4 ms·

It depends heavily on where in the city you are. There are parts of SF that definitely makes me very uncomfortable (I've lived in Hong Kong and know my way arou

It depends heavily on where in the city you are. There are parts of SF that definitely makes me very uncomfortable (I've lived in Hong Kong and know my way around NYC) but SF is kind of interesting in it almost feels like a collection of small cities. Union Square is very, very different from Sea Cliff and because SF is relatively small physically, it doesn't take long to go from one part to another. I think people who live here tend to get used to seeing these things and also know to avoid spending too much time in some parts of the city.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Nobody is questioning that there are good neighborhoods. Every city has good neighborhoods. What has people scratching their heads is that the worst parts of lot of cities are still a lot better than the bad parts of SF. When the comparison is between Bangalore or Sao Paulo and Zurich it's easy to write off the difference as simply wealth. But when the American "shithole cities" like Detroit, Buffalo, Gary, Reno, etc that the people of SF like to sneer at are in fact better in their worst parts than the crown jewel of "muh fifth largest economy" it really makes people wonder what the heck went so wrong.
- r00fus 6y ago
  I really don't know anyone in SF who thinks Detroit, Buffalo, etc in that way. They just tended to think of employment, amenities and available services lacking in those other cities. If work is remote (unsure if this will remain after vaccine allows us to work in offices again) then it opens up a lot of doors.
- claydavisss 6y ago
  For 98% of Californians, "muh fifth largest economy" has actually been a profound net-negative. I'm amazed people who pay $3k/month to rent to one-bedroom apt still trot this out as a brag point. "Fifth largest economy" has worked out well for the 1%, people who bought homes forever ago, and really no one else.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    If WFH really gains long term traction then the SV salaries are not going to hold up either. There are really smart people in eastern europe, south america, southeast asia, etc. who will work for a fraction of the salary that a locally-domicled worker would require.
  - pb7 6y ago
    5th largest economy is the one employing all the people that are coming here in droves so not sure your argument holds up. No one would be coming here if the jobs were in Montana. $3K/mo is pennies when you're getting offers to move here to make half a million.
- jdhn 6y ago
  >But when the American "shithole cities" like Detroit The majority of Detroit is shitty. Sure, downtown and surrounding branches (Corktown) have come back, but Detroit itself is physically huge, and can house Boston, the island of Manhattan, and San Fransisco within its borders[0]. If you don't believe me, use Streetview on Google Maps and click you way around the city. It's eyeopening. [0] https://detroitography.com/2015/04/10/map-can-detroit-really-be-compared-to-any-other-city/ https://detroitography.com/2015/04/10/map-can-detroit-really...
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Honestly laughed out loud reading GP compare the shittyness of San Francisco to how unbelievably awful and abandoned parts of Detroit are.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > when the American "shithole cities" like Detroit, Detroit is shitty in a way that SF is not shitty. Have you ever been to the parts of Detroit that are just straight up abandoned? Just an absurd comment altogether.
- nostrademons 6y ago
  SF is the greatest city in the world in the same way that the USA is the greatest country of the world. Both of them have insanely wealthy people in extremely nice enclaves, surrounded by plenty of sub-3rd-world filth. When you put together a glossy spread of greatest places to live, you can cherrypick the wealthy parts and gloss over the folks barely eking out a subsistence living. In the meantime tons of people will be attracted to the idea of "making it" into the upper 0.1%, thus fueling the economic strength that builds those fortunes. Selection bias is the greatest force known to man. Things get publicized by their best case, not by their average case.
