San Francisco is a dump. (San Diego, Pasadena: neighborhood, taxes, living in)

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by USEU9

Why is a city with such high taxes, and a relatively low population so filthy?

Also run down, dingy, smelly, dangeous and run by the homeless.

I've travelled a lot, moved here from La Jolla, and this is not a sophisticated city at all.

And for the love of God; the weather here is awful. I miss the "sexy" hot summers in SoCal. Sick of the nasty weather here and wearing a light jacket in the summer. Yuck.

This place is not fabulous at all.

(and I like cities... I've been to New York, Paris, London, Barcelona, and this tasteless city is a joke compared to those)

I miss La jolla so much

You can always go back to where you came from

[xGrendelx]

Originally Posted by batransplant

My dad was shocked how filthy the BART trains were...particularly the brown filth caked on the windows. He said riding BART felt like being in communist Russia.

It's interesting to me you mentioned the trains here because the first time I went into the subway, I was actually impressed by the conditions down there. Having ridden the trains in Rome and Paris (both "world-class" cities), these trains are quite nice. And the stations themselves were cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing than the subway stations in both Paris and Rome, Rome especially. Actually in the cities where I've used public transportation, the only one that had "nicer" trains than the ones here was Dublin, Ireland. Here's some pics I took to give you an idea:

Notice how old this train is, and how dingy it seems. This was in Rome:



This one is from Paris. Try to see passed my cousin, he's a weird guy haha. Check out the door though. It's not even automatic like the ones here, you gotta lift the handle. Old school.



And this is one of Dublin's trains. Pretty nice.



But seriously, I'd never criticize a city for dirty or lame looking trains. Honestly, if a city has trains, I'm gonna ride 'em no matter what they look like.

[tstieber]

Well, comparing BART to communist Russia is kind of a compliment. Moscow's subway system and its seriously amazing train stations are world-renowned. It's one thing they got right! We usually hear a lot of compliments from people using BART that come from other parts of the country or the world, but I'm sure some of the trains are getting worn, while others are newer. If you get a bad one, I'd just move to a better cart.

Batransplant, I'd agree that you can get the same shopping in Beverly Hills in a cleaner environment, but every time I've been in Beverly Hills, it's been dead. It's cute but boring. Only during peak tourist season does it seem to have a lot of bustle. I'd much rather enjoy the excitement of a big city, with cabs honking, people sitting at the cafes on Union Square, that guy who always plays the steel drums near Neiman Marcus, the throngs of people everywhere. It feels alive, worldly, and cosmopolitan, whereas Beverly Hills feels comparatively unexciting. It's like a swankier Walnut Creek. Really, most cities in Europe are much filthier than SF will ever be. However, Chicago has got to be the absolute cleanest big city I've ever seen. That city seems incredibly well managed.

[matt345]

Originally Posted by batransplant

Coming from SoCal, it is a huge adjustment due to the weather, crime, run down buildings, lack of cleanliness in most parts of the city, and homeless problem. I cannot think of one city south of Monterey with a homeless, crime. and crumbling, decaying infrastructure on the level of San Francisco. My dad was shocked how filthy the BART trains were...particularly the brown filth caked on the windows. He said riding BART felt like being in communist Russia.

Oh please. There are tons of homeless in Santa Monica, Pasadena, Westwood Village, Hollywood, Long Beach, and let's not forget that little place called Skid Row. I used to live in LA and I can tell you that the vast majority of that city is drab 1960's apartment buildings, run down bungalows, and filthy desolate streets. So many neighborhoods down there are incredibly ugly since so many homeowners have felt the need to build those awful iron fences around their front yards. You may miss SoCal but I don't. I don't miss having to drive to everything, I don't miss people giving me an awkward look when I told them I took the subway, and I don't miss those freeways.

[matt345]

Originally Posted by tstieber

I'd much rather enjoy the excitement of a big city, with cabs honking, people sitting at the cafes on Union Square, that guy who always plays the steel drums near Neiman Marcus, the throngs of people everywhere. It feels alive, worldly, and cosmopolitan, whereas Beverly Hills feels comparatively unexciting. It's like a swankier Walnut Creek. Really, most cities in Europe are much filthier than SF will ever be. However, Chicago has got to be the absolute cleanest big city I've ever seen. That city seems incredibly well managed.

Exactly. A lot of people on this forum just aren't meant for real city life and should go back to their clean manicured suburban utopias.

[smh1]

Public transportation is the best in S.F, not only in the city, but to and from the city. You have BART, Caltrans, numerous ferries, the Golden gate bus system and just so many options. BART is just so convenient.

Nothing to compare to L.A or even San Diego regarding public transportation. Even the tenderloin, when I worked in downtown, I used to take the bus there for lunch occasionally-numerous lovely and cheap restaurants. No one bothered me , as long as you mind your business and walk straight ahead.

