
So You're Moving to San Francisco - madmotive
http://al3x.net/2009/10/04/so-youre-moving-to-san-francisco.html
======
davidmathers
_What sickens me most about San Francisco is not its dirt, or its large
homeless population, or its questionable safety, but that locals and the city
government seem to accept these circumstances._

What al3x appears to not know: It's not about passive acceptance. There is a
major political force that fights _for_ the circumstances that he finds (and I
find) so objectionable.

In this mentally defective "progressive" movement--that can't tell the
difference between helping the poor and helping poverty--cleaning up bad
neighborhoods is called "gentrification" and fought tooth and nail. Likewise
any plan to fight homelessness that isn't some variation of "give the homeless
more free money." The result is a massive political deadlock between two sides
that can never agree on anything. Perpetual warfare.

The situation is, in reality, both much better and much worse than he
understands. Better because we're not a city full of selfish bohemians. Worse
because we are a backwards, provincial city with a deeply broken political
culture.

But, even though I also hate victorian architecture, I can't think of anywhere
else I would rather live. Portland is way too homogenous and small-town for
me.

Edit: btw, I love my transit situation. I use a combination of bicycle
(mostly), City CarShare (a fleet of cars at my disposal), Muni trains, and
cabs. Not owning a car is a fairly high priority for me. And the only city
with decent public transportation is Paris.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Try Seattle. Our usual response to gentrification is "oh that sucks...Oh hey,
a new cupcake shop just opened up!"

No really.

Edit: plus, Ben Gibbard, the lead singer of Death Cab for Cutie, jogged past
my place the other day. Evidently Zooey Deschanel now lives in my
neighborhood. Most of my neighbors are not involved in tech. I'm sitting in
the bar around the corner from my apartment writing this on a big couch
drinking a great local microbrew while using their free wifi. If I really
wanted a stable job, I'd go back to Microsoft. The only downside to this whole
thing is that Zooey Deschanel is now married.

~~~
khafra
I dunno if you can make the argument that, in the Seattle area, most of your
neighbors won't be involved in tech. Microsoft, Amazon, Nintendo, multiple
Google centers--hell, Ed Fries lives across the street from some of my old
friends back there.

There's many reasons to choose Seattle, but non-tech neighbor probability
isn't a good one.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
well, my next door neighbor wrote Small Arms
(<http://www.smallarmsgame.com/>), so my argument isn't entirely valid... :)

------
timcederman
I loved living in Mountain View and being able to be in the city in 40 minutes
whenever I felt like it, and enjoy a quiet, _clean_ life in the suburbs, with
a 5 minute commute. Lots of geek happenings in Palo Alto, Mountain View and
Sunnyvale, some live gigs at Shoreline Amphitheatre (with discount/early
tickets for residents!), live comedy at Rooster T Feather's (where the first
Pong machine was installed), and amazing food at places like Alexander's
Steakhouse (in Cupertino), made the South Bay very appealing.

I had no problems driving up to the city for a mid-week show or event, and I
could get a 4 star hotel room in the city for $70 on Priceline, meaning I
could live in Mountain View during the week and stay in the city every weekend
and it still be cheaper/more convenient than living in the city proper.

------
zand
"As above, it’s easy to meet people through work or a common interest, but
harder to meet random friendly strangers. Rarely in San Francisco has a
kindness been done to me by a stranger..."

This statement was demonstrated all too literally for me my first night out in
SF as a proud, newly minted resident:

It was a Friday night out with co-workers at my new job, and I had a blast.
Really felt like it was easy to click with people, and that they were all so
much more interesting than the "d-bags" I'm used to pretending to get along
with at bars. Then again, these were co-workers--all very talented in their
own right--and probably not an accurate sample.

Contrast with what happened immediately following: on the way out of the bar,
at around midnight (not too late), I was stopped and robbed by a gang. Mind
you, this was a _nice_ part of a "safe" neighborhood (Castro). Bad luck I
guess, but the worst of it was trying to find a sympathetic soul to (at the
very least) let me use a phone. As soon as it was apparent that I needed
assistance, this well-dressed twentysomething became invisible. Even the cops
couldn't have been less helpful, and thought it best to drop me off where it
had happened.

In most other cities I've been to around the world, I can't imagine folks
being so apathetic.

~~~
jmtulloss
I feel that this is closely related to the homeless problem. I positively
avoid most people who look like they want to approach me on the street because
they are almost always homeless. If they can get the point across that they're
not homeless or asking for money, I open up quite a bit, but since that's not
usually the case, I can be as cold as the next guy.

~~~
jlees
Living somewhere else where it's quite common to have a homeless person come
up to you on the street and ramble on with a muttered 'excuse me madam sorry
to bother you but...' low monotone that almost exclusively leads up to 'give
me money' - yes. You learn what to say to instantly tell people you're not one
of them. And it does lead to a general avoidance of other people on the
street. Having said that, I'd like to think that if someone genuinely needed
help it would be a little more obvious and they would get it...

------
rg
Alex Payne doesn't appear to see the connection between one of his good
points:

"San Francisco boasts superb weather. ... There may be some fog, or a bit of
rain from time to time, but most of the time it’s sunny and hovering around
the high 60s to lower 70s."

and a closely-related bad point:

"the sight of homeless persons in varying states of dishevelment".

If you're homeless, being so in a spot where it's nearly always comfortable to
be outside is perfectly sensible. It's not surprising that there are fewer
homeless people in areas where it snows and freezes.

His link to [http://emptyage.honan.net/mth/2009/07/are-you-going-to-
san-f...](http://emptyage.honan.net/mth/2009/07/are-you-going-to-san-
francisco.html) is well worth following, particularly for the good advice:

"If you're moving 3,000 (or even 300) miles to live in San Francisco; live in
San Francisco. And by I don't simply mean that you should not live in the East
Bay or the Peninsula or Marin. I mean live in a part of the city that your
great-grandparents would recognize as being San Francisco. Somewhere that was
entirely residential, and all of the homes in your neighborhood existed, prior
to 1915."

The old neighborhoods of San Francisco are wonderful, with considerable
village character, nothing like living in SOMA or the Tenderloin.