  - sershe 6y ago
    The income distribution, housing ownership, education, etc. stats for the USA would seem to disagree. The 3rd world level dilapidation surrounding rich enclaves is very specific to liberal-run cities as far as I can tell (my favorite quote from a Nob Hill condo owner - "It's only nice here because the homeless are too lazy to walk uphill"). Even super depressed places I've been to, like Spokane, WA, or rural Illinois by Kentucky border, look far more orderly, safe and well-run. Clearly you've never been to the actual 3rd world ;)
    - qqqwerty 6y ago
      A quick google search about Spokane turned up this[1] and this[2]. Maybe the only difference between SF and Spokane is that the real estate prices means it is easier to hide the problems from public view. Pretty much every city and state, liberal or conservative, has a fair share of population that is struggling with drug addiction, mental health issues, and poverty. The difference between SF and other areas, is we have higher real estate prices and better weather, so these issues are much more visible than else where. [1] https://www.safewise.com/blog/most-dangerous-cities/ https://www.safewise.com/blog/most-dangerous-cities/ [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Spokane/comments/bchlna/how_ghetto_really_is_spokane/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Spokane/comments/bchlna/how_ghetto_...
      - sershe 6y ago
- neilparikh 6y ago
  The fact that rich places also have a corresponding rise in poverty is not a new problem, and it's one people have thought about and "solved" over a 100 years ago. See Progress and Poverty [0] by Henry George, named to capture the idea that poverty often follows progress. The core idea is that as a society's productivity increases, this just gets captured by higher land values and rents, leaving labour having to pay even more rent to just survive. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty
- mepiethree 6y ago
  The worst parts of LA, Chicago, Detroit, etc. are just as bad as the Tenderloin. The only weird thing about SF is that the office/financial district is the worst part of the city. In Chicago, a white collar worker can live their entire life without going to Englewood, but in SF, you're actually forced to see it (which is... maybe a good thing?)
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > are just as bad as And much larger than
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tshaddox 6y ago
> It depends heavily on where in the city you are. I suspect this is the case in nearly every city in the world: some nice areas, some dirty areas, some dangerous areas, etc. What always struck me as unusual in SF is that the bad areas are finely interlaced with or even overlapping with the "nice" commercial/dining/shopping areas. It's not like "oh, avoid this dark corner of town," but instead it's like "there's some nice high-end shopping here with naked bleeding people injecting drugs literally in front of the door."
- mepiethree 6y ago
  Yes! But, you can basically avoid that by avoiding Soma and the Tenderloin. There are no naked bleeding people in Dogpatch, Potrero Hill, the Sunset and Richmond, the Marina, etc. etc.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Nobody is questioning that there are good neighborhoods. Every city has good neighborhoods. What has people scratching their heads is that the worst parts of lot of cities are still a lot better than the bad parts of SF. When the comparison is between Bangalore or Sao Paulo and Zurich it's easy to write off the difference as simply wealth. But when the American "shithole cities" like Detroit, Buffalo, Gary, Reno, etc that the people of SF like to sneer at are in fact better in their worst parts than the crown jewel of "muh fifth largest economy" it really makes people wonder what the heck went so wrong.

