Is the SF Bay Area overrated? (San Francisco, Sunnyvale: apartment complex, condo, inspections)

[Finper]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

.


San Francisco is making front page news on CNN, it's actually their featured headliner article... so much for the people here who say this isn't a problem or any different from the rest of the country.


The toll of drug use on San Francisco Streets

"As of October 2018, over 7,500 complaints about discarded needles have been made, compared to just 132 a decade ago." -CNN


https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/27/healt...ets/index.html


.

People that live in SF are saying the homeless addicts are walking around like the walking dead and people question if SF is overrated???

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

We are talking about whether a place is overrated or not. I don't think you understand what that means. A town of 300 people in Idaho can be underrated while a city of 20 million can be overrated and vice versa. It has nothing to do with economic output or what headquarters are located there lol.



For example, many people think Los Angeles is one of America's most overrated cities because people see Hollywood as Celebrity mansions, beautiful beaches, glamour and glitz, everyone is rich, etc. When they get to Hollywood, it's very tacky and touristy and has homeless people and sex shops. The beach is an hour drive from Downtown. Most of Los Angeles doesn't look like Beverly Hills or Laguna Beach.



While a less known city or a city that people don't have much opinion on is easier to seem underrated because there aren't all these expectations before arriving.



In the case of San Francisco, it's in a lot of movies and it always shows the nicest streets, everything clean, blue clear skies, no homeless people, people dressed as if it's Southern California, etc. And then when they get there, they see litter on the streets, tons of homeless, fog, freezing wind, etc. Many people not all but many find it overrated, even the chamber of commerce pleaded with the city many times to clean it up because hotels are reporting a high number of complaints from their guests.

SSMaster is just trying to derail the conversation by trying to qualify it under specifications that he/she would like (and this is the 2nd time as it was already covered starting at post #301...which was mentioned and conveniently followed by a dodge of the comment). No such specification was made by the OP, so SSMaster should start his own thread if he/she would like to only talk about his cherry picked list. And as you said, there's a clear disconnect on the comprehension of "overrated".

[ssmaster]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

We are talking about whether a place is overrated or not. I don't think you understand what that means. A town of 300 people in Idaho can be underrated while a city of 20 million can be overrated and vice versa. It has nothing to do with economic output or what headquarters are located there lol.



For example, many people think Los Angeles is one of America's most overrated cities because people see Hollywood as Celebrity mansions, beautiful beaches, glamour and glitz, everyone is rich, etc. When they get to Hollywood, it's very tacky and touristy and has homeless people and sex shops. The beach is an hour drive from Downtown. Most of Los Angeles doesn't look like Beverly Hills or Laguna Beach.



While a less known city or a city that people don't have much opinion on is easier to seem underrated because there aren't all these expectations before arriving.



In the case of San Francisco, it's in a lot of movies and it always shows the nicest streets, everything clean, blue clear skies, no homeless people, people dressed as if it's Southern California, etc. And then when they get there, they see litter on the streets, tons of homeless, fog, freezing wind, etc. Many people not all but many find it overrated, even the chamber of commerce pleaded with the city many times to clean it up because hotels are reporting a high number of complaints from their guests.

you do not know what overrated means
overrated

has to do with how something or something is RATED
from miriam webster

rating: relative estimate or evaluation : STANDING
example:the school has a good academic rating

see the word RELATIVE in the definition

you are BY DEFINITION comparing San Francisco to other cities

BY DEFINITION

in this case posters are comparing vastly different and inappropriate types of cities.

ferrari vs civics

i encourage you to strive for precision in words and deeds
i do

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by ssmaster

you do not know what overrated means
overrated

has to do with how something or something is RATED
from miriam webster

rating: relative estimate or evaluation : STANDING
example:the school has a good academic rating

see the word RELATIVE in the definition

you are BY DEFINITION comparing San Francisco to other cities

BY DEFINITION

in this case posters are comparing vastly different and inappropriate types of cities.

ferrari vs civics

i encourage you to strive for precision in words and deeds
i do

Laughable response and pure conjecture on your part. As you were told when you first introduced your take on the matter, many of us don't consider San Francisco to be a Ferrari. You're simply trying to look at one aspect to compare as opposed to the myriad of ways to compare how overrated San Francisco is (i.e. Quality of Life being a big one).

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by ssmaster

you do not know what overrated means
overrated

has to do with how something or something is RATED
from miriam webster

rating: relative estimate or evaluation : STANDING
example:the school has a good academic rating

see the word RELATIVE in the definition

you are BY DEFINITION comparing San Francisco to other cities

BY DEFINITION

in this case posters are comparing vastly different and inappropriate types of cities.

ferrari vs civics

i encourage you to strive for precision in words and deeds
i do

LOL, maybe a Ferrai asking 5x the normal cost of one yet it’s covered with used needles, key marks along the sides, smashed windows, human fecal matter and pee everywhere inside, broken vents and a few homeless living inside of it... yeah that doesn’t sound overrated at all.