~~~
dschobel
I've always wondered about that.

I've lived in both Miami and Chicago for extended periods of time and there
sure seems to be a lot more homelessness in Chicago, which is quite counter-
intuitive for the very reasons you mention.

~~~
erso
My experience is that the homeless in Chicago are astoundingly robust. I've
seen homeless people on Michigan Avenue when it's in the low teens, cup in
hand.

~~~
dschobel
Robust implies a positive connotation, I always saw it as desperation.

It's one thing to see someone begging on the street-corner. It's a whole other
thing to see them out there wrapped in an old wool blanket when it's below
zero. One is fairly innocuous for anyone acclimated to big cities, the other
one gets you thinking "holy shit, that person is in mortal danger".

~~~
jrockway
The sad part is that these people are offered help that is much more
substantial than a quarter in a cup, but they don't want to give up their
"freedom" to get that help.

------
davidw
That really rings true for me.

I enjoyed my time in San Francisco, but really got a sense that it was not a
place in "equilibrium", so to speak. Families can't really live there unless
there's a million dollars for a house somewhere, which means that you have to
be pretty wealthy, or you're headed out to some other city in the bay area. SF
was great for being single, but it just struck me as being a bit artificial.
Here in Padova, there are wealthy people, poor people, young people, families,
elderly people - a nice mix, in other words. Same with Portland.

Also, he's right about so many people being in tech. Here in Padova, I have
more friends who aren't in tech, and that makes me happy - I love to hang out
with my tech friends too, and talk about this or that, but sometimes it's nice
to get away from that, and in SF I never felt I could, despite trying.

That said, as someone born and raised in Oregon, I just don't think I could
deal with moving back to the rainy part of the state. Endless drizzly gray
days get pretty depressing. They don't even feel very 'cozy'; winter in
Innsbruck was way better; watching the snow fall or waking up to a brilliant
blue day with snow covered mountains was much better than sloshing around in
the dismal gray day after day.

I'm actually not sure where I'd go if I went back to the US. Southern Oregon
is nice in some ways, but not much going on at all in tech. Boulder looks
appealing in several ways, but I've never been there, and it looks like they
have a strong sense of 'smug' of their own, something I'm not a big fan of.

 _Edit_ Let's see... other random notes

* Portland, for me, had better food than SF. This was because I worked downtown in Portland and had a nice variety of affordable and diverse lunch options. Where I worked in SF didn't have nearly as good a selection.

* Portland has Powells. Powells is awesome.

* Portland is closer to more outdoor stuff, although I always got depressed in summer because of the thought of my precious few sunny days slipping by sitting in an office. Even with good technical gear, it's hard to stay warm in 5C and steady rain on a bike.

~~~
TomOfTTB
At one point I stayed a couple months with some friends in San Francisco and I
utterly hated it. When discussing it with my friends, who love it there, they
gave me some very valuable insight.

They basically said they believe most people would hate it in San Francisco
but that's the whole point. Because the people who love it there don't really
fit in many other places. It's a sanctuary for a certain type of culture and
that's where its value is.

Everyone deserves a place where they can fit in and for the young idealist,
the aging hippie, and all the other odd balls that call that place home that's
where they belong. But yes, as a consequence that means that a lot of other
groups (most families for instance) don't belong. Not every environment has to
be all inclusive.

~~~
davidw
I'm socially fairly "progressive", but "no families" just seems kind of wrong
to me. I don't care if you're gay or straight or whatever, but families are
part and parcel of being human. Just to be clear: I don't think everyone needs
to have a family or anything like that, but a lot of people choose to, and a
place without them seemed weird to me even well before I had one myself.

~~~
rdouble
There are tons of families in SF, except most of them are Chinese or Mexican.
The original article, and most of the comments here (including mine) read like
a "Things White People Like" critique of SF, including the punch line: moving
to Portland...

~~~
davidw
Let's take the Mexicans as an example, as I think the Chinese situation is a
bit more complex.

There are a couple of possibilities:

* There is a supply of decent middle-income housing inhabited largely by Mexicans and less so by other groups.

* Those people have money and are living in expensive San Francisco houses that have a decent amount of space for a family.

* They don't have much money, and are crammed into small houses or are living in bad neighborhoods (as defined by high crime or other objective measurements).

* Your numbers are off and there aren't 'tons of families' from that group.

Which is it?

~~~
rdouble
What do you think the answer to that question is? Your larger point is
correct, it is too expensive for most white people to have 2.2 kids and a
Volvo in SF. It's also lacking for restaurants, sucks for outdoor activities,
and has poor public transit. Best to move to Oregon, Canada, or Europe rather
than suffer the indignity of life in San Francisco.

~~~
davidw
I have no idea what the answer is, but I'm betting it's not the first two. I
have no idea why nice housing means "white people" though. My guess is that
pretty much anyone would prefer nice housing to crappy housing, wherever
they're from.

