5 ms·

I've lived in SF for over 6 years, in at least 10 different neighborhoods from fidi to Mission to lower pac heights. This is completely accurate in my experienc

I've lived in SF for over 6 years, in at least 10 different neighborhoods from fidi to Mission to lower pac heights. This is completely accurate in my experience.

Apocryphon 4y ago
What about Richmond or Sunset?
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  Those are two very cherry picked examples. And I agree I'd probably have a totally different view of SF if I had lived there instead. But you're also talking like 30+ minutes commute to an office near Market street/Civic Center/SOMa
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Fair, but people throughout the Bay Area- those living in South Bay for instance- deal with commutes of such lengths every day, if not longer. Plenty of people live in Oakland and the East Bay and commute to San Francisco. Richmond and Sunset seem to be a destination for the savvy who want S.F. amenities and manageable commutes at cheaper rents without living outside of the city. Not to even mention those who live in Portola, Excelsior, or even Daly City. Also, Portrero Hill and Dogpatch are just east of the Mission. Dogpatch is (was) on the up and up before the pandemic.
    - maerF0x0 4y ago
      For those taking ^^ advice, NB: but also to deal with not being protected from the crazy weather patterns by Twin Peaks. The weather west of twin peaks is quite a bit more chaotic (stronger wins, more fog) than elsewhere at least as I recall living in it.
  - MAGZine 4y ago
    like, half of the city is a 'cherry picked example'? what about the marina. or noe valley? or corona heights? i think tech people live/visit in soma/mission/market and then write off the entire city based on that--like the only place to live in 7th and minna and everything else isn't close enough to.... something....
    - maerF0x0 4y ago
      I guess I basically think of stuff west of van ness to be like the "suburbs" of San Francisco. It's not nearly the same density as the core. Sure it's much more dense than like the suburbs of Austin, but also far far less going on besides little pockets like Divis or Cow Hollow .
- mkj28 4y ago
  This is very much accurate description of my part of Richmond (Geary@19th Avenue).
- twblalock 4y ago
  Those are getting bad too, now.
reducesuffering 4y ago
In 30 years of being around SF, this is really only accurate of Tenderloin, Civic Center, SOMA, Market and Mission St, roughly 10% of SF. Almost every time someone complains about SF, they're describing their experience in SOMA or near BART.
- mgraczyk 4y ago
  I don't think so, and even if that were the case you've described the locations where a huge portion of SFs population lives. I currently live in Haight, it's nearly just as bad as those you listed. I'm on Divisidero right now, there is poo everywhere and I can see needles in some gutters nearby. The areas where there are only single family homes are fairly clean, but anywhere people actually go when they leave their homes is filthy.
- verteu 4y ago
  Much more than 10% of SF by population -- those neighborhoods are where the most people live: https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/vtoqd7/oc_san_francisco_density_map/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/vtoqd7/oc_san...
- inferiorhuman 4y ago
  In 30 years of being around SF, this is really only accurate of Tenderloin, Civic Center, SOMA, Market and Mission St, roughly 10% of SF Most of San Francisco has been pretty rough for most of its history. The Haight has struggled with being a destination for street kids for going on fifty years. Vis Valley? Probably the most infamous projects west of the Mississippi. Chinatown? That's pretty much always been tenement housing and the sort of grunge that you get with that many people essentially living on top of each other.

I've lived in SF for over 6 years, in at least 10 different neighborhoods from fidi to Mission to lower pac heights. This is completely accurate in my experience.

Apocryphon 4y ago

What about Richmond or Sunset?

maerF0x0 4y ago
Those are two very cherry picked examples. And I agree I'd probably have a totally different view of SF if I had lived there instead. But you're also talking like 30+ minutes commute to an office near Market street/Civic Center/SOMa
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Fair, but people throughout the Bay Area- those living in South Bay for instance- deal with commutes of such lengths every day, if not longer. Plenty of people live in Oakland and the East Bay and commute to San Francisco. Richmond and Sunset seem to be a destination for the savvy who want S.F. amenities and manageable commutes at cheaper rents without living outside of the city. Not to even mention those who live in Portola, Excelsior, or even Daly City. Also, Portrero Hill and Dogpatch are just east of the Mission. Dogpatch is (was) on the up and up before the pandemic.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    For those taking ^^ advice, NB: but also to deal with not being protected from the crazy weather patterns by Twin Peaks. The weather west of twin peaks is quite a bit more chaotic (stronger wins, more fog) than elsewhere at least as I recall living in it.
- MAGZine 4y ago
  like, half of the city is a 'cherry picked example'? what about the marina. or noe valley? or corona heights? i think tech people live/visit in soma/mission/market and then write off the entire city based on that--like the only place to live in 7th and minna and everything else isn't close enough to.... something....
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    I guess I basically think of stuff west of van ness to be like the "suburbs" of San Francisco. It's not nearly the same density as the core. Sure it's much more dense than like the suburbs of Austin, but also far far less going on besides little pockets like Divis or Cow Hollow .
mkj28 4y ago
This is very much accurate description of my part of Richmond (Geary@19th Avenue).
twblalock 4y ago
Those are getting bad too, now.

reducesuffering 4y ago

In 30 years of being around SF, this is really only accurate of Tenderloin, Civic Center, SOMA, Market and Mission St, roughly 10% of SF. Almost every time someone complains about SF, they're describing their experience in SOMA or near BART.

mgraczyk 4y ago
I don't think so, and even if that were the case you've described the locations where a huge portion of SFs population lives. I currently live in Haight, it's nearly just as bad as those you listed. I'm on Divisidero right now, there is poo everywhere and I can see needles in some gutters nearby. The areas where there are only single family homes are fairly clean, but anywhere people actually go when they leave their homes is filthy.
verteu 4y ago
Much more than 10% of SF by population -- those neighborhoods are where the most people live: https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/vtoqd7/oc_san_francisco_density_map/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/vtoqd7/oc_san...
inferiorhuman 4y ago
In 30 years of being around SF, this is really only accurate of Tenderloin, Civic Center, SOMA, Market and Mission St, roughly 10% of SF Most of San Francisco has been pretty rough for most of its history. The Haight has struggled with being a destination for street kids for going on fifty years. Vis Valley? Probably the most infamous projects west of the Mississippi. Chinatown? That's pretty much always been tenement housing and the sort of grunge that you get with that many people essentially living on top of each other.