SF Vs. Silicon Valley

[Fastphilly]

Originally Posted by the topper

Arena, light rail, Tech/Museum of Art, California and Hammer theaters, San Pedro and SoFA Public Markets and Martin Luther King Public Library. It has a riverpark and several great public spaces. There is a great art district in SoFA, too. Can go on and on.

A library? Light rail? Yes I’m sure you’ll have droves of world travelers flying from overseas to see those famous attractions. Get real!

San Jose is a suburb on steroids compared to San Francisco. When San Jose gets a museum on par with the DeYoung museum then we can talk.

[Dapper Zoom]

The topper is half right; San Jose is not nearly as bad as it is often said to be. Sure, there are some things that are unattractive - a lot fo the area is strip-mallish and unpleasant for walking, but there are great restaurants of all kinds, nice weather, and stuff to do. I've been down to their jazz festival several times, and it is so nice to walk around outside in the evening without freezing to death as in SF.

But still, SF is (debatably) a world class city. I think it is one of the best, if not the best, which is why I choose to live there. It is super walkable (if you're into that sort of thing) and incredibly scenic. And there is a high density of museums, concert venues, and nice restaurants. And there is such a sense of place; you'll know when you're in SF because of the iconic hills, victorians, etc. Nowhere else in the world has that particular charm. San Jose does not really have that factor going for it. The topper is also right about the filth and the homeless problem. There are certain neighborhoods that are overtaken by tent cities.

If you're working in Palo Alto, you could do a lot worse than living there. Although it is quite expensive, it is basically a really nice University (Stanford) town. Maybe a bit too fancy-is for some tastes. And great weather - not too far from both SJ and SF. San Mateo also deserves consideration, but the commute may be tough. It is similar to Palo Alto, but a bit less expensive and more diverse.

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by Sunrise2015

I think that you two just have different expectations of how / what a city should be like or offer.

I guess the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and though we don't really discuss beauty here, this phrase still makes a lot of sense in this scenario as well. So guess I will have to get there to judge.

But I think that on at least few topics people should pretty much agree or disagree, which are safety and cost of living. Is it even possible to find a safe place there under/ right at 2k, which is also nice and livable?

Topper's posts are somewhere between trolling and performance art. While San Jose has the population of a large city, it lacks the amenities most people associate with large cities. You find more of the benefits of large city living in much smaller cities, like St. Louis, Portland, etc.

On to your questions about safety & cost of living:
There is subjectivity to safety. Crime statistics suggest that San Francisco's Mission District remains a dangerous neighborhood for the region, but rent & real estate suggest that it is among the most desirable places in the Bay Area. There is always a question of what level of streetsmarts you have/are willing to exercise to live somewhere.

More importantly, what are you looking for with your 2k budget? A room in a shared apartment, a studio, a 1 BR? Your answer to those questions will dramatically impact the safety & livability of cities in SV, the Peninsula, or beyond.

[PixelatedTherapy]

Move to San Jose. San Jose is suburban, but has an urban downtown. BOOM!

[the topper]

I was in SF today and was shocked how sterile the city was. What happened to all its creative types? Neighborhoods are boring and have lost their lusters. Now, San Jose is more fun than SF. Mission District stinks and so does Haight. What's left of SF? Not much. I don't think Noe Valley and North Beach that good. Nobody hang out in Downtown SF surprisingly.

[mstnghu2]

Originally Posted by the topper

I was in SF today and was shocked how sterile the city was. What happened to all its creative types? Neighborhoods are boring and have lost their lusters. Now, San Jose is more fun than SF. Mission District stinks and so does Haight. What's left of SF? Not much. I don't think Noe Valley and North Beach that good. Nobody hang out in Downtown SF surprisingly.

Why is it that I don't believe anything in this post?

[nowhereman427]

Was born and raised in San Francisco. The city is no longer the city it was. It has gone downhill and the rents, mortgages and taxes have gone up. You will find tons of homeless people, drug addicts and beggars wandering the streets.
Traffic is horrible here but as well the whole SF Bay Area is no good.


If you work down south in the Silicone Valley you should live down there because the commute is a killer as lots of city people commute down the peninsula and the freeway 280 turns into gridlock during commuter hours.