~~~
rdouble
_I have no idea what the answer is_

I thought you said you had lived in SF?

~~~
davidw
I did, for a year and a half, but wasn't privy to the goings on in many
people's homes, so I don't have any first hand evidence one way or the other.
And I don't have access to actual numbers about people per household, income
levels and so on, so I honestly can't say whether you're simply factually
wrong or if there are a lot of people crammed into houses.

~~~
rdouble
You lived in SF for a year and a half and you didn't notice where Mexican
people live?

~~~
davidw
Other than the Mission being the 'traditionally' Mexican area, it's not
something I paid a lot of attention to.

~~~
rdouble
Pay more attention next time, then you won't have to ask stupid questions on
the internet.

------
rdouble
I lived in SF for 5 years and recently moved to NYC.

SF is dirty in the gross parts, but it's not as dirty as places like Chicago,
NYC or even Paris. It just so happens the dirtiest parts of SF are where
startup people work and hang out: SOMA, Tenderloin, the Mission. The level of
dirtiness in these areas is so off the scale (one regularly steps over human
poo) that it warps one's perspective as to how dirty the city is in general.
In contrast there is a layer of garbage and grime everywhere in New York City.
So much so that after a day of walking around in the summer, you can turn a
white handtowel black just by wiping the sweat off your brow...

~~~
isamuel
"In contrast there is a layer of garbage and grime everywhere in New York
City."

Only for certain unusual values of "everywhere." Even in Manhattan, certain
neighborhoods are very clean; venture out into Brooklyn, where far more New
Yorkers actually live, and the trash dynamics totally change.

Of course, this is true of all generalizations of New York. The city is so
enormous that it's possible to go for decades without realizing that the part
you live in is actually just a small part of a large ecosystem. So when anyone
(especially a New Yorker) says "New York is..." the first move to
understanding what they're saying is to ask what neighborhood they live in.
Conclusions about "what New York is" are going to be pretty different coming
from someone living in Park Slope vs. Chinatown.

~~~
weeksie
Um, have you been to Bushwick? It smells like dead rats and human urine, I'd
hardly call it clean. Brooklyn is pretty big, you're making the same mistake
as the people you're talking about. FWIW I live in SoHo and it still smells
like piss in places, I don't mind though—it's just part of living in the city.

In fact, for a city of this size it's quite well maintained.

------
hyperbovine
Shoulda tried Oakland. We've got better weather, cheaper rent, _actual_
diversity, awesome dining, more than one real park, and I've walked around my
hood at all hours of the day & night and never once felt threatened. (Granted,
there are some parts of Oak where this would not be a great idea.)

The city annoys the shit outta me, but it's a fun place to visit sometimes.

~~~
hughprime
Oakland is really lacking in a few ways though. Aside from the fact that you
can't walk for more than a mile without seeing something really depressing,
the thing that really creeps me out about Oakland (and I'm an East Bay
resident) is the lack of shops. How can there be a city of half a million
people with _no_ malls and _no_ department stores? Heck, there's hardly even
any supermarkets.

Restaurantwise, there's a few good ones, but not really enough to satisfy your
every whim. Barwise, once you've removed all the really unsafe ones you've got
just a handful left, scattered among Oakland's three or four safe
neighbourhoods and separated by miles of "don't go here at night".

The weather _is_ better (slightly) and the rent _is_ cheaper (much) though.

~~~
aaroneous
Shopping in Oakland is generally more "village-centric" than the big-box
Westfield mega-mall approach. I prefer the variety and experience you can get
with the smaller stores, though it definitely lacks the convenience of one-
stop shopping a large mall can provide.

I strongly disagree with your assessment of restaurants in Oakland. Oakland
has a _lot_ of amazing eateries, including many of what are regarded as the
"top 50" of the bay area.

Piedmont Ave, Lakeshore, Uptown, Jack London, Oldtown, Rockridge, Temescal and
Lake Merritt are all fantastic neighborhoods for eating (and shopping too).
They're all close to each other (walking distance), relatively safe and just
generally cool places to hang out.

I've been an East Bay resident for a long time and, before getting to know the
city better, most of my experience was based on the bad press I had heard.

If you spend some time exploring some of the cities gems I think you'll be
very surprised. I was.

------
joshuaxls
If you look at his tweets you see that he got miffed over LoveFest this
weekend. And that he made a passive-aggressive post about making this post.

<http://twitter.com/al3x>

He should reconsider living in a big city. Yes, SoMa had both LoveFest and
Folsom St. Fair happen within the span of a week, but for the rest of the year
it stays relatively quiet. Try Daly City. They don't have any festivals there.

~~~
novum
I noticed this too. He was also miffed at the Folsom St. Fair. It's very
interesting how social media gives you much more context around someone's blog
posts.

~~~
tptacek
The Folsom Street Fair is a bit off-putting, and that's not a "big city"
"little city" thing --- I'm a city person.

------
nkurz
I'm living in the East Bay rather than San Francisco, so I wasn't quite
cheating by ignoring the disclaimers. Overall, it felt like a pretty good
assessment.

"What sickens me most about San Francisco is not its dirt, or its large
homeless population, or its questionable safety, but that locals and the city
government seem to accept these circumstances."

