Boulders or Hills? Too close to call...HELP!

June 4, 2007 6:35 PM

Boulder vs San Francisco...two worlds, both attractive as hell. I am looking to move to either one of these cities and while I KNOW they are very different (population, landscape, etc) I am torn. Help me understand how a girl in her mid-20s might choose between two fantastic joints.

I am looking plant roots and here are the details: I am in my mid-20s(26) and I am from northern CA but I am open for change. That being said I love the idea of a new place and I heart hiking, backpacking and mellow lifestyles. However, I also love the fact that the people I do know in SF are kick-arse and are as active as I have ever met.

So the real question is...what does San Fran give you that Boulder does not and vice versa.

I am completely on the fence even if my post seems to lean one way, so any advice would help greatly. I thank you and hope you are in locations that suit you as well.

posted by Meemer to travel & transportation (17 comments total)

One criterion that you don't mention- but that you might want to consider, particularly if you're interested in putting down roots- is the vast, vast difference in cost of living between the two cities. Barring people who've been very, very lucky in the past decade, it's extremely difficult to buy a home in the Bay Area. Housing costs more generally, even for rentals, are very high. It's not quite as ridiculous as NYC, but it's getting there.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 6:42 PM on June 4, 2007

Boulder would offer more opportunities to buy a house, median home price is almost half that of SF.
posted by jamaro at 6:44 PM on June 4, 2007

I used to live in Boulder, and it's an awesome place to live, but it's not urban at all. San Francisco is obviously a major city, whereas Boulder feels more like a large town with a couple concentrated commercial areas.

So the question is, I think, do you want to live in a bustling metropolis, with all the good and bad that comes with that, or do you want to live in a beautiful, laid-back college town that is more limited in terms of what it has to offer, culturally? Both places have plenty to offer someone who is physically active and likes the outdoors, but they are very different in terms of size, intensity, cost of living, diversity, etc.
posted by np312 at 7:02 PM on June 4, 2007

Within a half-hour of San Francisco you've got good hiking; within an hour, excellent hiking; within 3-4 hours, unbelievable high-altitude, back-country hiking.

All that and a big (expensive) city too!
posted by rtha at 7:16 PM on June 4, 2007

I don't know Boulder at all, so take that in mind. SF is indeed expensive, but for good reason - you've got so much to take advantage of. Last weekend, the Newsies flashmob and the Cardboard Robot Rumble flashmob were vying for your attention. The week before was Bay to Breakers. Any given night of the week there's a restaurant you're dying to try, a show to see (symphony, opera, band), whales to watch get lost in the bay, and so on.

I can't say Boulder doesn't have its share of outdoor activities.. for all I've heard, SF and CO are pretty equally far above everywhere else when it comes to being beaten on your weekly club bike ride by former Olympians. But, you won't be lost for things to do outdoors in SF. We have world-class educational institutions (Berkeley, Stanford, USF, etc.) if you want to continue your education. We have the Toronado and Rosamunde side-by-side to continue your sausage and snooty beer education. And so on.

People can be snooty here. People can be the coolest people on earth here. You don't need a car. You can live on the cheap with a roommate since you should never really live in your apartment in a city like this. You'll be surrounded by millions of other people that aren't from here, either, and that alone is pretty cool.

In the end, I see college towns like Ann Arbor and maybe even Boulder as being great places to retire to or to raise a family in. You're young. I think SF is a great way to see the world and have a vacation every single day. You don't need to stay forever, but it's a great place to grow up.
posted by kcm at 7:35 PM on June 4, 2007

If my experiences in Boulder were representative, SF has much more diversity (ie, non-white population). Also, my friend that moved to Boulder tried forever to find a job and ended up finally giving in and taking one she had to commute down to Denver for. Also, (obviously), Boulder has more seasonal extremes.
posted by salvia at 7:58 PM on June 4, 2007

SF has my vote because it is near the water. Fresh seafood...ahh
posted by JujuB at 8:04 PM on June 4, 2007

Move to San Francisco. If you don't like it, move to Boulder.
posted by cwarmy at 8:38 PM on June 4, 2007

Here's how you decide. It's 6 pm. You just finished work. What do you want to do this evening?

If your answer involves being outside (hiking, running, climbing, biking), then you should move to Boulder.

