Whoa, Cindy! If you revisit this thread, I'd like to point out that Berkeley is NOT a suburb of Oakland, as Oakland is not. They are cities in their own right, with their own (quite pleasant to live in) atmospheres, and if you've spent any time in either, you know they don't resemble suburbs any more than SF does, in terms of services, density, architecture, etc. Really, I can't believe someone who lived in SF would call Berkeley a suburb. Or maybe you never crossed the Bay Bridge.

It's late, and I'll admit to some fatigue, but I don't see anywhere on this thread that I ever said "Berkeley is a suburb of Oakland."

I would say that Berkeley is a suburb of SF, because Berkeley is considered a part of the Bay Area, and I think of the Bay Area as SF and surrounding nearby cities. To me, "suburb" does not necessarily mean a place must be ugly, tacky, devoid of culture, and lacking in any redeeming value apart from the more dominant city. Berkeley also strikes me as a suburb in the sense that lots of people I knew commuted from Berkeley to SF, another common feature of suburban. I didn't know of anyone who did it the other way, although there undoubtedly are people who do.

No need to speculate about the authenticity of my experience in San Francisco. I really did live there, I spent reasonable amounts of time in the East Bay and Marin, and the whole area is great. We considered buying a home in Berkeley and doing the commute, but decided to move to the Washington, D.C. area instead.

Take care.

I live in the San Francisco Bay area. Berkeley is not a suburb of San Francisco anymore than San Jose, Oakland etc. are. They are separate cities located around the San Francisco Bay.

I have also lived in San Diego and Ft. Lauderdale and have visited Boston several times.

All things being considered, I would definitely choose San Francisco. San Diego is very nice with a great climate but San Francisco is truly a great city and is quite unique. There is no place in the world with such a well integrated and diverse ethnic culture. Public transportation is very good in the Bay area. The only downside is that housing is very expensive.

San Diego would be my second choice but lack of good public transportation is a negative and the city itself is not nearly as interesting as San Francsico.

In all fairness Boston is also quite interesting but I think San Francisco has a lot more to offer.

Ft. Lauderdale does not even come close to the other three cities. The only advantage to Ft. Lauderdale is the beach. The weather is horrible in the summer and the city lacks many things.

Boston has new high-speed train to NYC/Washington DC. Pricy, but possibly an opportunity to see beyond Boston itself. And there's always the "slow" train to NYC for a weekend outing. Both cities are easy to do without driving in them -- and both have the Gray Line type of over-view tour buses. You might also be able to "hitch a ride" with other students to areas near Boston such as Bar Harbor or Newport, RI, with its historic mansions. And, I'm certain a number of bus tour groups must operate day trips to those areas near Boston.

Sorry Cindy, *I* was fatigued when I wrote "Berkeley us NOT a suburb of Oakland"--of course, I meant to say that it's not a suburb of SF.

Okay, I don't doubt the authenticity of your Sf experience, but I repeat, *Berkeley is NOT a suburb*--of SF or anywhere else. This isn't a knock on suburbs of any kind; I never suggested that uburbs are necessarily tacky, ugly, devoid of culture or of any redeeming value other than their proximity to a central city. And that's not what I meant when I mentioned the services, architecture, etc. Look, the SF may be the "center" of the Bay Area, but the East Bay has its own center, which is made up of Oakland and Berkeley together. Neither of these cities would fit any urban planner's definition of a suburb, and they have suburbs of their own. Quite aside from culture, their infrastructure is urban in every way, and believe me if you had indeed lived in Oakland or Berkeley (as I did for around 20 yearz), you would not think of them as "suburbs." I am not just being protective of my hometown here, either: this is a matter of definition, and I'd bet that you'd find few people in the Bay Area (including the many that commute to SF for work) who would consider these cities suburbs (or suburban). Suburban=not urban.

OK. Fair enough. In fact, this is good news. I've always told people that I live in Bethesda, MD, a suburb of Washington, D.C. But Bethesda has its own downtown and commerce, so maybe it isn't a suburb at all. Now I can just say I live in Bethesda.

San Diego and Ft. Lauderdale would not be fun without a car. Transportation is a big factor in the U.S.
You should come to Chicago, we have one of the best transportation systems in the U.S.--plus plenty of great universities (DePaul University being one of the best, but I'm biased).

Nice try, Cindy! (But tell people what you want.) I've spent time in Bethesda and have a relative who grew up there. Maybe you could argur against its being a suburb, but is it an urban center? I don't think so. Consider: If you took away DC, would there be a "reason" for Bethesda? Does it have a university? Its own art museum? Independent public transportation? Its own airport? A port or its economic equivalent? I'm not dissing Bethesda here, just pointing out that Oakland/Berkeley (the borders of which bleed and are almost fluid) does have all this, and would be an urban center even without SF.

I guess if you live in the City and only visit the East Bay and see people commuting from it, and especially if you haven't lived there long enough to notice or don't pay attention to the local politics of th East Bay, I could see how you could view it as similar to Marin Co. cities in relation to SF, but it's definitely a different animal!

BTW, I also love the weather there--no extremes--and agree that the fog can be romantic. IMO it's one of the very best places in the country to live, all in all (though I don't live there now).