Boston or San Francisco?
Jan 16th, 2002, 07:32 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Boston or San Francisco?
I am travelling from Australia and have been to many of the major cities in the U.S., however, I have not yet seen Boston or San Francisco. My budget only allows me to visit one or the other. I will be spending about 3 days there. Can anyone give me some advice on deciding between these 2 cities?
Jan 16th, 2002, 08:26 PM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
SF has been getting a bad rap on this forum, lots of info that I was not aware of like the very large number for agressive homeless people. Boston is a great town with lots of American history. I think Boston would be worth the extra travel time. Good Luck
Jan 17th, 2002, 02:27 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Robyn
I've been to both and I'd always recommend Boston. To see the best of SF you need ot travel out of the city as the surrounding towns and countryside (Sonoma/Carmel etc etc) are much nicer than the city itself.
On the other hand, 3 days is perfect for Boston. There is loads to see and do, you don't need a car and you can have fun no matter what the weather does! I guess prices are pretty much the same in any major city so can't comment on that one - however hotels did seem nicer in Boston.
Go to Boston and have a GREAT time!
Rae
I've been to both and I'd always recommend Boston. To see the best of SF you need ot travel out of the city as the surrounding towns and countryside (Sonoma/Carmel etc etc) are much nicer than the city itself.
On the other hand, 3 days is perfect for Boston. There is loads to see and do, you don't need a car and you can have fun no matter what the weather does! I guess prices are pretty much the same in any major city so can't comment on that one - however hotels did seem nicer in Boston.
Go to Boston and have a GREAT time!
Rae
Jan 17th, 2002, 04:27 AM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having been to both many times, I prefer San Francisco over Boston, but I think your trip might be too short to really enjoy it. So for you, depending on when you're coming, Boston may be the better choice.
The time of year is important also. San Francisco is cold in July, Boston is cold in January.
You should also give us some ideas of what you want to do. If you're interested in American Revolution history, then go to Boston. If you're interested in the American cultural movement of the 60's & 70's - San Francisco.
The time of year is important also. San Francisco is cold in July, Boston is cold in January.
You should also give us some ideas of what you want to do. If you're interested in American Revolution history, then go to Boston. If you're interested in the American cultural movement of the 60's & 70's - San Francisco.
Jan 17th, 2002, 05:19 AM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Robyn, it depends on what you are looking for. Although Boston and San Francisco are often compared to one another (a lot of people think they are similar), they can be very different cities.
Weatherwise, Boston is warm from June to Sept, cooler in Oct/Nov and April/May, and is cold from Dec to March. SF's weather is much more moderate, although it can be quite cool and foggy in the summer. The best time to visit each is probably September.
Boston is a much older city and has preserved quite a bit of its colonial history. IMO, it is the most European city in the US (small in scale, everyone walks, old churches, crooked cobblstone streets, etc). Because of earthquakes and fires, SF is a much newer city; it's architectural style is mostly Victorian to modern. SF is also a more spread-out city than Boston (most things you will want to see in Boston are within walking distance).
The people are also somewhat different. Boston is a bit more reserved whereas SF-cans are more "hip."
Each city has a lively arts and restaurant scene and would be a great vacation destination. I live in Boston, so I am biased in its favor, but it could be a toss-up.
Weatherwise, Boston is warm from June to Sept, cooler in Oct/Nov and April/May, and is cold from Dec to March. SF's weather is much more moderate, although it can be quite cool and foggy in the summer. The best time to visit each is probably September.
Boston is a much older city and has preserved quite a bit of its colonial history. IMO, it is the most European city in the US (small in scale, everyone walks, old churches, crooked cobblstone streets, etc). Because of earthquakes and fires, SF is a much newer city; it's architectural style is mostly Victorian to modern. SF is also a more spread-out city than Boston (most things you will want to see in Boston are within walking distance).
The people are also somewhat different. Boston is a bit more reserved whereas SF-cans are more "hip."
Each city has a lively arts and restaurant scene and would be a great vacation destination. I live in Boston, so I am biased in its favor, but it could be a toss-up.
Jan 17th, 2002, 08:00 AM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
How well you like San Francisco depends a lot on how you spend your time. There are many things to do in this city, and it is very beautiful. My advice would be to do your research and follow your own instincts as to how to spend your time. Don't let someone tell you that you MUST see Alcatraz, or shop in Union Square or walk across the bridge. You might love all of these things, or you might find yourself surrounded by tourists and unimpressed. SF is known for its neghborhoods, and they vary a lot in character. Most guidebooks will give you some sense of them, and then you should look in detail into the most appealing.
I disagree that the best parts of the Bay Area are outside of the city. The city is a destination in itself. However, if you think you might have the chance to plan a longer trip in the future that could include some of the other areas, it may be worth waiting.
I've been to Boston too, and like it, but it doesn't stand out in my mind as a place that I long to go back to. However, the people who advised you on the differences in weather make very good points, so that should push you toward one place or the other.
I hope you enjoy either place, and, someday, both!
I disagree that the best parts of the Bay Area are outside of the city. The city is a destination in itself. However, if you think you might have the chance to plan a longer trip in the future that could include some of the other areas, it may be worth waiting.
I've been to Boston too, and like it, but it doesn't stand out in my mind as a place that I long to go back to. However, the people who advised you on the differences in weather make very good points, so that should push you toward one place or the other.
I hope you enjoy either place, and, someday, both!
Jan 17th, 2002, 08:19 AM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Okay.. as a Bostonian and lover of S.F. I have to say...pick Boston..it is a walkable city, although taxi cabs are more expensive than S.F. you can go everywhere by subway or trolley..and you don't have those humungus hills..lol Depending on when you are coming, we don't have a rainy season like S.F., , we do have great restaurants, theatre and of course history. Even winter is a time to celebrate in Boston now. In S.F. area to go to the wine country you have to drive, to go down to Carmel and Sonoma..another drive..and although parking is impossible in both Boston and S.F. we rent cars in S.F. and our hotel has a parking garage a block away. For more info please write and I'll give you what's up in Boston for the winter anyhow..
Jan 17th, 2002, 09:01 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
I would suggest San Francisco! We are taking our three girls there in a month. We have been to Boston as a family. While it was very nice, it is entirely different in SF. Alcatraz is the coolest tour! The headsets you wear makes it seem like you are surrounded by prisoners etc. We were very impressed. Chinatown is alot of fun too. You could also go see the Winchester house (outside of town). But, it all depends on what kind of history you are into. If you are coming for history, Boston would be the best. I do agree with another writer, you have to decide what exactly you want to see when here. Hope whatever you pick is fun!!