On the good side, he didn't really go into the outdoor advantages (nearby
access to mountains and ocean, in town trails and bays) but he's got a good
handle on the downsides.

Perhaps the reason that San Francisco is so relentlessly progressive in its
politics is that the residents can all see first hand the divide between the
rich and the poor?

~~~
hughprime
_Perhaps the reason that San Francisco is so relentlessly progressive in its
politics is that the residents can all see first hand the divide between the
rich and the poor?_

I've always thought of it as the other way around. A less "progressive" city
would have cracked down on all the bums, vagrants and low-level crime long
ago. One Giuliani-style mayor and the Tenderloin would look like... well,
Times Square.

(Admittedly it would probably just kick the problem to the other side of the
Bay.)

------
natemartin
Disclosure: This is coming from a San Francisco native. (one of those rare
ones that still live in the city.)

As soon as I read this sentence: "There may be some fog, or a bit of rain from
time to time, but most of the time it’s sunny and hovering around the high 60s
to lower 70s."

I knew that the author of this piece has fallen into a trap that many people
who move here for work fall into; they never venture away from certain
neighborhoods, and this filters their view of the city. That sentence clued me
in because of the word "sunny." Yes, the Mission and SOMA are sunny, but the
rest of the city is foggy, nearly all the time.

If the author made it over twin peaks out to the Sunset, or the Richmond, you
might not find as much sunny weather, and you won't find startup offices, but
you'll find the real neighborhoods of this city.

Are there bad neighborhoods in the city? Of course, like any city. However,
because our city is constrained geographically, there is no real transition
zone between good and bad areas. You can be walking through a generally OK
neighborhood (say at 4th and Howard), walk a couple of blocks, and be in one
of the worst parts of the city (6th and Howard.) Since the Mission and SOMA
are near these bad areas, if that's the only part of the city you frequent,
then the city will seem dirty.

Maybe he does have an issue that everyone he knows works in the tech field.
It's really not hard to meet people in this city, maybe he should try striking
up a conversation with a random stranger at a bar. I assure you most locals
will be glad to talk. I have friends here that are teachers, police officers,
fire-fighters in training, journalists, and yes, in the tech field as well. We
have plenty of things to talk about besides the latest startup.

I'd suggest that the author makes it out to the Richmond, or the Sunset. It's
not dirty, there's plenty of restaurants, and plenty of people that don't work
in tech fields. You'll find the real residents of the city there, not just
people passing through.

Though it won't be sunny.

(Also, really? Beer is underrepresented here? Where has he been going? From
his other blog post, he doesn't seem to like any west coast beers. You can't
call our beer selection "underrepresented" if you don't like the local beer
styles. There are literally hundreds of microbreweries in this state. He can't
really be surprised that the most common beer will be local.)

Edit: Also, if any of you reading this are planning on moving out to SF, or
just moved out here, feel free to email me ( natmartin <at> gmail.com ), and
I'd be glad to give you advice on neighborhoods to check out, things to do, or
introduce you to some good people here.

------
boucher
I'd say that LA has many of the same issues. Most of LA is very dirty (though
a few of the most touristy areas are very clean). If nothing else the air
quality alone is reason enough to consider it dirty.

Public transportation in LA is worse than San Francisco, especially once you
need to get out of the core of the city. San Francisco has BART and Caltrain
which make traveling between the city and most of the nearby regions pretty
convenient (though the price has been climbing). Within the city, the bus has
served me pretty well. Especially with nextmuni.com to tell you when the next
bus will actually arrive.

I've never had an incident on a bus in SF (admittedly I haven't been here
long), but when I lived in LA I rarely took the bus without having to deal
with someone who was truly crazy. And LA traffic is so much worse than San
Francisco, traveling by bus makes that much less sense.

------
geuis
Sorry, but I've got the contrasted view. I moved to SF 2.5 years ago from the
Ft. Lauderdale/Miami area. Other than Alex's comments about the weather, I
simply disagree with just about everything else he's said.

I've live all over the country. NY, Miami, and various parts of the Bible-
belt. I've visited other cities like Chicago and Montreal. Moving out to SF
was different than anywhere else I've lived.

SF is _not_ dirty. I've heard the comments before, from people who have grown
up and only lived in the Bay area to those who come from big and small cities
alike.

NYC smells like garbage. Any time I've been there, it literally smells like
week old garbage. The same thing for Miami, except much more humid. From the
times I lived in the suburbs of Ft. Lauderdale to partying on South Beach and
hanging out in Coconut Grove, to walking through the streets of NY and
Chicago, the streets are dirty with trash and other random crap. And don't
even get me started on the homeless problem in Miami. They make the homeless
folk here in SF look like suburbanites.

The air in SF is very, very clean. Its largely due to the constant breeze from
the Pacific. Down in the valley is a bit different and gets pretty smoggy at
times.

Basically, there is no where else that I want to be. The culture out here is
fantastic. The people ARE FRIENDLY. I live in Lower Haight and have never been
mugged, robbed, or anything. Its pretty easy to stay safe here, just like
anywhere. Don't be a fucking tard and walk through bad neighborhoods by
yourself at 2 in the morning. Most of the problems people have, they cause
themselves.

It is definitely more expensive out here than back east, but the pay for tech
jobs is way, way better. I am making roughly 3x the amount I was making in
Florida for less work. I'm much closer to the 6 digit salary range than the
low 5 digit like I used to be.

I'm not sure what the problem people have with SF. This is one of the best
places to live in the world, period.

