can someone tell me why anyone would ever want to live in SF? (Los Angeles: homes, place to live)

[TiffaNYC]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

My guess would be combination of 1. Great economy, esp. tech and 2. Tons of people who really like the surrounding environment. But, to me (and apparently most others in this thread), we're still amazed at the prices given the city's faults.

Exactly - that's what baffles me. I absolutely think that the Bay Area is great - I can understand paying a higher price to live in the Bay Area as a whole...but to pay $2000 for a studio apartment to live in a homeless-feces-infested neighborhood of SF, with crappy public transportation, and all the other things I mentioned that I abhor about SF - ... WHY??? Insanity.

I'd much rather pay a high price and live in a truly amazing city - and by that I mean NYC - which SF will never compare to...and I always talk to people about this, just people I meet, whatever, and I'd say that about 85% of people agree - if you take NYC vs. SF, NYC beats SF by a landslide. BUT, that's a discussion for another thread, this isn't a NYC vs. SF discussion. I'm only pointing out that if I'm going to pay a huge price to live in a big city, it sure as hell isn't going to be SF. There aren't enough good things about it to pay that kind of price tag, and wayyyyyyyyy too many shi**y negatives (pun intended), lol.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by tiffanychantel

Well I've lived in the SF Bay since 89, and I lived in SF in the early 2000s. I know my personal feelings aren't facts, but there are SOME facts in there - things I experienced that happen to be facts. And that also means that your personal experiences aren't facts, either.

Whatever, it doesn't even matter - I loathe the city of SF and that's not going to change, and I'm not trying to convince anyone else to hate SF. I'm just speaking up in a thread that's titled "why would anyone ever want to live in SF?" because my answer is "I wouldn't." Simple as that.

Basically, this is a pretty fair enough post from you. I'll give it a rep +1 because you are now just speaking your mind and not claiming your mind as a broad statistical foundation for your opinions.

Your experiences ARE, indeed, facts. But they do not constitute broad statistical foundation for the claims you were making previously. As far as I'm concerned you are entirely welcome to your "loathing" and desire for a different environment.

As for my own personal experiences: I haven't been posting about them really.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

No, he didn't. Please show us where Tulemutt made such documentation.

He's just trolling this thread, repeatedly claiming that SF doesn't have a homeless problem.

Except, yes, I did. And then I repeated my links to data in post #110.
Here's the link to that post again. Go back and read it.
//www.city-data.com/forum/40513970-post110.html

And, I never claimed SF doesn't have a homeless problem. Please find where I did and quote it for us.

Meanwhile, you've not backed up your hyperbolic claim that SF has the nation's worst homeless problem at all. Why is that?

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by tiffanychantel

I'd much rather pay a high price and live in a truly amazing city - and by that I mean NYC - which SF will never compare to...and I always talk to people about this, just people I meet, whatever, and I'd say that about 85% of people agree - if you take NYC vs. SF, NYC beats SF by a landslide. BUT, that's a discussion for another thread, this isn't a NYC vs. SF discussion. I'm only pointing out that if I'm going to pay a huge price to live in a big city, it sure as hell isn't going to be SF. There aren't enough good things about it to pay that kind of price tag, and wayyyyyyyyy too many shi**y negatives (pun intended), lol.

Yes, exactly. This is the point. SF is still a great city, but the prices are insane for what you get. It's essentially a "bad deal" because you're paying the same as you would pay in a NYC or Paris or wherever, and getting a much, much worse urban experience, with crap transit, limited amenties, limited nightlife, very small city, sloppy, ugly looking people, etc.

[TiffaNYC]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Basically, this is a pretty fair enough post from you. I'll give it a rep +1 because you are now just speaking your mind and not claiming your mind as a broad statistical foundation for your opinions.

Your experiences ARE, indeed, facts. But they do not constitute broad statistical foundation for the claims you were making previously. As far as I'm concerned you are entirely welcome to your "loathing" and desire for a different environment..

Alright, cool

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Except, yes, I did. And then I repeated my links to data in post #110.
Here's the link to that post again. Go back and read it.
//www.city-data.com/forum/40513970-post110.html

No, you never provided such a link. More nonsense. Nothing in that link has anything to do with the conversation.

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

And, I never claimed SF doesn't have a homeless problem. Please find where I did and quote it for us.

Yes, in fact you did. In fact, you claimed that SF has even BETTER homeless situation than other U.S. cities. That's the whole point. If City A doesn't have a major homeless problem, and if you claim that SF has a better homeless situation than City A, then you are claiming that SF doesn't have a homeless problem. Basic logical reasoning skills.