I lived in San Diego and you can drive through it in half hour tops. It is small. While I do love the weather in coastal so cal better, but S.F weather is way better than say Montana or Idaho. Also you have so much there, the big city, giant redwood forests so close, ocean cliffs, the Golden gate bridge-I mean it is just beautiful. My colleague's husband lived in Sausalito and used to commute by bicylcle over the Golden gate bridge on most days-unless it was heavily raining and windy. It is just a beautiful area. That is just odd to compare S.F to a dump!

[batransplant]

You cannot compare the homeless masses in SF to the random homeless person you see in LA...especially major commercial shopping areas like Union Square vs. Westwood Village, Pasadena, Fairfax, or Santa Monica.

SF has a weird thing for the homeless, but really, I there are so many people in SF employed to deal with the problem, they need the massive homeless problem to exist here otherwise they would be out of a job. The homeless are a large part of the economy here.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by USEU9

Why is a city with such high taxes, and a relatively low population so filthy?

Also run down, dingy, smelly, dangeous and run by the homeless.

I've travelled a lot, moved here from La Jolla, and this is not a sophisticated city at all.

And for the love of God; the weather here is awful. I miss the "sexy" hot summers in SoCal. Sick of the nasty weather here and wearing a light jacket in the summer. Yuck.

This place is not fabulous at all.

(and I like cities... I've been to New York, Paris, London, Barcelona, and this tasteless city is a joke compared to those)

I miss La jolla so much

Sigh...even though this post has the markings of a troll, I do see where he's coming from.

Of course coming from La Jolla the weather anywhere is going to suck. While SF is very temperate, some people just like it hot & don't mind slightly colder winters. If you like seasonal hotness, SF doesn't get that.

The filth and homelessness is pretty ridiculous too. It's worst in the Tenderloin, but I'm honestly surprised at how dirty and full of homeless the rest of the city is -- of the "famous" neighborhoods the only truly clean one is the Marina. SF is overall much dirtier than NYC, LA (except for Skid Row which is comparable to the TL), Chicago, San Diego, Boston, Seattle, etc.

And SF really isn't a big city in the league of the other ones he listed. On some other post, someone who moved from LA to SF was initially shocked about how SF (besides the FiDi) didn't really resemble a city, it was more of a collection of midwestern-looking neighborhoods. That description is the most accurate I've seen.

Of course for most of the runaways and people just itching to get out of their closed-minded small towns (and there are a LOT of these people here) they run off to SF and for them it's the real deal. SF does have its own charm, but it is a joke of a "big city" when you compare it to the likes of NYC, London, Tokyo, LA (although LA is different in its own way...)

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by matt345

That's just your opinion. To me, San Diego is a joke of a "city" compared to San Francisco. But I won't go into that.

I get sick of hearing about how "small" San Francisco is. There's over 800,000 people living here! That's much more than Boston (620,000), Seattle (600,000), Miami (425,000), or even Washington, DC (572,000). San Francisco is a BIG city people. Californians must have pretty high standards because like I said on another thread, compared to where I come from and what I knew to be "the City" growing up, San Francisco is a dream.

He didn't compare it to Boston, Seattle, Miami, or Washington DC though. He compared it to New York (8.3M), London (7.5M), Paris (2.2M), and Barcelona (1.6M) .

[rah]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

General crime situation is average or even below average.

Nope, not true:

US average violent crime rate 2008: 454.5
SF violent crime rate 2008: 1,024.1

US average property crime rate 2008: 3,213
SF property Crime rate 2008: 4,548.2

US average murder rate 2008: 5.4
SF murder rate 2008: 12.3

--------------------------------------------------------

of the 76 cities of 250,000+ residents in the US, In 2008:

-17th highest robbery rate for SF
-25th highest total violent crime rate for SF
-27th highest murder rate for SF
-34th highest assault rate for SF
-68th highest rape rate for SF (the one area where SF is low)

For the 35 US cities of 500,000+, in 2008:

-9th highest robbery rate for SF
-12th highest total violent crime rate for SF
-14th highest murder rate for SF
-16th highest assault rate for SF
-34th highest rape rate (only NYC is lower)

--------------------------------------------------------

CA cities of 250,000+, violent crime rates, 2008:
1. Oakland -1,968.4
2. Stockton -1,474.7
3. San Francisco - 1,024.1
4. Sacramento - 997.7
5. Los Angeles - 689.5
6. Long Beach -676.2
7. Riverside -642.0
8. Bakersfield- 637.0
9. Fresno -584.8
10. Santa Ana - 508.1
11. San Diego -475.5
12. Anaheim -393.1
13. San Jose -385.4