Boston vs. San Francisco

[StephenHero]

Are these types of polls even legal in San Francisco?

 

[gomestar]

Originally Posted by mordecai

Boston definitely has better art heists. Compare the famous Isabella Gardner Museum incident to Don Johnson, here.

http://newyork.grubstreet.com/2011/0...e_suspect.html

SF art thieves spawn from working with Thomas Keller, apparently.

 

[Douglas]

Interesting question. When I first clicked in here I thought it was a question of which is better, in which case San Francisco wins hands-down. But in a question of which sucks more, it is a tougher call.

 

[Quixotic]

Grew up in LA, moved to Columbus, Ohio and I'm currently in Boston. Boston is terrible. Transportation closes down around 1. Bars at 2. It's a conservative city with almost nothing very interesting to do. Food isn't that great unless you pay a lot. It has some charm as far as history goes, but that's about it. A lot of students (almost a 1/3 of the population). The winters are horrendous.

I'm waiting until I graduate and then I'm immediately moving to San Francisco. The weather, the people, the food, etc is far better from my frequent visits there. The above poster was right about Boston people being angry at being irrelevant. It's a city where no one wants to be. You'd rather be in New York or on the other coast is what the consensus is from my friends here.

 

[pebblegrain]

Originally Posted by Quixotic

Grew up in LA, moved to Columbus, Ohio and I'm currently in Boston. Boston is terrible. Transportation closes down around 1. Bars at 2. It's a conservative city with almost nothing very interesting to do. Food isn't that great unless you pay a lot. It has some charm as far as history goes, but that's about it. A lot of students (almost a 1/3 of the population). The winters are horrendous.

I'm waiting until I graduate and then I'm immediately moving to San Francisco.

Um, SF transpo ends at 12 midnight, bars at 1:30.

 

[Manton]

Originally Posted by pebblegrain

Um, SF transpo ends at 12 midnight, bars at 1:30.

Who cares, you shouldn't be on it in the first place.

Bars in CA are required by state law to close at 2 am. Not sure why SF would close at 1:30, not that I have been out past 1:30 in Teh City in the last 20 years.

 

[Parker]

....

 

[patrickBOOTH]

Yes, tired of hating on San Fran, can we hate on Hoboken, NJ now? Can somebody start a thread?

 

[SirGrotius]

Boston annoys me. I always think, "tons of things to do" and then when I'm there, I'm like, "not really." I guess I'd be more into it if I were a banker.

 

[mordecai]

Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH

Yes, tired of hating on San Fran, can we hate on Hoboken, NJ now? Can somebody start a thread?

That's like making fun of your autistic sibling. You're a mean dude.

 

[imatlas]

Originally Posted by Manton

Who cares, you shouldn't be on it in the first place. Bars in CA are required by state law to close at 2 am. Not sure why SF would close at 1:30, not that I have been out past 1:30 in Teh City in the last 20 years.
Bar Time vs Real Time - haven't you ever noticed most bars have their clocks set 15 to 30 minutes ahead?

 

[mordecai]

I decided it's Boston

 

[pebblegrain]

Originally Posted by Manton

Bars in CA are required by state law to close at 2 am. Not sure why SF would close at 1:30, not that I have been out past 1:30 in Teh City in the last 20 years.
last call is 1:30. I have yet to see a bay area bar in 15 years that serves later than approx 1:33am. Not even shady asian bars where smoking is allowed (which is also illegal). edit: just to be clear, I voted for SF. Just trying to be realistic about what is and isn't good about it

 

[voxsartoria]

..

 

[mordecai]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

..

You edit all your posts. How amusing.