4 ms·
San Francisco Pro: The walkable parts are extremely walkable Con: The unwalkable parts are extremely unwalkable
by atleastoptimal 3y ago
San Francisco
Pro: The walkable parts are extremely walkable
Con: The unwalkable parts are extremely unwalkable
- thefaux 3y agoThis is true. It also has a strange combination of being very big in the sense that there are many areas I almost never visit and very small in the sense that you _can_ walk anywhere (but, as you point out, it may be unpleasant, dangerous or both). Personally, I essentially live full time in a few walkable ribbons that maximize the good and minimize the bad.
- xivzgrev 3y agoUnwalkable in terms of hills or sketchiness? The sketchiness is mostly contained to tenderloin and soma south west of 5th st so fairly easy to avoid
- atleastoptimal 3y agoSketchiness, trash, feces, etc. Surely you don't see any if you live in Pac Heights but near the Tenderloin-Mission district area there's a lot of it.
- tropdrop 3y agoThe entire city is very run-able though (so the Con is a little less so if you're into long distance)
- chubot 3y agoI like San Francisco a lot for biking Main thing I learned too late is to just build your ability to climb hills (on a bike, or even when walking I suppose) ... that opens up a lot of the city Twin Peaks and the top of Potrero might out of range even so, but the rest of the city is open
- xivzgrev 3y agoPros: incredible food, so much to do within a day’s drive, epicenter of tech and jobs a plenty, stable decent weather year round, steep hills that force you into shape, unique interesting people on the streets (not homeless, talking like people singing to themselves or dressed up in costumes) Cons: expensive, city bureaucracy, rampant nimbyism I love it. Now I got a family and may move to get some more space / be closer to family. But not an easy decision even after 10 yrs here.