthday cake, a local taco truck guy loaned it to me. When we parked on the street, the lady neighbor in SF told us, "Now, with those Washington plates, people will know you're from out of town. Make sure you get everything out of the car and if you want even crack the windows so they don't pull a smash and grab while you're on vacation."

 

See, we thought that was really nice of her.

 

The bus driver helped us get off. He also helped a confused homeless guy get off.

 

That's why I prefer the West Coast.

 

But it's not New York, capital of the world, and thank god it never will be. If that's what you want, go where the action is.

 

1m for 3 kids is hard to get you to SEATTLE within 40 minutes, frankly. You can do it, but you have to leave early in the morning and early afternoon or late evening to get home. And we're talking a serious fixer. I wonder what you were looking at in SF that was fitting your criteria. Not that we're looking, LOL!

 

(ETA: The Shakespeare festival in Ashland, Oregon is not nearly as fancy as anything you'll get in New York. But for those of us from the Northwest and Northern CA... it's really all we need. :) )

Edited December 20, 2015 by Tsuga

[Aspasia]

I was not impressed by New York. Same stuff as anywhere but more people competing to make it there in the self-proclaimed "capital of the world" (because investment banking rules us all), so they do have fancier stuff.

 

If you are drawn to "capital of the world" then nothing but New York or possibly London and Beijing will do.

 

If you want a better QOL, then I'd go for San Francisco.

 

Also, New York is diverse but more segregated than San Francisco:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

 

Fremont being a lovely SF neighborhood...

 

You've mentioned a lot of brand-conscious things (well... I guess not technically "brand" conscious but very status-conscious) here. But frankly we never run out of stuff to do in little backwater Seattle. SAM and the Asian Art museum and the ballet have everything we need for most of the year. We literally never run out of things to do but yeah, the ballet is not as fancy. The principles are not as highly ranked. That's not a problem for us, KWIM? There is lots of culture outside of New York. It isn't as world class. But in my opinion, it's just as enjoyable.

 

At the same time, if you are in finance, fashion or the arts, then I hear absolutely nothing replaces New York for the connections and so on.

 

 

What I hear from New Yorkers and Los Angelenos about Seattle, San Francisco, Santa Fe, Portland, even Minneapolis, is not that we don't have awesome things to do. You could EASILY educate a child in Miami, Seattle, Portland, Seattle, Colorado Springs, even Salt Lake City god forbid :001_rolleyes: . We have a lot of really nice things and museums around here. And yes, I have seen museums in London, Paris, New York, and Moscow, and yes, they're bigger. You know that after visiting like, 25 times I guess.

 

The problem with SF is not that they don't have enough things to do for like, the rest of your life. It's that it's not something you can brag about. It's not as big. Not as "world class". No big names. No Kenneth Branagh.

 

But--here's what people here enjoy:

 

You are more likely to know the artist. You are more likely to get to know people at the ticket counters. It's more human-scale.

 

I admit it: our opera building is smaller and less fancy than SFs, and theirs, probably smaller and less fancy than New York's. We have been to the AMAZING California Academy of Sciences museum in SF and we were blown away. It's much bigger than our museums, proportional of course to the California and SF population.

 

But it's not as cool as New York's. It just isn't. It's not as big. There isn't as much money.

 

But the guy saw us struggling with whether or not to pay--we are a family of six--and when we said we took the bus from our little rental, and when I explained we didn't have a bus pass as we are from Seattle, he gave us a couple of gift tickets, you know?

 

He was just NICE. When I needed to borrow a lighter for my dad's birthday cake, a local taco truck guy loaned it to me. When we parked on the street, the lady neighbor in SF told us, "Now, with those Washington plates, people will know you're from out of town. Make sure you get everything out of the car and if you want even crack the windows so they don't pull a smash and grab while you're on vacation."

 

See, we thought that was really nice of her.

 

The bus driver helped us get off. He also helped a confused homeless guy get off.

 

That's why I prefer the West Coast.

 

But it's not New York, capital of the world, and thank god it never will be. If that's what you want, go where the action is.

 

1m for 3 kids is hard to get you to SEATTLE within 40 minutes, frankly. You can do it, but you have to leave early in the morning and early afternoon or late evening to get home. And we're talking a serious fixer. I wonder what you were looking at in SF that was fitting your criteria. Not that we're looking, LOL!