~~~
alex_c
Just because there are dirtier cities out there doesn't mean SF is clean (and,
like any other city, there are dirtier areas and cleaner areas). Depends on
where you come from, I guess. The author seems to come from Washington - I've
only visited it briefly, but I definitely got more of a "clean" impression
there than in SF.

Coming from Toronto, that was definitely part of my first impression -
"dirtier than I expected", and "whoa, I didn't expect so many homeless". I
still love the city, but I don't think it's valid to dismiss the criticism
just because there are worse cases out there.

------
dschobel
I thought his complaint about a lack of things to do on a Saturday was odd. He
says there's a decent cultural scene and he's not into the sports/outdoors.

I'm curious what he would expect a city provide?

~~~
timr
Moreover, his ideal city is _Portland_. Now, I like Portland; it's a nice
place. But if you want urban culture and a population that isn't obsessed with
outdoor recreation, you're in for disappointment there.

Honestly, it sounds like the guy just doesn't like it here, and is looking for
reasons to justify his feelings. To each his own.

~~~
rdouble
_Moreover, his ideal city is Portland_

He does mention that his hobbies are beer and coffee. Portland probably beats
anywhere in the US in terms of per-capita coffee shops and beer bars (and
strip clubs.)

~~~
timr
Seattle makes Portland look pathetic when it comes to coffee, but I'll have to
concede the beer and the strip club crowns. ;-)

------
siavosh
I've been in NYC for the past 3 years, and about to move to SF in a couple
weeks. Here's a reflection of nyc I've been working on:

My first vivid image of New York City was from Salinger's A Catcher in the
Rye. It was an intimidating and claustrophobic image. It was a city filled
with sleepless characters running around in the cold trying to figure
themselves out or trying to con someone somehow. To Salinger's credit, after
almost three years living here, my first impression wasn't too far off.

It's hard to find a city more stratified along class lines. Or a place more
materialistic yet also so bohemian. A city of greed and poverty but also of
immense heart and empathy. It is a city to suite every mood while at times
suiting none. A city of everything. A city you want to describe as a muse but
stop when it seems it could not be any more machine like and heartless. Among
its eight million inhabitants, it breeds patience out of necessity but can
explode with anger without warning. And when it does, it may be rude and it
may be ugly, but it does not fester and you learn that in New York nothing is
personal.

If you fly into La Guardia in early autumn, the lights of the city make the
overcast clouds glow a synthetic orange. It reminds you the city is vibrant
and will be long after you decide to leave. The lights dazzle and mystify me
still. Flying in for one of the last times before i leave for the other city
on the coast, I don't try to find the places I know but scan the skyline for
places I may have never been. Maybe that's the New York mystique, at least for
me. After three years, those lights still look alien. When I look back, I
don't think of what I did but of the so many things left undone. This is my
lasting impression of this city, and it leaves me not with regret but instead
hope, for I can always return as if it were my first time.

------
teuobk
"There is, I’ve found, precious little to do here, particularly if you’re not
inclined towards sports or the outdoors."

While I don't necessarily disagree with this point, I think it's a shame if
you don't explore the sports and outdoors opportunities near SF. Twenty
minutes by bike can put you in the hills of Marin County. A few miles to the
west of the City will bring you to Ocean Beach. A short car ride to the south
gives you access to the vast forested area of the peninsula, notably Big Basin
State Park. A few hours in a car can get you to some of the most beautiful
places on Earth, including Lake Tahoe, Yosemite, and Big Sur. Hike, backpack,
ski, surf, sail...

The road cycling in the area is world-famous. There are several tracks within
a reasonable distance if club auto racing is your thing. Heck, there are even
a few ice arenas in town on which you can play ice hockey.

In short, there is plenty to do (if you like sports or the outdoors).

~~~
tptacek
One thing I miss about San Francisco is that if you're bored, you can go out
to the beaches south of San Francisco with some beers and light a fire. I have
western Michigan for that now, but it's obviously not a spur of the moment
thing.

------
tptacek
I second al3x and add what I said last time:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=170750>

Bill Wyman, who has never written a word that rang false to me, said it better
than either of us back in '99:

<http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/11/03/sf/index.html>

Alex sees an upside to SF that I don't. Apparently you can DJ at a club in San
Francisco. But your favorite band skips San Francisco, because there are so
few venues to play at. I could opine about that, but JWZ said it better than I
did:

<http://www.dnalounge.com/donate/>

(San Francisco was a crappy place to see music back when bands were playing
the Maritime Hall, lest you think I'm being opportunistic here).

There are some excellent restaurants in San Francisco. Unfortunately for SF,
NYC, DC, Boston, Chicago, and Seattle can all go toe-to-toe with it. SF gives
you Michael Mina, NYC gives you Per Se, and throws in The Spotted Pig. For
such a small city, SF throws down admirably, but it is simply outgunned by the
big cities.

Of course, this is all a moot point, since you're probably not going to live
in San Francisco if you move to the bay area. You are probably going to live
somewhere in the South Bay, and the South Bay is an unforgiveable suburban
wasteland.

Alex is one kind of person for whom San Francisco isn't ideal. I was him 10
years ago. Now I'm a different kind of person for whom San Francisco doesn't
work: someone who wants to live in an actual neighborhood. There are 6 other
young families with kids on my block, and I know them all; we have block
parties. I never once met a neighbor in San Francisco; not in SOMA, not in
Bayview, and not in Noe Valley.

