10 ms·

> However the neighborhoods are dreamy I never got this. I lived in a “good” neighborhood, but still the TL issues (drug addicts, unhoused mentally ill people,

• tnel77 3y ago
  The ones we can’t afford.
• mdgrech23 3y ago
  I feel like the ability to deal w/ this type of thing is more person to person assuming you don't have young kids to worry about. Like I do encounter that type of behavior but I don't know for the most part it doesn't bother me. It does make me feel uncomfortable from time to time but I can look past that.
  • jacobolus 3y ago
    I live in the Mission district with young kids, and we walk / take transit all over the city. Smash and grabs of backpacks left in parked cars are annoying, as are bike thefts, and every once in a while a shouting homeless person is a little sketchy, but just like anywhere else in America automobiles are by far the most dangerous feature of daily life for small kids. We've never felt any serious personal safety concern from pedestrians or people hanging out outside.
    • hellisothers 3y ago
      I feel the same, when I travel to other larger cities (Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago, LA, Atlanta, etc) there are similar problems. It’s not an SF problem it’s a city problem, especially the more “downtown’s” it gets as opposed to more “neighborhood’y”.
      • jacobolus 3y ago
        Cities have plenty of problems, but by and large they are not a particular danger to children. I generally feel significantly safer in cities with relatively walkable sidewalks, relatively narrow streets, and lots of pedestrian/bike traffic than I do in typical American suburbs full of strip malls and 6-lane roads. The latter are in my opinion horrendous places to raise children.
      • ponector 3y ago
        It is not a city problem. It is a US city problem, but people are used to it, the are no incentives to make US cities safer.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • drywaller 3y ago
        In those other cities, the bad guys tend to live there. Whereas in SF, then tend to "commute" from the east bay.
    • nox100 3y ago
      Sounds like you're a frog in boiling water. You're so used it you no longer realize the hellhole you live in. note, I also live in the Mission District and it's a shit hole to me. Gangs hanging out at 20th and Mission fronting for each other. Illegal markets all up and down the street selling stolen goods. Traffic signs and laws being ignored. Valdalism everywhere. Homeless under my window. Mentally ill screaming at 3 am. People drag racing at 2am
    • j7ake 3y ago
      Can you compare safety concerns and overall quality with other major cities in the world? Hard to judge an international city using only American standards.
      • laurencerowe 3y ago
        I moved to San Francisco from the UK about 10 years ago. Fortunately California has relatively strict gun laws so San Francisco is pretty safe for the US if still bad for a developed country. Homicides per 100k (from a couple of years ago): San Francisco: 4.5 US: 6.3 UK/France/Germany: 0.8-1.2 (While most of the difference is due to availability of guns the US is just generally more violent and despite what Trump says the US has 1.5x the knife murders of the UK as well as 70x the gun murders. https://www.euronews.com/2018/05/05/trump-s-knife-crime-claim-how-do-the-us-and-uk-compare- https://www.euronews.com/2018/05/05/trump-s-knife-crime-clai... ) Living in the Mission there are a handful of shootings per year. But it's a pretty dense neighbourhood so per population it's probably pretty normal for the US. The level of street homelessness is shocking but not as bad as downtown and you get used to that after a while too. Petty crime is definitely a problem. Personally I worry more about being hit by a car crossing the road since cars are allowed to drive through the pedestrian crossing even when there is a walk signal.
        • runsWphotons 3y ago
          Maybe we should ban knives too.
          • runsWphotons 3y ago
            20-25,000 murders per year. Around 40,000 fatal car crashes. Around 5-7000 fatal accidents involving pedestrians. Everyone excited about waymo but opposed to gun and knife wielding security robots.
        • not_really 3y ago
          You've got numbers for guns and knives, why stop there? Do acid attacks next.
    • laurencerowe 3y ago
      We also live in the Mission district and just had a kid. We love the walkability but are not sure about staying here long term. Obviously house prices are a factor, but I also know people ferrying their kids across the city to school (as school allocation is not based on location in SF) and that sounds completely hellish to me.
      • rahimnathwani 3y ago
        school allocation is not based on location in SF This is technically true, but in practice it's up to the parents. If they want to send their kid to their local 'Attendance Area' school, then they can put it as their first choice, and there's a high chance they'll get it. Most parents who need to drive their kids across the city are doing it because the alternative (their kid goes to the nearest school) is, in some way, worse.
      • jacobolus 3y ago
        Neighborhood/distance will have more influence on the school lottery starting next year.
    • alephnerd 3y ago
      No offense, but as someone who lived in SF as a kid, it blows my mind that (I assume) techie white families are raising their kids in Mission, Potrero, etc. We lived in those neighborhoods cuz they were cheap and there were community services to fall back on. Once our parents could afford it, they would move out as soon as they could. Gorehs/Gweilo are weird.
      • drywaller 3y ago
        They're outta there by the time their kids hit middle school. It's a temporary stay
      • jacobolus 3y ago
        It's not clear during what time frame you grew up, but note that violent crime is dramatically lower than it was 30+ years ago. It blows my mind that people are so uncaring about their kids' daily experience (mobility, independence, access to interesting activities, ...) as to move to typical American suburbs with their kids. The benefit of the suburbs is a bigger amount of personal space at home for the same price, but everything outside the house kind of sucks, especially for kids. We're not necessarily the "techie family" you are imagining though; I spent about a quarter of my childhood in a medium-poor city in Mexico, and my wife grew up in China. Personally I really appreciate having a quite diverse cast of neighbors.