 

(ETA: The Shakespeare festival in Ashland, Oregon is not nearly as fancy as anything you'll get in New York. But for those of us from the Northwest and Northern CA... it's really all we need. :) )

I don't think anyone is arguing that you can't raise kids in these other places with lots of cultural experiences. The truth is, for my husband's career, most jobs that he would consider will be located in these major cities. It's not about being status-conscious. It's just where banks are headquartered, and the people who do what he does work at the headquarters.

 

And I also don't think it's status-obsessed to want to be around the best museums, the best dancers, the best whatever. For us it's about adventure and experience, and those are fabulous experiences to have.

 

Of course I acknowledge the merit of great artists and great cities everywhere. Salt Lake City is an incredible place in this regard: killer libraries, a great food scene, good theater, concerts, festivals. I love SLC.

 

As for the home prices and what a million can buy, I guess all I can do is invite you to search on Zillow. They are not fixer uppers, and some of them are in Berkeley, which, depending on proximity to a BART station, can definitely be within 40 minutes of the office (which is one of the very first stops in the city).

[Pam in CT]

Regarding public urination, apparently San Francisco has special paint designed to splash the person back.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-35120259?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

(SPITTING OUT COFFEE).... Oh.my.word.  OK, that is brilliant.

 

 

I don't know SF well enough to compare the two.  My husband and I lived in NY before kids and may well make our way back once they're all out of the house.

 

 

re: long house-bound hours while husband is on the come-home-after-8 pm-six-nights-out-of-seven-to-then-turn-to-email treadmill:  That was my life throughout the time our kids were young, and I have to say I'd have gone out of my mind if I hadn't had space and hadn't been able to chuck them out into the yard on a regular basis.  I'm an introvert and have a high need for quite and solitude and personal space, so YMMV.  But I couldn't have handled those years living in an apartment, and having to bundle up and GO WITH THEM to a park every time *I* determined that *they* needed to run around, lol. 

 

My sense, just from visiting, is that there are more row house with yard kinds of options in SF?  Less of that in NY, although they do exist (at $$$$ cost) outside Manhattan. 

 

 

These are the kinds of questions that have me leaning toward SF. I personally love theater and museums, but our kids are little enough that those experiences are not so enjoyable at this age. We prefer outdoor activities. The advantages of NYC are things that we wouldn't really get to enjoy on a daily basis, but the advantages of SF (like weather and outdoor fun and the fact that we can go outside year round) WOULD be experienced every single day. Half the year in NYC, we'd just be cooped up in that tiny apartment or trudging through the slush to get somewhere else.

 

We're pretty sure we'll be homeschooling. 

 

Not sure about colleges yet. But I generally favor state schools, because even though I believe in education and dh and I both have advanced schooling, I don't think it's worth $50k a year! So California is kind of nice in that regard, because options. But in all honesty, I don't see us staying in any place for more than 5-7 years. We like the adventure. We'll probably move on after awhile (hopefully to Europe, but maybe to NYC to enjoy those theater and museum opportunities when our kids are older!).

If you are likely to stay through the college years, I'd look long and hard at the CA options.  That IMO is a big plus.

 

 

 

On the stuff to do with kids, I agree with this:

It doesn't necessarily work that way. Theater and museums are (IMO) better in NYC for children too, not just adults. That is, there will be better children's theater, children's music, etc. in NYC.  Museum of Natural History and planetarium, Bronx zoo, Botanical gardens in Bronx and Brooklyn...all very child friendly.  Shakespeare in the Park in the summer in NYC is world class...  Thus much education in NYC can be had at the things that exist there. And kids do not necessarily gravitate to such things when they are older. It may be that when they are older they will want to do sports more, might more enjoy rock climbing at Yosemite as teens than as an 8 year old, if ever, for example--an young kid would likely be just as happy climbing the rocks in central park. The type of outdoors that a young child needs can be provided by NYC. It is really adult needs, if you are campers, backpackers, mountain bikers...that would be harder there.  And you can certainly go outside year round in either place.  My experience of NYC is that there was more daily outdoors and walking than in many other places precisely because one was always going somewhere to do something, and that involved at least walking to public transportation, rather than only to the car. Or even if there was a car in NYC, unless it was in parking in one's own apt bldg, it was still an outdoors walk. And it was not slushy all that many days of the year. Anyhow, it is kids who most appreciate snow except for skiers, I think.