Comparing SF to a Ferrai is absolutely hilarious.

[nmguy]

From reading this thread, I get the sense that the contributors are in the process of redefining San Francisco. It certainly isn't what it was when I lived there 15 years ago mainly because it has experienced more change than most large cities: changing skyline, wealthier residents, much higher real estate prices, wider chasm between the haves and have nots, etc.

Old timers who compare it to what it once was probably feel much differently than recent, well-heeled arrivals who make big bucks.

It's all in one's perspective.

[DeanoSF]

The CNN link is another visit to the same spot--a less than 1 square mile area that is causing 95% of the problem, primarily because it overlaps one of the most active tourist zones in the country.

I've illustrated it in the attached map. The red is the problem area for QOL issues. It's about .8 square mile in total and follows a jagged path of gentrification, hills and other neighborhood borders that influence its size and scope. This is where homelessness, open drug use, etc. flourish, as has been well documented. It's not the only place these things happen, but it is the area that drives the perception of "poo flowing in the streets and piles of used needles everywhere."

It is legitimately horrible in this contained area. The fact that it is so contained further enrages everyone, because logically, it would seem like such a small area would be easy to clean up. SF politics, disinterest, racism, classism, etc. have let this problem linger for decades and it now is bigger and more visible than it has ever been.

"More visible" is a key term here too. SF is small and compact. Economic booms have resulted in more people visiting and relocating to the City and the area than ever before and they have been eager to cram into areas where most residents and visitors once avoided.

The green area on the map is the generally walkable area for tourists. Notice the rather large area of overlap with the red. This is what causes so much uproar.

The I'm not trying to diminish the problem in any way, only offering some perspective. No doubt, in one of the wealthiest cities in the country, it's disgraceful to have such a visible problem of homelessness.

We should note, however, that to the west, north and east of the red zone are some of the most coveted old and new neighborhoods in San Francisco. To its immediate south is a rapidly gentrifying area that is feeling its own stresses, but is generally moving in a more livable direction.

I don't mean miles away, either. Blocks away. Even so, this small red area is pretty easy to avoid most of the time for locals and our traffic patterns generally take us away from, or around this area. The tourists, however, wander right into it. The best hotels, sights, nightlife, The Theater District, restaurants, shopping, transportation hubs--they're all right there. It's easy for locals to sometimes wander a block off of the grid and onto a bad block in this zone, too.

It's not where most San Franciscans live, though. And while "out of sight, out of mind" is not an acceptable excuse for allowing the problem to fester as it has, it is nonetheless, an explanation of the differing perspectives on SF from within versus those viewed from far away.

[bmw335xi]

The thing is homelessness and issues around it extend to most parts of the city. Most parks are negatively effected as well. To say these issues only effect a small part of San Francisco is false advertising, maybe that's why many tourists find SF overrated.

[likealady]

Sorry but you need to extend that map's red area all through SOMA and FiDi to the Embarcadero. You should probably also highlight parts of Haight, Fillmore, and Mission districts. While these areas aren't to the same degree as mid-Market and Tenderloin, they do see a lot of the same issues on a smaller scale.

[ssmaster]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

LOL, maybe a Ferrai asking 5x the normal cost of one yet it’s covered with used needles, key marks along the sides, smashed windows, human fecal matter and pee everywhere inside, broken vents and a few homeless living inside of it... yeah that doesn’t sound overrated at all.

Comparing SF to a Ferrai is absolutely hilarious.

smart of you to avoiding acknowledging you did not understand what overrated means according to Miriam Webster


I am going by the objective ranking of the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation,the Economist Intelligence unit.


1 1 New York City788 52 1 London786 83 Hong Kong783 24 Singapore769 45 1 Shanghai766 256 1 Tokyo746 37 2 Sydney734 108 3 Beijing733 129 7 Zurich732 1910 10 Frankfurt730 2211 4 Toronto72812 6 Shenzhen726 1613 3 Boston725 314 6 San Francisco724 215 4 Dubai722 1316 1 Los Angeles721 917 3 Chicago717 118 3 Vancouver709 819 9 Guangzhou708 3020 8 Melbourne699 2121 Luxembourg694 722 1 Osaka693 123 1 Paris691 424 11 Montreal690 2925 9 Tel Aviv689 28


For most of these financial centres you have to make ferrari money to live well. wealthy people love to live in these types of cities like SF,boston dubai,sydney,zurich and pay a lot of money to do so.

Its usually people who weren't successful enough to stay in the San Francisco bay area who are bitter and bad mouth it. own it.