  • NBJack 3y ago
    It can be polarizing depending on your gender (or rather publicly perceived gender); many women have reported higher levels of harassment and aggression towards them in the same areas others may report fine or acceptable. I've never forgotten a quote by some one who offered to help a homeless woman who smelled rather horrible. Offered things like soap or a safe place to clean up, the woman responded that the smell actually helped reduce sexual advances towards her.
• staticautomatic 3y ago
  Parts of Pac Heights, mid-outer Richmond and Sunset, Seacliff, Forest Hill, St. Francis Wood, West Portal, The Presidio, …
  • prpl 3y ago
    just moved _back_ to central richmond _tonight_ from downtown san leandro. My wife doesn’t drive and we have 3 kids (expecting a 4th). It is the best compromise, though we would have lived NOPA west, and mid-sunset near irving/judah. Alameda was a fallback for wife (probably my first choice though). Kids are in local schools, which are good.
• rawrfml 3y ago
  This is so anecdotal but I remember taking a Lyft from Noe Valley to Taraval earlier this year and the ride went through (I'm zooming into Google Maps for the neighbourhood names) Miraloma and surrounding areas. Basically the neighbourhoods just north of Monterey Blvd. The area just looked and felt really nice, homey, and safe. I've haven't driven past that area before nor after, but it really made me feel like long-term it would be a nice place to reside in SF away from the classic SF problems you've described.
  • mike_d 3y ago
    There are two types of "bad" neighborhoods you don't want to live in: the ones where crime lives and the ones crime visits. Much of San Francisco falls victim to the latter which isn't always obvious on an Uber ride or casual walk.
  • alephnerd 3y ago
    It's called Excelsior. It's historically been a working class Pinoy, Latino, Canto, and Black neighborhood. It used to be very rough in the gangbanger kinda way. It's kind of like how East San Jose is fairly clean, but it's good to be careful where you are depending on the time of night. Sunnyvale and RWC used to be similar in that sense as well 15-20 years ago too.
    • wkyle 3y ago
      No, NW border of Excelsior is 280, so definitely not north of Monterrey Blvd. Broad strokes neighborhood is Twin Peaks area. That part of Twin Peaks is heavily influenced by historically affluent planned developments. Some of the more well known ones listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Residence_Parks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Residence_Parks. I am not familiar with the history of some of the other planned tracts there but this map seems to suggest that area is mostly composed of master planned communities. https://sfrichmondreview.com/2023/01/10/local-author-and-historian-wrote-the-book-on-sfs-residence-parks/ https://sfrichmondreview.com/2023/01/10/local-author-and-his...
      • 3y ago
• throwup238 3y ago
  Anything uphill. Twin peaks is the best but even the hills above Bayview are a different world compared to the low lands.
  • pfannkuchen 3y ago
    I’ve never lived in SF proper but, while visiting, twin peaks always seemed like it would feel isolating to live in. Is it possible to walk anywhere from there (in a “daily convenience” kind of way, not an “urban hiking” kind of way).
    • throwup238 3y ago
      Not really. Maybe if you live in the bottom half right above the Castro district it's doable (but steep), but definitely not in the top half and definitely not if you're elderly or have any disability. I usually walked down and took an uber back up, back when the VCs were subsidizing the rides. As awful as it is that's the trade off: if you can't conveniently walk up the hill, criminals and homeless people usually won't bother either.
      • seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Ya, this is also a double edge of transit: if you have a nice convenient public transit system, so does everyone else, including criminals. This is why sometimes neighborhoods fight to keep bus routes or light rail stations out, basically the original NIMBY.
        • lmpdev 3y ago
          Even if this might be true in isolation it doesn’t generalise For example the poor public transit available to developed places such as West Sydney, or Bijlmer in Amsterdam have lead to increases in crime rates Poor physical mobility for the lower classes leads to decreased social mobility which results in increased crime rates for the larger metropolitan areas as a whole This is first or second year Urban planning mate
• tayo42 3y ago
  I never really had issues in Bernal heights, Glen Park, sunset, excelsior.
• gopher_space 3y ago
  The ones on hills.
• matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > What neighborhoods are immune to this? The elite ones who don't let random people in.
• browningstreet 3y ago
  I’m visiting north of panhandle right now and walked through Haight and into GGP yesterday and it’s been absolutely lovely. Aside from one well-dressed dude who let his dog shit on leaves on a sidewalk and just kept walking. But that’s not what you called out. Also, have had nothing but great parking. Left my car in a no-bump spot now for a couple days (an isolated space, no cars in front or behind).
  • appplication 3y ago
    NOPA is great. If you like to run or have a dog, it’s hard to find a better neighborhood with enough balanced elements (large park access, downtown commute, bars/food, access to the rest of the city, etc). On the flip side, I can’t imagine being a runner and living in the Mission. The amount of streets you would have to cross every day just to get a few miles in is stressful to think about
    • browningstreet 3y ago
      I’d only ever driven through it. Residing here for a spell showed me what I’ve been missing. Proximity to GGP and great food options are just a level above. It’d be on the list if I ever (had to) return/ed.
• thatfrenchguy 3y ago
  Noe valley, Cole Valley, Inner Sunset, Inner Richmond, most of pacific heights / Marina, Russian hill, all of the southwest neighborhoods if you want a more suburban experience, Excelsior / Glen Park / Bernal as well are all pretty safe neighborhoods, even more so a block from the commercial strips. SF is a block by block affair though, there’s a few sketchy blocks in all of those neighborhoods, you just have to know the social topology of the city.