 

 

 

 

I don't think you would stay indoors 5-6 months of the year. You would go places and enjoy the city. Or you might want to live further out where you had some more space.

 

 

______

 

 

 

Though probably if I lived in NYC and could afford it, and they could get in, I would send my dc to one of the excellent schools there and would not home school.

And on the last bit -- FWIW, two of my nephews have gone through various test-in programs and schools within the NYC public school system since preschool and have received an EXCELLENT education, every bit as good as the highly rated public and  $$$$ private schools out here in CT can offer, with a good deal more diversity and autonomy and breadth of programming since the critical mass is so much greater.  One of them is now at Amherst and the other is finishing up at Bronx Science with a host of options arranged before him.  It's a PITA to navigate the public system and it takes a lot of parental effort but it is possible.

 

 

Good luck on your decision making...  and do what you can, to ease back on the treadmill thing.  That IME is immensely more important than where you live.

[Alicia64]

I don't think anyone is arguing that you can't raise kids in these other places with lots of cultural experiences. The truth is, for my husband's career, most jobs that he would consider will be located in these major cities. It's not about being status-conscious. It's just where banks are headquartered, and the people who do what he does work at the headquarters.

 

And I also don't think it's status-obsessed to want to be around the best museums, the best dancers, the best whatever. For us it's about adventure and experience, and those are fabulous experiences to have.

 

Of course I acknowledge the merit of great artists and great cities everywhere. Salt Lake City is an incredible place in this regard: killer libraries, a great food scene, good theater, concerts, festivals. I love SLC.

 

As for the home prices and what a million can buy, I guess all I can do is invite you to search on Zillow. They are not fixer uppers, and some of them are in Berkeley, which, depending on proximity to a BART station, can definitely be within 40 minutes of the office (which is one of the very first stops in the city).

 

I'm the person who grew up in Moraga. I had friends in Berkeley -- it's a charming part of the world. I loved it. When there isn't commute traffic Berkeley is a quick drive to SF.

 

One caveat: you need to be okay with liberal politics which I'm fine with. My Dh not so much.

 

My dad worked in banking too. I understand what you're saying.

 

Alley

 

[Aspasia]

I'm the person who grew up in Moraga. I had friends in Berkeley -- it's a charming part of the world. I loved it. When there isn't commute traffic Berkeley is a quick drive to SF.

 

One caveat: you need to be okay with liberal politics which I'm fine with. My Dh not so much.

 

My dad worked in banking too. I understand what you're saying.

 

Alley

 

 

We're both very okay with the politics. It's one of the draws. :)

[Tsuga]

I don't think anyone is arguing that you can't raise kids in these other places with lots of cultural experiences. The truth is, for my husband's career, most jobs that he would consider will be located in these major cities. It's not about being status-conscious. It's just where banks are headquartered, and the people who do what he does work at the headquarters.

 

And I also don't think it's status-obsessed to want to be around the best museums, the best dancers, the best whatever. For us it's about adventure and experience, and those are fabulous experiences to have.

 

Of course I acknowledge the merit of great artists and great cities everywhere. Salt Lake City is an incredible place in this regard: killer libraries, a great food scene, good theater, concerts, festivals. I love SLC.

 

As for the home prices and what a million can buy, I guess all I can do is invite you to search on Zillow. They are not fixer uppers, and some of them are in Berkeley, which, depending on proximity to a BART station, can definitely be within 40 minutes of the office (which is one of the very first stops in the city).

 

Sorry, I was replying to the replies on this thread in which people were bringing up the following arguments with respect to New York:

 

• Biggest
• Best
• World Class
• Capital

 

In other words, you can get adventure and experience and entertainment anywhere. In Topeka. New York is only a higher caliber, more famous, fancier, more expensive. It's not qualitatively different. In SF they have the redwoods, the mountains, they have a great ocean.

 

Zillow lies to us about the Seattle commute. People buy million dollar homes thinking they will get to Seattle in 40 minutes from here. That's true, provided that you leave before 6:30 a.m. and come home before 3 p.m. or after 7 p.m. I guess you can find a million dollar fixer in Berkley near the BART... that may be true. But I personally am suspicious since our experience with rush hour traffic in SF and with the transport on BART was actually on par with the Seattle experience which is not good. It's nothing like New York which, natch, has the same... but better. More world class. ;)