Why woud someone choose SF over LA? (San Francisco, Richmond: gated, taxis)

[jessemh431]

Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust

That, and he isn't even an SF native. I think I recall seeing somewhere that he's only even been here for 2 years or so. Lol. So don't let him fool ya into thinking he speaks for the city.

I was born and raised in SF, and I personally find a lot of your SF observations on point. Now that I'm 23, done with college, and have professional experience to jumpstart my career elsewhere, hubby and I are just waiting till we save up enough to buy a house outside of CA.

If that's true, he's the stereotype of the current wave of transplants that I dislike. I know he doesn't speak for the whole city, but he speaks for the majority right now as the majority are transplants. The natives are generally much more down to earth and welcoming.

I've met many SF natives moving to other parts of the Bay Area, and many Bay Area natives as a whole moving farther out, to LA, or other parts of the country. LA natives have been moving to SD or out of state. You definitely aren't alone in your decision to move out haha

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust

That, and he isn't even an SF native. I think I recall seeing somewhere that he's only even been here for 2 years or so. Lol. So don't let him fool ya into thinking he speaks for the city.

I was born and raised in SF, and I personally find a lot of your SF observations on point. Now that I'm 23, done with college, and have professional experience to jumpstart my career elsewhere, hubby and I are just waiting till we save up enough to buy a house outside of CA.

I was not attempting to "speak for the city". I was specifically addressing his rants about SF's poor Electronic Dance Music scene and the green jackets that women wear as being his headline reasons for not liking it here. In the same breath, he shorthand labels people in one of the most diverse places in America, and ironically talks about how shallow they are. If you "find these observations on point" so be it. I'm the one who'll LOL at that.

[04kL4nD]

Not getting why SF's EDM scene is bad. I've been part of it for around 8 years and have never had any problems finding a place to go out or nice people.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Not getting why SF's EDM scene is bad. I've been part of it for around 8 years and have never had any problems finding a place to go out or nice people.

I'm not into it, but some friends of mine from Texas are. They have flown in specifically for local club shows and a few touring acts. They seemed to have a good time.

In any case, good or bad, it's pretty weak grounds for measuring a city's livability.

[04kL4nD]

It's not as big as LA, Vegas, or Miami, but it's a pretty respectable scene with a lot of diversity in terms of genre and people. I always laugh when people say SF is boring or has no nightlife. Maybe I'm just lucky or I know where to go, but i doubt it.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

It's not as big as LA, Vegas, or Miami, but it's a pretty respectable scene with a lot of diversity in terms of genre and people. I always laugh when people say SF is boring or has no nightlife. Maybe I'm just lucky or I know where to go, but i doubt it.

Yeah, that was part of the larger discussion, too. All of those cities you list are big driving cities and tend to be more club-oriented. So, I think it goes hand-in-hand. Part of some original comments concerned the "urban nature" of SF's nightlife and how "filthy" it was to be out on the street in the TL, Lower Polk, or South of Market. It occurred to me that this guy wasn't really into city living.

It's just a different vibe when you're walking or cabbing to places that are close together and are themselves parts of eclectic neighborhoods. There are clubs here that are in the back alley behind posh clothing boutiques, with offices above, next to boutique hotels, across from condo buildings, and down the street from dive bars and lounges. It's like that in Downtown LA, too, but not quite as close together, and chances are, you had to drive a long way to get there. I walk almost everywhere I go in SF. It makes for a different lifestyle--especially in terms of nightlife.

BTW--I was a partner in a couple of the most popular and trend-setting nightlife establishments in Houston. I worked in establishing the aesthetic design and image of the places, as that is my area of expertise. We were extremely successful, but the car culture ultimately made the nightlife in Houston much less interesting to me than SF's. Just my observation. I would imagine I would feel similarly about the cities you mention, given similar exposure to them (for example, not simply as a visitor).

[pdizo916]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

It's not as big as LA, Vegas, or Miami, but it's a pretty respectable scene with a lot of diversity in terms of genre and people. I always laugh when people say SF is boring or has no nightlife. Maybe I'm just lucky or I know where to go, but i doubt it.