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Meanwhile, you've not backed up your hyperbolic claim that SF has the nation's worst homeless problem at all. Why is that?

Because 1. There's no reason to "back up" a claim that everyone agrees with (excepting one homer troll) and 2. There's no database that records street people, so there's no reference anyways.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

No, you never provided such a link. More nonsense. Nothing in that link has anything to do with the conversation.

Not sure why you are doing this to yourself. Posting history on the forum can't be deleted. So, here they are, again:

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Say tiffany, here's a unique suggestion for you to consider: research before you post.

NYC is the homeless capital of the nation in both total numbers and as a percentage of population. #2 is Los Angeles. #3 is Seattle. And San Francisco doesn't even break the top ten ranking.

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Then you haven't lived in any of the top ten cities for homelessness. Because SF doesn't rank in the top ten either.
Top 10 U.S. Cities With A High Homelessness Rate
Nor, apparently, have you lived in any cities that have year around survivable weather such as that in San Francisco.

now then, moving forward:

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Yes, in fact you did. In fact, you claimed that SF has even BETTER homeless situation than other U.S. cities. That's the whole point. If City A doesn't have a major homeless problem, and if you claim that SF has a better homeless situation than City A, then you are claiming that SF doesn't have a homeless problem. Basic logical reasoning skills.

You still haven't quoted where I said there's no homeless problem in SF. Which is what you claimed I have said. I did say, indeed, that SF's homeless problem is lesser than that of many other cities. Which is true. And the statistical links I've provided prove that. I did not compare SF to any cities without homeless problems. Just the opposite.

Whereas, ahem, you still have not proven your claim of SF being the worst in America.

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Because 1. There's no reason to "back up" a claim that everyone agrees with (excepting one homer troll) and 2. There's no database that records street people, so there's no reference anyways.

There are lots of entirely excellent, professional surveys on homelessness. Both government and research foundations are very active in the field. Their methodologies are always stated in their reports, as well.

Who's "everyone"?

And again, where are you posting from with all this knowledge?

[dalparadise]

This may just be ants at the picnic, but I live in a part of the City where transportation is outstanding. Furthermore, my walkability and bike-able access to points of interest, shopping streets, employment centers, etc. is fantastic.

I didn't know anything about SF transportation before moving here. My only experience as a tourist was a couple of cable car and BART rides. So, was it just luck that I fell into a transit-rich neighborhood? Or, is transportation in SF actually efficient for people who live here, rather than berate it from afar?

It's also quite typically sunny and pleasant where I live--SF, in fact, is one of the sunniest cities in the country--but Elaborating on that will upset too many of the West-of-Divis complainers.

[likealady]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Pee isn't feces (which was the point I was responding to). The only areas where i notice a sewer smell consistently are near the ball park. I think there's a water treatment thing or sewage discharge around there. And it's usually a block or two, not something that's ever-present.

Also those areas still make up less than the majority of the city. The way some of you describe the smell one would think it's like it's a constant thing like the smell of manure in the central valley (which it most obviously is not).

This is the hyperbole thing i was talking about. "the city smells like pee constantly" = I walked by an alley and it smelled like pee. I don't discount that there are streets that are unclean and smell like pee (for good reason), but entire blocks stretching miles of the city aren't just covered in urine, either.

Yeah, ok sure. Poop map SF
I don't usually smell it, as it's not as fragrant as pee, but it's there. Might not be all of SF, but still a large majority.

Hyperbole... sure, I'm exaggerating a little. No, not every neighborhood smells like pee all the time. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't smell pee at least once a day or at least once while trying to get to another neighborhood. Almost every time I come up from a BART station, that is the first smell that greets me. Not a great first impression for our city, imho.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Not sure why you are doing this to yourself. Posting history on the forum can't be deleted. So, here they are, again:

You can make any wild claim you want, doesn't mean it's true. The fact is that you've never posted any evidence that SF doesn't have the worst homeless problem in the U.S.

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You still haven't quoted where I said there's no homeless problem in SF.

Then you haven't read this thread. You claimed that SF has less homeless than U.S. cities without a homeless problem. So you are obviously claiming that SF doesn't have a homeless problem.

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Whereas, ahem, you still have not proven your claim of SF being the worst in America.

Everyone except for crazy homers agrees that SF has the worst homeless problem in America. There is no Census database for homeless, so I will agree with 99.9% of the population and my own eyes, and not some random internet homer who claims the entire planet is wrong.