The setting for San Francisco is beautiful but the City is not (living in, dangerous)

[c1tyguy]

Originally Posted by deloprator20000

For everyone out there trying to compare SF to other cities like LA, NYC, London, etc just remember the following statement:

SF is more like Boston and LA is more like New York

I once read it on a discussion forum from someone visiting SF from the East Coast. I think that sums up SF better than any other observation I've read. If you are looking for easily accessible signs of a "big city" like large monuments, significant attractions, nightlife etc. then SF will always come up short. SF's strengths lie not in attractions or nightlife but in thought and political action.

Are you kidding me?

If you're comparing the two on terms of monuments, attractions, and ''big city'' URBAN attributes, San Francisco by FAR surpasses Los Angeles. The two (SF and LA) are NOT comparable as urban epicenters. San Francisco is a dense urban city where as Los Angeles is only dense at its core, not offering much more than a business center. Los Angeles is not a big 'city'. It is big URBAN SPRAWL.

Coming to California from Europe, I wouldn't know where to start visiting Los Angeles. Sure they've got the theme parks over San Francisco, but I can't say theres anything more in Los Angeles I'd want to see (apart from the usual museums, and art galleries any city over 500,000 people have) besides maybe Rodeo, and Hollywood. I feel like San Francisco has the CULTURE that is not directly apparent in Los Angeles. In San Francisco you feel it in the CITY where as in Los Angeles it is concentrated in small pockets. Los Angeles has no identity.

[sliverbox]

I happen to work in the tech industry and have for 5 years so far, and previously I was in advertising. No doubt, the job market is very healthy here, and indeed- there are lots of young professionals here, all trying to do the exact same thing,which is to make boatloads of money on the "next big thing".

But the reality is exactly what I said previously, which is that when you cram more people into a confined area, the results create a less than ideal living situation. Houses are expensive here, and many attribute it to supply and demand.But that too doesn't indicate that the prices are tied to intelligence or economics. Me and my Wife both work in tech, making well into the upper 10% of the earning echelon, even for the Bay Area. But even so, what we could actually afford would greatly hamper our financial abilities. Less would be put away for retirement, and so on. Hardly any of the home prices here match the median income versus price ratio. That alone again suggests that no matter how many smart people live here, their intelligence isn't enough to compensate for the high cost of living.

In another few years, I will have saved enough to move out of the area and buy with cash, along with retirement in another state.I'm eying many smaller metro areas. The "smart" people can have the Bay Area.

[David Hammond]

Originally Posted by fromthebay

DING DING DING... I completely agree 100% and im glad someone else finally sees my point of view... SF has great views and activities in beautiful places. BUT, being so cramped with nothing nice around your immediate area and no backyard with greenery or anything nice like that is horrible. Thanks for someone else agreeing with me

ding, ding, ding!!

I agree. In SF, from the front of the dwelling to the street is all sidewalk. IN other cities there can be found small lawns, then a sidewalk, then a parkway with more grass, trees, or flowers. Sometimes you see people put mini cast iron fences around these green areas so dogs won't go in them, but in SF they don't have this.

Much of SF's housing stock is old wood siding or stucco and on an overcast day it can look bleak. Here is an example of the foregoing.



versus

[gizmo980]

Are those other cities also built on steep hills, in earthquake country, and with a mild/cool Mediterranean climate? If not, then it's kind of an invalid comparison... although I agree, it would be nice to see more greenery in the residential neighborhoods.

This is near my neighborhood, which is somewhat less "stark" than the one you posted:
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p302/gizmo980/SF%20House/neighborhoodview2.jpg (broken link)

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by c1tyguy

Are you kidding me?

If you're comparing the two on terms of monuments, attractions, and ''big city'' URBAN attributes, San Francisco by FAR surpasses Los Angeles. The two (SF and LA) are NOT comparable as urban epicenters. San Francisco is a dense urban city where as Los Angeles is only dense at its core, not offering much more than a business center. Los Angeles is not a big 'city'. It is big URBAN SPRAWL.

Coming to California from Europe, I wouldn't know where to start visiting Los Angeles. Sure they've got the theme parks over San Francisco, but I can't say theres anything more in Los Angeles I'd want to see (apart from the usual museums, and art galleries any city over 500,000 people have) besides maybe Rodeo, and Hollywood. I feel like San Francisco has the CULTURE that is not directly apparent in Los Angeles. In San Francisco you feel it in the CITY where as in Los Angeles it is concentrated in small pockets. Los Angeles has no identity.

Why do so many people make this bogus connection between built environment and the vague notion of "culture?" Since when do houses and sidewalks have culture? How does sprawl kill culture that otherwise exists in smaller areas? Please explain the science you used to arrive at such a conclusion.

[mini_cute]

To me, SF is a city that is neither here nor there. I used to be in love with that beautiful place and dreamed for many years of moving from my hometown in LA to SF after college (back before real estate in the Bay Area sky-rocketed). But then I had to move to NYC for a period of time. I returned to California, not to SF unfortunately... but to SD. But after a recent trip up there (to the city I once loved) I realized it wasn't the same anymore. I think my perspective has changed. From an urban standpoint, it pales in comparison to NYC. If I wanted to live the big city life, I would choose NYC. But if I wanted to return to California living and enjoy nice weather and cleanliness, I'd choose San Diego. I am actually quite happy I ended up San Diego now, and not SF in the end. Aside from becoming more expensive, it is much more crowded, dirtier and less beautiful- and even more saddening is that it seems to have lost its "sweetness". I just don't think it is the same city it once was- I don't think it is just my perspective that had changed, but it had indeed changed... and the price of a home there isn't worth it to me. I still love SF- but mostly only for what it used to be.

[Bluesmama]

The only reason Seattle and Portland have more "green" is because it is abundant with trees to begin with, so development can retain some.

But I work in local government, and for years I've watched "greed" from developers not only exceed demand, but encourage it. (Actually, this would be a different thread, and it'd be best to not let myself get started on this one.) Outside of the downtown Portland area, you wouldn't believe all the clusters of packed houses and multi-family buildings.

But, you know, I have friends in England who visit the states every year (Palm Springs being their favorite place), and they told me that they're forever impressed at all of the "open spaces" we have here. Apparently, it's a rarity in England.

I think San Francisco is beautiful. It has character and some unique cityscape and some compelling history. And whenever I spend time there I feel GOOD! Parts of it are dingy, some are dirty. Most cities have that. I've never seen a city that was ALL beautiful.

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by sliverbox

Me and my Wife both work in tech, making well into the upper 10% of the earning echelon, even for the Bay Area. But even so, what we could actually afford would greatly hamper our financial abilities. Less would be put away for retirement, and so on.

Well -- see -- there's your problem. Why are you saving for retirement? Your stock options should take care of that! Besdies what about Social Security?

[ubringliten]

Originally Posted by Bluesbabe

I think San Francisco is beautiful. It has character and some unique cityscape and some compelling history. And whenever I spend time there I feel GOOD! Parts of it are dingy, some are dirty. Most cities have that. I've never seen a city that was ALL beautiful.

Zurich and Singapore are super clean and beautiful.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by ubringliten

Zurich and Singapore are super clean and beautiful.

My father has traveled ALL over the world, and said that Singapore is the cleanest place he's ever seen... and that Singapore Airlines is the best airline. I'd love to go!