3 ms·

San Francisco is a beautiful city that for some reason is not incredibly well-kept. I'm not sure if I feel that way because of the not-too-friendly homeless, or

by d_r 15y ago

San Francisco is a beautiful city that for some reason is not incredibly well-kept. I'm not sure if I feel that way because of the not-too-friendly homeless, or the overall look of being worn out in some parts like Market Street. I'm from New York and frequently travel to China, both of which obviously have "old" spots. For some reason, "old" there for me evokes the feeling of appreciation for history, while the San Francisco "old" makes me sad.

beedogs 15y ago
"Old" in China is several hundred years different than "old" in San Francisco, unless you're in Muir Woods.
geebee 15y ago
I agree... kind of. Not all of SF feels dilapidated, and not all old parts make me depressed. Kind of depends. I've lived here my whole life (almost 40 years now, sheesh), and some parts have gotten more interesting. The embarcadero has gotten much more appealing. The decision to not rebuild the old freeway was a good one - now there's a long bayside path from the restored ferry building past the new ballpark (one of the nicest in the country, I think), and then finally down past the new UCSF biomed campus (which will be producing some mind blowing work). This will be a pretty incredible new neighborhood. I also think that crissy field is a more appealing place than it was when I was a kid, and the long walk from the presidio (fort point under the bridge through fort mason contains "old stuff" that is very evocative). Market Street around civic center is appalling, and it spills over into Powell street and the Embarcadero near market enough that those spots are clearly tarnished, especially in the eyes of visitors. But pretty much every corner of the city suffers from blight - the new Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park or the De Young may sparkle (a little too much for my taste), but the appeal of the park is diminished by the presence of a large homeless population (including stray pit bulls). Maybe these things are more noticeably to newcomers now? While it may seem a little facile to blame too much on one problem, I don't think you can understate how severe an impact the "hardcore homeless" population has had on SF. Not only does it create blight, it's also a big drain on our finances. SF is in a tough spot here. It's a liberal city that has friendlier homeless policies, but unfortunately, that makes us a magnet. As for New York... lived there for only 6 months, but Mahnattan is truly a vibrant place. I was at Columbia, and I'd say I was hit up for spare change about as often as I am in SF, though. This was in the mid 90s, maybe it's cleaned up better than SF since then, haven't really been back.

by d_r 15y ago

beedogs 15y ago

"Old" in China is several hundred years different than "old" in San Francisco, unless you're in Muir Woods.

geebee 15y ago

I agree... kind of. Not all of SF feels dilapidated, and not all old parts make me depressed. Kind of depends. I've lived here my whole life (almost 40 years now, sheesh), and some parts have gotten more interesting. The embarcadero has gotten much more appealing. The decision to not rebuild the old freeway was a good one - now there's a long bayside path from the restored ferry building past the new ballpark (one of the nicest in the country, I think), and then finally down past the new UCSF biomed campus (which will be producing some mind blowing work). This will be a pretty incredible new neighborhood. I also think that crissy field is a more appealing place than it was when I was a kid, and the long walk from the presidio (fort point under the bridge through fort mason contains "old stuff" that is very evocative). Market Street around civic center is appalling, and it spills over into Powell street and the Embarcadero near market enough that those spots are clearly tarnished, especially in the eyes of visitors. But pretty much every corner of the city suffers from blight - the new Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park or the De Young may sparkle (a little too much for my taste), but the appeal of the park is diminished by the presence of a large homeless population (including stray pit bulls). Maybe these things are more noticeably to newcomers now? While it may seem a little facile to blame too much on one problem, I don't think you can understate how severe an impact the "hardcore homeless" population has had on SF. Not only does it create blight, it's also a big drain on our finances. SF is in a tough spot here. It's a liberal city that has friendlier homeless policies, but unfortunately, that makes us a magnet. As for New York... lived there for only 6 months, but Mahnattan is truly a vibrant place. I was at Columbia, and I'd say I was hit up for spare change about as often as I am in SF, though. This was in the mid 90s, maybe it's cleaned up better than SF since then, haven't really been back.