But, hey, great dim sum. Seals. Really old trees. Knock yourself out.

~~~
daydream
I moved to San Francisco from Boston about two years ago. I really liked
Boston (terrible weather though), and I really like SF.

But Bill Wyman article touched on something that jumped out at me when I first
came here: the quality of journalism is abysmal. I was really astonished at
how much lower the quality of writing is out here - and I'm an engineer, fer
chrissakes. I kinda just got used to it, but I also don't read local news here
very much.

And compared to Boston, I'm surprised how weak the local rock scene is. I've
done a little digging and haven't been impressed. I hear better things out
Oakland, but I don't get out there very much. Venues are pretty expensive too.

I feel like many of the complains ultimately have the high cost of living here
as a root cause. When it's all said and done, that's probably the only thing
that would cause me to leave.

~~~
tptacek
It's easy to lose sight of how small San Francisco is. San Antonio is bigger
than SF. _San Jose_ is bigger than SF. Greater SF-SJ is big (though still
smaller than the city of Chicago), but SF is cut off from its surrounding
metro area; it takes an hour to get from SF to SJ. The same amount of time
will almost get you from NYC to _Philadelphia_.

High cost of living is related to scarcity and the fact that SF has had itself
thrust into a role it wasn't ready to handle.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
No offense intended, but San Jose is a shithole with zero culture.

------
tptacek
Things you can get in San Francisco that you can't really get anywhere else:

* An unplanned beach bonfire at 1AM

* Solid dim sum for lunch on a weekday

* Access to a vast open air drug market

* A day on a 30 foot sailboat in April

* Weekly tech meetups

* Plants from a shop dedicated solely to freshwater aquarium plants

* The drive down CA-85 to Half Moon Bay

~~~
jdminhbg
For certain very restricted values of "anywhere," I suppose.

------
icey
I've been looking in to relocating recently; the area between San Fransisco
and San Jose has been high on my list, but I've always been a little put off
about the fact that it's hard to find any balanced discussions about what the
quality of life is like there. I get that it's the #1 place for a geek to be,
but I'm taking my wife as well and she's not a geek at all.

It's nice to see someone talking a little bit about the area without all of
the gilded verbiage.

(Of course, #2 on my list right now is Portland, and I'm finding myself having
a similar problem with discussion about that city right now as well ;))

~~~
ecq
Palo Alto and Cupertino are nice.

~~~
boucher
There's not much going on in Cupertino. Palo Alto is a _much_ nicer place to
live. It's also much more expensive.

~~~
strlen
Mountain View is affordable (compared to both Cupertino and Palo Alto, but
unfortunately not to the rest of San Jose) - there's a great deal of good
restaurants, it's a major Caltrain station (for a trip to the city).

It also escapes most of the suburban cliches (there's independent grocery
stories, fewer chain stores -- other than the Walmart/Target area near San
Antonio).

~~~
boucher
It's pretty crazy how cheap San Jose is, especially over in the eastern part
of town. But it's just not that exciting of a place to move to.

Mountain View is much better than Cupertino, so long as you are relatively
close to Castro St. Highly recommended if you want to live in that area and
don't want to pay Palo Alto prices.

~~~
nostrademons
I think Mountain View's one of the best values in Silicon Valley right now.
Prices are reasonable, but there's a fair amount of cultural stuff that goes
on downtown, and the town isn't _quite_ as suburbany-stripmall as Sunnyvale,
Santa Clara, or San Jose.

------
thesethings
I'm from the Bay Area, lived in San Francisco, and now live in Portland,
Oregon (where the author of the blog post intends to move). Portland is a
place I am completely blown away by on many levels (civic, workflow, rawk,
wackiness, food), and in other ways impatient with (won't take the time to
criticize Portland here, but it's not perfect).

I agree with most every criticism he has of San Francisco, but maybe don't
hold the same vibe of judgement.

Ultimately, he seems to be on the right track, that San Francisco is not
working _for him._ That's really all we should focus on when deciding where to
live. Look inside yourself, think of what you need, and what type of place
makes that easier to achieve.

Unique Challenges for him

I imagine holding a high-profile job at red-hot company (Twitter) in San
Francisco/Silicon Valley could be claustrophobic socially and physically.
Also, a bit of a monoculture, intellectually, as he described. (In the middle
of a really diverse place, I've witnessed an eery lack of diversity when
attending some SF tech events.) And he totally fairly introduced his blog post
as such (for young tech types). But many tech types might be able to overcome
some of the challenges he had, just because it's extremely unlikely they have
the same work + media + community demands that Alex has.

Anyway, I'm not really disagreeing with anything he said. His post was great.
Also, if he reads this, I want him to not stop writing things that actually
state an opinion, no matter how rowdy reactions get. :D

San Francisco workarounds (for everybody else)

If you're stuck in San Francisco, and getting annoyed by things, i have some
workarounds:

* Live "on the other side of the hill." I lived in the inner Richmond district (the San Francisco neighborhood, not the city). Every time there was a massive fair/festival (mentioned in the blog post), I didn't know about it.

* Living on the other side of the hill also changes up the sorts of people you live around. Less dot-commers.

* Take BART/Car out to the rest of the Bay Area. Cities like Fremont and Redwood City have lots of interesting destination to get you out of the bubble (indian movie theaters, streets where you HAVE to speak Spanish (as a speaker of Spanish, a pleasant experience for me.)).

