Thoughts on San Francisco from my visit (living, restaurants)

[eskercurve]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

You're from Seattle or around there? How would you compare Seattle with SF? Or with Vancouver?

I have been living in Seattle for about 4 years now. Seattle and Vancouver have very different feels.

Seattle is kinda like a collection of neighborhoods or small cities that are strung together into the same city limits. Each neighborhood, like Ballard, Fremont, University District, and Capitol Hill, have different feels. Vancouver is kinda like this too, but its a bigger city and you have to drive or transit further to experience this difference. I like Seattle suburbs more than Vancouver suburbs because there's easy transit downtown and you get a very diverse feel to each one, and the people and developers, for the most part want to replicate a small central core area to each one, as opposed to sprawl.

Vancouver had a TON of government money to develop and passed ferocious ordinances which limited commercial development and encouraged high density living. Seattle, on the other hand, didn't. As a result Seattle has a dense urban core based on market forces vs. Vancouver's semi-artificial drive (not necessarily a bad thing).

Where Seattle and Vancouver differ is the contrast of the urban cores vs. the neighborhoods. Seattle is sort of getting higher density living expanding outward from downtown currently. Queen Anne has had it for a while, and now Ballard and Capitol Hill are experiencing this too (north and east of the core). Vancouver had a huge influx of immigrants in the 90s, mostly from Hong Kong prior to it being handed over to China in 1997. As a result their Chinatown and urban living made a lot of sense to develop.

Private works, mostly from Microsoft billionaires like Paul Allen, have reshaped Seattle, instead. You also have a populace that is slowly recognizing that higher taxes are needed to upkeep the infrastructure, like the Alaskan way viaduct which was damaged in an earthquake in 2001 but never replaced. Seattle as a result has some interesting art works and parks, etc. going on that are all privately developed vs. Vancouver's government subsidized works.

Vancouver is also, in my opinion, a little more cosmopolitan in an obvious manner, whereas Seattle is cosmopolitan in a not so obvious manner. What I mean is in Vancouver, all nationalities are out in the open and obviously there. In Seattle you have to explore a bit, but not much.

Both cities are pretty laid back, both cities are gorgeous in my opinion, and both have unique feels to each neighborhood. Seattle is a bit more safe, in fact it's one of the safest in the country, there were only like, 20 murders in the city for all of last year. Vancouver has more drugs and you simply do NOT want to go into the East End. Seattle doesn't have that, sure there's a few sketchy areas, but the most you have to worry about is car prowling, not your life. Both have a vibrant arts scene (though Seattle's been so expensive to live in that a lot of the poorer artists moved down to Portland, and Seattle's crowd is being replaced with snobby wine and art gallery crowds, thankfully, there's a few holdouts left).

Seattle's mass transit system isn't as expansive, but in my opinion, is cleaner than both SF's and Vancouver's, and we're getting light rail which just turned on between the airport and downtown. Expansion tot he north, east, and more of downtown will happen in the next 20 years and funding's committed. And you can still get around alright without a car, many people here do it. Parking's not as atrocious in Seattle vs. SF and Vancouver. And there's still affordable single family homes in the city limits in Seattle (example, I can still afford a 3 bed 2 bath place that has roughly 1,600 sq. ft. or more in some cases).

[mr bolo]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

30 plus years of jaywalking and I've never even got a warning ... and like you this includes doing it in front of several cops.

it's up to you if you want to take a chance, if they do ticket you theres not much you can do about it, a guy told me he was ticketed for jay walking and it cost around $120 fine this was a couple years ago, dont know what it would cost now.

I wouldnt recommend jay walking especially downtown or near any busy intersections or crossing on a red light.

SF is desperate for money and they really try to give out tickets if they get a chance.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by mr bolo

Jay Walking is NOT OK in SF! the police do give tickets to jay walkers, especially in certain areas of the city

San Francisco has one of the highest rate of pedestrians getting hit by autos

just because you see other people in SF jay walking that doesnt mean it's OK, watch out the cops do give tickets for jay walking if they catch you.

Compared to Seattle, it is ok. Seattle is much more aggressive at handing out jay walking tickets than San Francisco.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by ambient

Most large cities are filled with lots of people.

I think he means the actual population density. In that sense SF is second in the US only to NY.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by matt345

I've seen people jaywalk right in front of cops all the time in SF and not once have I seen them give a ticket (I've done it many times as well). I think as long as the street is clear of traffic, the cops don't mind.

Exactly. What eskercurve was referring to is the phenomenon in Seattle where you're at a crosswalk at 3am in the rain and it looks like a ghost town. If you cross against the light, a cop will come out of now where and write you a ticket. The cops always mind in Seattle.

[mayorhaggar]

Interesting writeup Eskercurve! Hopefully I will visit Seattle sometime, Portland OR is also on my list.

[nei]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Exactly. What eskercurve was referring to is the phenomenon in Seattle where you're at a crosswalk at 3am in the rain and it looks like a ghost town. If you cross against the light, a cop will come out of now where and write you a ticket. The cops always mind in Seattle.

I always thought jaywalking was like darting across a street full of traffic or something. Never thought there was anything there was anything wrong with crossing against the light if the traffic was clear.

[tstieber]

I've spent several vacations in Seattle and Vancouver. Yes, Vancouver is amazing in August, and in July too, probably the best place in the northern hemisphere. But that's about it. The rest of the year has very iffy weather. SF's summers do suck, but then when it gets cold up there in September, we get two months of awesome. And there are five months in Vancouver when it's colder than ANY month in SF. I would not move to Vancouver for the weather, but I might for its beauty. It really is a gorgeous city. Very clean, very modern, very vibrant, but still laid back.

[sjnative]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

On the other hand it seems like Vancouver has destroyed a lot of its older buildings in the last 40 years to build condos, many of which are really ugly if they are from the 60's and 70's. For better or worse San Franciscans would refuse to let so many old buildings get torn down.

Thank goodness.

I wonder how many cities on the west coast have "redeveloped" their downtowns by demolishing so many of their original buildings. I know San Jose did just that, by replacing many single-family houses on the numbered streets with ugly apartments/condo buildings. Santa Clara was so intelligent as to demolish its original downtown completely, so that now it has no downtown.

I hope you're right about SF'ers not allowing that to happen to their city. It's picturesque.

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by Bayarea4

I have lived in San Francisco for over 30 years, and I think that the OP's opinion is a fair one. To answer his questions, no, regular San Franciscans rarely ride the cable cars any more. It's not worth the bother. Years ago they didn't used to be so crowded, and you could just hop on and off at any stop instead of being herded into long lines at either end of the line. Also, the fare used to be the same for buses, light rail and cable car, and you could transfer between lines. Now the cable car fare has gone up to $5.00 and you can't transfer.

Actually from my experience of riding on the California Cable Car line (which I admittedly don't do that often). It's not really that crowed, or hard to ride. You can pretty well hop on or off at any stop. Or at least the times when I've ridden it, it wasn't a problem. And I've meet a fair number of locals who ride it. Mostly people commuting from their apartments on Nob Hill. Thought I expect that most all of them have passes.

The Powell-Mason/Hyde lines are another story. The only question there is how long will the lines be. I really don't get why the city doesn't do something to increase the service and at least take care of all tourist that want to ride it. After all tourism is what keeps the city going.