Frisco? Isn't that in Colorado? Man if you say that on TA them's fightin words.

I would advise against getting a car in SF. Parking is way expensive and public transport will take you all over. It's also quite compact and easy to walk all over. My sisters & I did a sister's weekend and walked Wharf to North Beach to China Town to Nob Hill and also Nob Hill to Union Square which is hilariously steep down hill. Cable car took us back up.

Fall in SF is quite good.

Hey Suzie, those are fighting words here too and so is San Fran (even is Fieri who is not from SF calls the City that).

sarge--only you can decide which city works for your family trip. The weather in San Francisco in October tends to be some of our best, but it certainly is not classic fall weather.

Sorry- no offense intended. When I lived out west in '75, everyone called it "Frisco".

We spent the first 2 weeks of October in San Francisco last year. It was glorious! We normally visit in winter so this trip was a big difference. SF gets my vote!

We love the City after all the tourists go. Beautiful weather and not so crowded.

No folks in shorts and Alcatraz sweatshirts, freezing their butts off.

San Francisco is in one of the most beautiful physical settings in the world, but the arechitecture (stucco, stucco, stucco) is not particularly attractive in most areas. Boston has more history and a heck of a lot more trees, something I always find disconcerting in SF.

Both have beautiful harbors and ferries/tour boats that let you enjoy them. Both have wonderful museums and parks.

Boston has better public transportation for just getting around, but of course San Francisco has the cable cars. Boston has far fewer street people and beggars, especially aggressive beggars.

IIRC early October is the warmest time of the year in SF and often actually hot in the East Bay. October is normally crisp in Boston, with colorful leaves. The weather doesn't become really fallish until the last week or so.

You don't say how old your daughter is. If she is a student or twenty something, then Boston by a mile. If she is older, it is a tossup. I would go to either in a minute.

I think i would choose Boston. Been to both, but i think your chances of "seeing the seasons" would be better in Boston.

Have fun whichever you decide.

Given what you said I'm going to say Boston. There will be some fall color at that time and you said you missed the change of seasons. Weather is a total crap shoot where ever you go when ever you go (except obvious things like snow versus 80 degrees in winter). Boston can have absolutely glorious days in October and apparently so can SF (we live in Massachusetts, my son now lives in SF) but if it rains the three days you happen to be there it will still be lousy. But the color of the leaves, the fall decorations, etc will be in Boston at that time.

Given that it's a little flatter, Boston is much easier to walk around. I find Boston's public transportation gets to more parts of the city than SF's does. You do not want a car in either.

We did Boston in October a couple of years ago and loved it-- however they had a "freak" cold snap and even got snow one day. We stayed downtown and loved walking the Freedom Trail, stopping to eat, shop and do the historic places. We walked off all the good food we ate! We also took the train to Salem, which was actually a lot of fun.

We did rent a car one day and drive out to Concord and Walden Pond, hoping for some great fall foliage. But the rain and snow kind of put a damper on that.

If you go, don't forget to have lobster!

You will be fine in Boston in mid-october, it is beautiful and the earliest we ever get snow is late october like last year. The transportation is pretty good and can get you to almost everywhere in the city that you need. If you want to then I definitely recommend renting a car for the day and visiting Minuteman State Park, it is great and tells you a lot of things that you probably did not know. Went there as a kid and try to go back once a year, it is a very nice scenic trail and the fall color will make it even nicer. San Francisco is nice but I can not say specific things because I have lived near Boston my whole life.

please don't come here and call it Frisco.

It is really beautiful here in Boston in mid-October, with all the fall foliage and cool, crisp weather. Having been to SF recently and lived in Boston for years, I must say Boston is very unique in terms of its architecture and ambiance. It's also a lot smaller in scale and you can practically walk to most places (and take the T to the rest). SF is a lot more spread out so you do need to use public transit to get to many attractions.

Cringe...please have the editors change your title! It was never called Frisco, even in '75.

If you do decide to come to San Francisco and want to visit Alcatraz be sure to book well in advance. It does sell out.
I see that your trip dates are set, but Oct. 2-7 is the next America's Cup regatta in San Francisco.

I would usually say SF but since the leaves are changing it seriously is so beautiful out in Boston. Both are great places to travel to.

Thanks everyone. I went back and read trip reports from both cities. We've decided on Boston. For a number of reasons. Mostly because we are so ready for crisp air and colorful foliage.

(But now I won't have to worry about getting mugged in that other city for saying, "Frisco". )

I live in the Greater Bay Area, but I'd say Boston for you, since over there you can say "Frisco" all you like and no one will bat an eyelid.

Meanwhile, the locals here haven't responded much to your post because they're still picking themselves up off the floor from the shock of seeing the word "Frisco" in your title!

"Frisco" kinda fits in with "Ton" (short for "Houston") and "Las" (Short for "Dallas").

>>San Francisco ..... but the arechitecture (stucco, stucco, stucco) is not particularly attractive in most areas.<<

This is the most absurd description of San Francisco architecture that I've read in the 37 years I've lived in the San Francisco Area. We have about 50,000 Victorian & Edwardian houses that are made out of first-growth northern Calif redwood. Our house in the Noe Valley is 100% redwood. Stucco is a LA thing - it doesn't do well in the SF fog.

I thought Frisco was in Kansas - or maybe Texas.

Stu Dudley

Stu, I had the same reaction, then I thought the poster must only know the Avenues!!!! Stucco and no trees, sounds like the Avenues, 'cos it certainly doesn't apply to my neighborhood, or North Beach, or PacHeights, or the Castro, or Noe Valley, or Hayes Valley. Heck it doesn't even describe the Wharf or South Beach.

Gosh those Friscans sure are a cranky bunch, but overall Frisco is a friendly enough place!

Between strolling the commons, the gardens, comm ave, the greenway, the seaport and the Charles you should see plenty in Boston!

Lookin_Glass,

You won't be so flippant when they check your I.D. at the border, and you are forced to listen to The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence for days on end.

www.thesisters.org/

Ah Rastagudytoday, you made me look up the sisters! This is why we love to travel! What a wonderful crazy world!

I had to look it up too! LOL

I will repeat that San Francisco has one of the most gorgeous physical settings in the world, but your eyes have been dimmed by the eternal sunshine of Provence, Stu, or your idea of a tree warped by too much time in Mediterranean climates.

Take a Powell-Hyde car, and you can count the trees on the whole route, esp up in the heavily stuccoed Mason area. Ride an F car along the Embarcadero from the ferry terminal to Fisherman's Wharf. A few sad palms.

On the other hand, Berkeley and Oakland up near the Claremont are practically forested, and covered with flowers when we in the East are scraping sleet and snow from our windows.