* Seriously evaluate whether your friends are d-bags

* Seriously evaluate whether you sometimes are a d-bag

* If you are for sure not a d-bag, and are sure your friends are not d-bags, avoid places where d-bags are. You are who you are around. You are probably ruling out places in the Marina right about now. Sorry, not agressive enough. Even really cool places on Saturdays might be making you sick.

* Make sure there is meaning in your life. This is not a San Francisco thing, but almost everybody I've witnessed who is extremely unhappy with the place he/she lives, has something else pretty heavy going on in his/her life. Real talk.

I left San Francisco extremely annoyed with the ridiculous real estate
situation, my quality of life, and lots of other stuff. All those opinions
still hold true, but I now sit back and see some things I did to make life
more difficult for myself.

After experiencing the civic magic of Portland, I'm more patient, interested,
and appreciative of ALL city landscapes and experiences, including San
Francisco's. I could easily see moving there again one day.

~~~
dschobel
Fleeing the bay area for Portland seems to be a fairly popular 'change of
pace' move.

Would it be reasonable to ask you to write a comparison of the two? I'm sure
I'm not the only one who would be interested in a first-hand comparison as
both are popular techy destinations but seem like fundamentally different
cities.

~~~
thesethings
My only hesitation at comparing the two is that as I hinted at above, so much
is influenced by where you're at in life, unrelated to city.

If I can find a way to discuss this abstractly, I for sure will.

For now, you can crawl through my HN comments, where I've talked about
Portland a bit. Here i did a bit of a comparison of SF/PDX, though it was
mostly about Portland:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=733073>

------
petercooper
_It’s as if all parties don’t occupy the same city, see the same shameful
sights on the street, and bear the same responsibilities to taxes and charity
that might help address these deep-seated and difficult problems._

If you think it's bad in SF, try Los Angeles. The different types of people
mentioned don't just sit in different neighborhoods; they wall themselves off
in almost San Francisco sized sub-cities. That said, I'd still choose to live
in LA over SF any day of the week.

------
babyshake
"Unreliable and inadequate public transit, paling in comparison to most any
other major city in the world."

Compared to the Chicago public transit system, the BART is much, much, much
better.

------
jamie
I'm amazed how caught up in the SF tech-scene people can get. Sometimes, it
feels like anyone who ever used vi or emacs moved to the Mission or SoMa.

I know those are trendy places for engineers to live, but this city is really
a bunch of small villages. Pac Heights, Nob Hill, NB, Russian Hill, Cole
Valley, Bernal, Noe, and Hayes Valley are all wonderful, clean, "diverse"
neighborhoods (well, diverse in the sense that your neighbors aren't
engineers). I think a lot of people get myopic when they either live in the
same neighborhood they work in or cluster too closely with people from their
industry.

While Lovefest was indeed this weekend, so was Oktoberfest, the Fillmore Food
and Wine festival, and the Hardly Strictly Bluegrass festival. The Bluegrass
festival was free, outside, and featured some amazing music.
<http://www.hardlystrictlybluegrass.com/>

There's a lot to appreciate here in the city that isn't tech related!

------
breck
> There is, I’ve found, precious little to do here, particularly if you’re not
> inclined towards sports or the outdoors.

but if you are inclined towards sports or the outdoors, SF is the best place
in the country. i went surfing and hiking last week. also went on a couple of
double digit bike rides. not too many places back east like that.

~~~
davidw
SF proper is terrible for most outdoors activities: you have to drive at the
very least across the golden gate to do much of anything. Maybe it's ok for a
Big City, but that's another reason why I wouldn't want to live in a Big City.
I like outdoors activities, and don't like dealing with traffic just to
participate in them.

Of course if you're comparing with 'back east', sure it's probably not so bad,
but if you've ever lived in a place that's really good for outdoors sports, SF
isn't all that great.

~~~
jamie
Don't forget that the weather here means you can comfortably go running year
round. In fact, the san francisco half is in January. That's a huge advantage
that SF-proper has. Soccer, running, and cycling are all activities you can do
every single day in SF-proper.

~~~
davidw
Yeah, the weather is definitely a huge point in favor of SF in my opinion.
It's nearly perfect, aside from the chilly summers.

SF proper is not nearly large enough or traffic-free enough to do serious
cycling in, though.

~~~
jamie
Yes, but you can commute in it year-round. And with a fixie or single speed,
the hills add at least a modicum of challenge.

There's no reason to say that SF proper is too small to take advantage of; I
think the appeal is that here, you have year-round, every day exercise. That
little bit adds up, just like every day of brutal cold in Chicago or NYC
changes you.

That effects people's psyche, and I think that's a major reason why the
attitude out here is different.

~~~
davidw
SF proper is way too small to go for a nice 140k ride.

------
Dilpil
As someone who will (relatively) soon be graduating and choosing a city to
live in, does anyone have similar reviews for New York, Chicago, ect?

~~~
dschobel
Here's my Chicago review.

Bottom line: Fantastic city with a terrible terrible climate.

The good:

* Great cultural institutions (the ballet, symphony and opera are world-class).

* Fantastic restaurants. You could go to a different restaurant every night of the week for a year and not expend the supply of good eats in this town.

* It's clean and safe and cheap for such a big city.

* If you like music, every band that matters comes to town. Lots of good local music as well.

The bad:

* Horrible horrible winters. You get ridiculous bouts of cold where it'll stay below -10F for weeks on end.