They don't know North Beach or Columbus Street.

[jessemh431]

I didn't bring up the nightlife or EDM scene again, you did. But I do still find the EDM scene lacking there. No, it's not a way to measure a city's livability for everyone, but as this is an opinion, I stated mine. My opinion is that SF is not the greatest city in the world and the smaller EDM scene and subpar nightlife is one reasoning. How many times can you possibly bring up that I dislike urban living? It's a complete lie and I've told you time after time after time. Disliking the dirtiness, the homelessness, and the drug culture of parts of SF has nothing to do with disliking urban living. A reason I've moved out of LA is because of the lack of urbanity there. I want to live in an urban, walkable city such as Madrid, London, Rome, Budapest, London, NYC, Chicago, Buenos Aires, Tel Aviv, etc. I've simply never seen the level of filth in those cities as I experienced in SF. I don't like driving everywhere or needing taxis to get everywhere. I want a metro and walkability. You really are just a troll as you can't understand these two simple things I've been telling you for quite some time now.

1. I use the EDM/nightlife scene as a measurement of MY satisfaction of SF. I dislike it, and since it's my opinion, you may gladly disagree. It was a reason in a thread about why SF is disliked.
2. I use the girls in all the same green jackets for a similar reason. I think the jackets are not stylish at all, yet again showing my opinion as to why I dislike SF. Nearly every girl I know owns that same exact jacket. It's unattractive and contradictory to San Franciscans' beliefs that they are all "unique" since so many of them have it.
3. Just because I don't like my cities covered in human excretement, used needles, and general other filth doesn't mean I dislike urban living. In fact, I strongly dislike suburban living and would do anything in my power to live in Madrid, London, or Chicago, all of which are insanely more urban than SF, much cleaner, have better nightlife, better style, friendlier people, and much better subway systems.

[garyjohnyang]

Originally Posted by jessemh431

I didn't bring up the nightlife or EDM scene again, you did. But I do still find the EDM scene lacking there. No, it's not a way to measure a city's livability for everyone, but as this is an opinion, I stated mine. My opinion is that SF is not the greatest city in the world and the smaller EDM scene and subpar nightlife is one reasoning. How many times can you possibly bring up that I dislike urban living? It's a complete lie and I've told you time after time after time. Disliking the dirtiness, the homelessness, and the drug culture of parts of SF has nothing to do with disliking urban living. A reason I've moved out of LA is because of the lack of urbanity there. I want to live in an urban, walkable city such as Madrid, London, Rome, Budapest, London, NYC, Chicago, Buenos Aires, Tel Aviv, etc. I've simply never seen the level of filth in those cities as I experienced in SF. I don't like driving everywhere or needing taxis to get everywhere. I want a metro and walkability. You really are just a troll as you can't understand these two simple things I've been telling you for quite some time now.

1. I use the EDM/nightlife scene as a measurement of MY satisfaction of SF. I dislike it, and since it's my opinion, you may gladly disagree. It was a reason in a thread about why SF is disliked.
2. I use the girls in all the same green jackets for a similar reason. I think the jackets are not stylish at all, yet again showing my opinion as to why I dislike SF. Nearly every girl I know owns that same exact jacket. It's unattractive and contradictory to San Franciscans' beliefs that they are all "unique" since so many of them have it.
3. Just because I don't like my cities covered in human excretement, used needles, and general other filth doesn't mean I dislike urban living. In fact, I strongly dislike suburban living and would do anything in my power to live in Madrid, London, or Chicago, all of which are insanely more urban than SF, much cleaner, have better nightlife, better style, friendlier people, and much better subway systems.

Chicago is not "insanely more urban than SF“, unless your definition of urbanity is a bunch of tall buildings clustered together on a lakefront.

[L.A.-Mex]

Originally Posted by garyjohnyang

Chicago is not "insanely more urban than SF“, unless your definition of urbanity is a bunch of tall buildings clustered together on a lakefront.

downtown Chicago is more urban than SF downtown. SF city is more urban than chicago, and bay area is more urban than chicagoland.