If your answer involves being inside (doing urban stuff, like going to a play or concert, museum, art gallery, coffee shop), then you should move to San Francisco.
posted by medusa at 8:38 PM on June 4, 2007 [3 favorites]

Denver is < half an hour away, and, though maybe not the cultural mecca that SF is, it gives Boulderites access to many more artsy activities.
posted by Phatty Lumpkin at 9:54 PM on June 4, 2007

Help me understand how a girl in her mid-20s might choose between two fantastic joints.

Well, in Boulder there are plenty of joints. /rimshot

But yeah, Boulder (most of Colorado!) is great for outdoorsy stuff for maybe... three hundred days a year. Those other days? Twenty are raining, forty are snowy, and on the remaining ones, it's beautiful, sunny, and seventy degrees--but you're snowed in because it just dumped three feet on you. (Also, remember that Colorado's used to snow, so several inches isn't enough to close much of anything down. You'll end up having to go to work in it occasionally.) If you don't mind that too much, though, it's mostly lovely.
posted by Many bubbles at 10:04 PM on June 4, 2007

Heh, I lived in Boulder for the past five years, and just sold my house and moved to the San Francisco area last month. (Job relocation, otherwise I would have stayed in Boulder indefinitely.) A few thoughts:

S.F. has one season, mildly cold and foggy. Each part of the city is a little different, but not substantially. If you're desperate for something different (and probably warmer), a short drive north, south, or east will likely get it for you. Boulder has all four seasons, in reasonably equal proportion, and all of them are beautiful (and generally sunny).

Boulder is a microcosm of a town, with a *little* of everything (if it's leftist-outdoorsy, and ehem, white), and the university defines a huge part of the culture. Some people like this 'youthful energy', and some people wish the damn 19 year olds would quit throwing up on their lawn. (I agreed with both sentiments ;-) I'm in my late twenties and often noticed a big gap in the demographics, with very few people in between the university students and the thirty-something new parents settling down. If you can bridge that gap, it's pretty cool though. Houses are nowhere near as expensive in Boulder, but they're not cheap at a median value of ~550K. Rents aren't too bad though.

Medusa's answer is pretty close to the mark though... if you like a different club every weekend, and thrive on knowing people who know people, S.F. is more your style. If you like to jog down the creek path and get your usual coffee from the local bookstore before stopping at the farmers market, Boulder is hard to beat.
posted by zeypher at 10:22 PM on June 4, 2007

If you already have a good job lined up and you know there's room to advance in your field, move to Boulder. Otherwise, move to San Francisco, find work in the much larger economy, and applied to jobs in Boulder if you get frustrated.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 11:52 PM on June 4, 2007

I lived in the South Bay for many years and then moved with my wife and son to the Boulder area, mostly because we couldn't afford a house in the Bay Area. Now I work in Boulder and we have a big house in Longmont (in the plains NE of Boulder). Houses in Longmont are about half what they are in Boulder, so ~1/4 the price in SF.

Winters in Boulder are not bad at all - 3-foot snowfalls are exceedingly uncommon, though this last winter was unusually snowy.

I agree with the previous posters - if you love the outdoors, you can't beat Boulder. Eldora's only about 30 minutes away if you want to ski. SF has vastly more diversity.

Good luck!
posted by lukemeister at 1:20 AM on June 5, 2007

Boulder is lovely, but be aware, Colorado is pretty isolated. You have Denver, and then the next closest big city is....Chicago?
San Francisco has LA, Portland, and Seattle all within drivable distance.

That said, I think I'd pick Boulder. It's cheaper, sunnier, and, just barely, more beautiful.
posted by Eddie Mars at 7:32 AM on June 5, 2007

Um, Eddie Mayrs: Portland is 10 hours away from San Francisco by car, Seattle is 12-plus hours away. Los Angeles is 5-plus hours away.

By those standards of "close," Boulder is near Salt Lake City (7 hours), Santa Fe (6 hours), Albuquerque (7 hours), Witchita (7 hours), Omaha (8 hours), Des Moines (10 hours), Minneapolis (14 hours), Las Vegas (11 hours).
posted by croutonsupafreak at 7:58 AM on June 5, 2007

*cough* Um, yeah. Nevermind all that then. It's been a few years since I left Colorado. I just remember feeling somewhat isolated when I was there.

I'll stand by Portland and Seattle as being driveable though. Any place you can reach in a single day of driving is practically local in my book. Although that may have something to do with growing up in the Mid-West.

5 hours to LA is practically next door.
posted by Eddie Mars at 1:19 PM on June 5, 2007