* The winter lasts over four months, and summer is like 2.5. If you need sun and like the outdoors, Chicago is probably not the place for you

* It's flat. Which basically leaves you with... ice fishing for winter activities.

* The local and state government are corrupt as hell and everyone just accepts it as a characteristic of Chicago and laugh it off. Don't follow the local politics, it's too infuriating.

* Related to the previous point, we have one of the highest sales tax rates in the US.

* Lousy public transportation as well. The average age of the buses is 16 years. Which is worse than every major city in america.

* You'll pay a lot of taxes for lousy and outdated infrastructure.

* The tech scene is so-so. There are a few startups but the vast majority of jobs are in Finance.

~~~
tptacek
Chicago and San Francisco are corrupt in different ways, and I prefer
Chicago's way.

San Francisco towed my car, via a third-party contracted by the city. They
lost my car for several months, and when they found it, they charged me for
the time it spent hidden in the lot. A lesson learned: it is extremely hard to
sue a municipality.

Chicago towed my car. My registration was expired, and it was a Friday night,
so I was screwed until Monday afternoon when I could get that straightened
out. I asked, "is there _anything_ I can pay to get my car tonight?" $50
later, I learned about the loophole that says your car can be _towed_ out of
the impound lot; you just can't _drive_ it out. Total win.

People talk about the "corruption" in Chicago as if it was a daily hassle. If
you're in politics or commercial real estate, I'm sure it is. But for the rest
of us, it's mostly a problem in principle and not in practice, and it's not a
problem Chicago has a lock on.

I don't know how old the busses are in Chicago, because I never ride them.
Busses don't count. Something's gone wrong if you have to ride one. Where do
you live in Chicago that you can't walk to an El stop?

~~~
Shooter
(Not an argument. Just an anecdote. I've never lived in SF.)

My Dad got three parking tickets from Chicago this year. For a truck that he
hasn't owned in _four years_. My Dad hasn't been to Chicago in a few years.
The truck had _never_ even been to Illinois. Dad disputed the tickets instead
of just paying them, because he could prove the truck was in Florida when the
tickets were issued. [He owns a trucking company, so he keeps pretty
meticulous records, including fuel receipts.] They _graciously_ waived the
fines after he spent a few hours arguing the matter and provided the
documentation.

At first he thought the tickets were due to a computer error or
something...there have been a few cases of people getting multi-million dollar
parking tickets in Chicago in the last few years due to 'computer error.' He
thought maybe someone just mistyped a VIN. But NOOOOOOO...it turned out to be
a scam - run by a few _elected_ gentleman - that have previously gotten into
trouble for doing the same thing. They send bogus tickets to out-of-towners,
especially commercial vehicles. They know that a certain percentage of people
will just think "Well, I was in Chicago...?" and then pay the damn tickets
without protest. Easy cash. That, my friends, is _"Chicago's way."_ ;-)

This speaks to why my Dad refuses to come and visit me in Chicago. And why I
get to hear him gripe anytime someone mentions Chicago, parking, traffic,
cars, scams, etc. etc. I'm hoping a new grandkid will finally get him to visit
again.

~~~
tptacek
The fees for "storing" my car in San Francisco's tow lot were over $850, but
that doesn't matter much, because they insisted for weeks that it was stolen
and gone, so I replaced it.

Sorry. Your story sucks, and I'm sorry that happened to your dad, but I'll
take Chicago over San Francisco any day.

~~~
tptacek
(in case it came out wrong, what "sucks" is what happened to his dad, not how
he told the story).

~~~
Shooter
I understood what you meant, Thomas. As I said, I wasn't making an argument
either way in regard to SF vs. Chicago corruption. I've only visited SF a few
times, so I have no basis for comparison. I just tend to marvel at how brazen
and _business-like_ Chicago corruption can be.

------
benreesman
I moved to SF a few weeks ago and so far have found this to be a fair
assessment. That said, I think this city suits me better than it does Alex and
I have every intention to stay.

Any HN people in SF that would like to have a pint and clue me in to the city
would be very welcome!

~~~
natemartin
I'd be glad to tell you a bit about the city from a native's perspective.
Email me natmartin at gmail.com

------
grandalf
His points are OK... But why harp on the sidewalks of SF when there is poo in
every single hamburger made?

[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=2...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=2&pagewanted=3)

Bottom line: I don't think a person is qualified to rip on a whole city unless
he has lived in at least 5 different neighborhoods and has _actually_ made a
bunch of friends.

SF takes work to maximize. Portland is nice too, but more like a busy suburb
than a city fwiw. I qualify that by saying that SF should be thought of as a
cluster of neighborhoods rather than a city.

------
gexla
...be sure to wear some flowers in your hair. Sorry, couldn't help it. ;)

------
notphilatall
The author seems to have a hard time venturing out of tech circles to make
social connections. Out of this arises a feeling of alienation and resentment
for those who are enjoying themselves socially. I have plenty of liberal
guilt, but I don't let it prevent me from celebrating the courage of gay
couples or making costumes with friends for b2b (or going to lovefest and
dancing until sunrise). Want something to do on a Saturday afternoon?
Volunteer at a homeless shelter, if you care about social issues at that
level.

On the other hand, don't. Take your resentment with you to Portland and don't
let it keep you from enjoying its wealth of cultural offerings, which are sure
to dwarf San Francisco's attempt at socio-intellectual relevance.