r00fus 6y ago
I really don't know anyone in SF who thinks Detroit, Buffalo, etc in that way. They just tended to think of employment, amenities and available services lacking in those other cities. If work is remote (unsure if this will remain after vaccine allows us to work in offices again) then it opens up a lot of doors.
claydavisss 6y ago
For 98% of Californians, "muh fifth largest economy" has actually been a profound net-negative. I'm amazed people who pay $3k/month to rent to one-bedroom apt still trot this out as a brag point. "Fifth largest economy" has worked out well for the 1%, people who bought homes forever ago, and really no one else.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  If WFH really gains long term traction then the SV salaries are not going to hold up either. There are really smart people in eastern europe, south america, southeast asia, etc. who will work for a fraction of the salary that a locally-domicled worker would require.
- pb7 6y ago
  5th largest economy is the one employing all the people that are coming here in droves so not sure your argument holds up. No one would be coming here if the jobs were in Montana. $3K/mo is pennies when you're getting offers to move here to make half a million.
jdhn 6y ago
>But when the American "shithole cities" like Detroit The majority of Detroit is shitty. Sure, downtown and surrounding branches (Corktown) have come back, but Detroit itself is physically huge, and can house Boston, the island of Manhattan, and San Fransisco within its borders[0]. If you don't believe me, use Streetview on Google Maps and click you way around the city. It's eyeopening. [0] https://detroitography.com/2015/04/10/map-can-detroit-really-be-compared-to-any-other-city/ https://detroitography.com/2015/04/10/map-can-detroit-really...
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Honestly laughed out loud reading GP compare the shittyness of San Francisco to how unbelievably awful and abandoned parts of Detroit are.
whimsicalism 6y ago
> when the American "shithole cities" like Detroit, Detroit is shitty in a way that SF is not shitty. Have you ever been to the parts of Detroit that are just straight up abandoned? Just an absurd comment altogether.
nostrademons 6y ago
SF is the greatest city in the world in the same way that the USA is the greatest country of the world. Both of them have insanely wealthy people in extremely nice enclaves, surrounded by plenty of sub-3rd-world filth. When you put together a glossy spread of greatest places to live, you can cherrypick the wealthy parts and gloss over the folks barely eking out a subsistence living. In the meantime tons of people will be attracted to the idea of "making it" into the upper 0.1%, thus fueling the economic strength that builds those fortunes. Selection bias is the greatest force known to man. Things get publicized by their best case, not by their average case.
- sershe 6y ago
  The income distribution, housing ownership, education, etc. stats for the USA would seem to disagree. The 3rd world level dilapidation surrounding rich enclaves is very specific to liberal-run cities as far as I can tell (my favorite quote from a Nob Hill condo owner - "It's only nice here because the homeless are too lazy to walk uphill"). Even super depressed places I've been to, like Spokane, WA, or rural Illinois by Kentucky border, look far more orderly, safe and well-run. Clearly you've never been to the actual 3rd world ;)
  - qqqwerty 6y ago
    A quick google search about Spokane turned up this[1] and this[2]. Maybe the only difference between SF and Spokane is that the real estate prices means it is easier to hide the problems from public view. Pretty much every city and state, liberal or conservative, has a fair share of population that is struggling with drug addiction, mental health issues, and poverty. The difference between SF and other areas, is we have higher real estate prices and better weather, so these issues are much more visible than else where. [1] https://www.safewise.com/blog/most-dangerous-cities/ https://www.safewise.com/blog/most-dangerous-cities/ [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Spokane/comments/bchlna/how_ghetto_really_is_spokane/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Spokane/comments/bchlna/how_ghetto_...
    - sershe 6y ago
neilparikh 6y ago
The fact that rich places also have a corresponding rise in poverty is not a new problem, and it's one people have thought about and "solved" over a 100 years ago. See Progress and Poverty [0] by Henry George, named to capture the idea that poverty often follows progress. The core idea is that as a society's productivity increases, this just gets captured by higher land values and rents, leaving labour having to pay even more rent to just survive. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty
mepiethree 6y ago
The worst parts of LA, Chicago, Detroit, etc. are just as bad as the Tenderloin. The only weird thing about SF is that the office/financial district is the worst part of the city. In Chicago, a white collar worker can live their entire life without going to Englewood, but in SF, you're actually forced to see it (which is... maybe a good thing?)
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > are just as bad as And much larger than

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tshaddox 6y ago

> It depends heavily on where in the city you are. I suspect this is the case in nearly every city in the world: some nice areas, some dirty areas, some dangerous areas, etc. What always struck me as unusual in SF is that the bad areas are finely interlaced with or even overlapping with the "nice" commercial/dining/shopping areas. It's not like "oh, avoid this dark corner of town," but instead it's like "there's some nice high-end shopping here with naked bleeding people injecting drugs literally in front of the door."

mepiethree 6y ago
Yes! But, you can basically avoid that by avoiding Soma and the Tenderloin. There are no naked bleeding people in Dogpatch, Potrero Hill, the Sunset and Richmond, the Marina, etc. etc.