11 ms·

So You're Moving to San Francisco

126 points by madmotive 17y ago

icey 17y ago
I've been looking in to relocating recently; the area between San Fransisco and San Jose has been high on my list, but I've always been a little put off about the fact that it's hard to find any balanced discussions about what the quality of life is like there. I get that it's the #1 place for a geek to be, but I'm taking my wife as well and she's not a geek at all. It's nice to see someone talking a little bit about the area without all of the gilded verbiage. (Of course, #2 on my list right now is Portland, and I'm finding myself having a similar problem with discussion about that city right now as well ;))
- ecq 17y ago
  Palo Alto and Cupertino are nice.
  - boucher 17y ago
    There's not much going on in Cupertino. Palo Alto is a much nicer place to live. It's also much more expensive.
    - strlen 17y ago
      Mountain View is affordable (compared to both Cupertino and Palo Alto, but unfortunately not to the rest of San Jose) - there's a great deal of good restaurants, it's a major Caltrain station (for a trip to the city). It also escapes most of the suburban cliches (there's independent grocery stories, fewer chain stores -- other than the Walmart/Target area near San Antonio).
      - boucher 17y ago
        It's pretty crazy how cheap San Jose is, especially over in the eastern part of town. But it's just not that exciting of a place to move to. Mountain View is much better than Cupertino, so long as you are relatively close to Castro St. Highly recommended if you want to live in that area and don't want to pay Palo Alto prices.
        zand 17y ago
        I can't recommend San Jose, especially the eastern side, unless all you do after leaving the office is sleep.
        nostrademons 17y ago
        I think Mountain View's one of the best values in Silicon Valley right now. Prices are reasonable, but there's a fair amount of cultural stuff that goes on downtown, and the town isn't quite as suburbany-stripmall as Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, or San Jose.
benreesman 17y ago
I moved to SF a few weeks ago and so far have found this to be a fair assessment. That said, I think this city suits me better than it does Alex and I have every intention to stay. Any HN people in SF that would like to have a pint and clue me in to the city would be very welcome!
- aschobel 17y ago
  of course http://mailhide.recaptcha.net/d?k=01J1hxEbMLvXRdFv0HJBn4nw==&c=5Rcfb-tEcL8FL6zWbogNWNXTDTtToX2IIjqdx7W5sjk= http://mailhide.recaptcha.net/d?k=01J1hxEbMLvXRdFv0HJBn4nw==...
- natemartin 17y ago
  I'd be glad to tell you a bit about the city from a native's perspective. Email me natmartin at gmail.com
rg 17y ago
Alex Payne doesn't appear to see the connection between one of his good points: "San Francisco boasts superb weather. ... There may be some fog, or a bit of rain from time to time, but most of the time it’s sunny and hovering around the high 60s to lower 70s." and a closely-related bad point: "the sight of homeless persons in varying states of dishevelment". If you're homeless, being so in a spot where it's nearly always comfortable to be outside is perfectly sensible. It's not surprising that there are fewer homeless people in areas where it snows and freezes. His link to http://emptyage.honan.net/mth/2009/07/are-you-going-to-san-francisco.html http://emptyage.honan.net/mth/2009/07/are-you-going-to-san-f... is well worth following, particularly for the good advice: "If you're moving 3,000 (or even 300) miles to live in San Francisco; live in San Francisco. And by I don't simply mean that you should not live in the East Bay or the Peninsula or Marin. I mean live in a part of the city that your great-grandparents would recognize as being San Francisco. Somewhere that was entirely residential, and all of the homes in your neighborhood existed, prior to 1915." The old neighborhoods of San Francisco are wonderful, with considerable village character, nothing like living in SOMA or the Tenderloin.
- wvl 17y ago
  Perhaps, also the connection between: " It’s entirely possible to have a bad meal in San Francisco, but to do so is entirely your fault: Yelp and other social recommendation services are better represented here than anywhere else in the world, and a suggestion for a good restaurant is always just a couple clicks (or taps) away." and: "Enormous competition for limited resources. You will wait for everything. The better a thing is (food, coffee, a nice place to sit), the longer you’ll wait for it. When you finally get what you want, you’ll be crammed in with others trying to enjoy the same place/thing, diminishing everyone’s enjoyment."
  - jmtulloss 17y ago
    Agreed. I find that I have a much better time hitting the coffee shops that don't get the yelpers in a twitch than I do hitting the hotspots. I'm not waiting an hour for coffee at ritual. It's good, but it's not an hour wait good.
- 17y ago
rdouble 17y ago
I lived in SF for 5 years and recently moved to NYC. SF is dirty in the gross parts, but it's not as dirty as places like Chicago, NYC or even Paris. It just so happens the dirtiest parts of SF are where startup people work and hang out: SOMA, Tenderloin, the Mission. The level of dirtiness in these areas is so off the scale (one regularly steps over human poo) that it warps one's perspective as to how dirty the city is in general. In contrast there is a layer of garbage and grime everywhere in New York City. So much so that after a day of walking around in the summer, you can turn a white handtowel black just by wiping the sweat off your brow...
- rogerthat 17y ago
  In contrast there is a layer of garbage and grime everywhere in New York City. So much so that after a day of walking around in the summer, you can turn a white handtowel black just by wiping the sweat off your brow... That's because the NYC summer is hot, not because the city is dirty. (Maybe you have oily pores?)
  - rdouble 17y ago
    That's because the NYC summer is hot That's true, but it's still a dirty city. However, it's a different type of dirty than SF. The dirty parts of SF are dirty due to insanity and apathy. NYC is dirty because there are so many people out and about, all the time.
    - elblanco 17y ago
      I've noticed this as well. NYC is grimy and can get dirty, but it's not the kind of unsanitary filth that you might find in a sewer. As such, I don't mind walking about all day and getting a bit sooty, at least I won't catch something from it.
- dschobel 17y ago
  There's a lot wrong with Chicago, but I have to say, this is far and away the cleanest and safest big American city I've been in. The climate may suck, the public transportation a joke, the government corrupt as hell, but doggone it, it's clean!
nkurz 17y ago
I'm living in the East Bay rather than San Francisco, so I wasn't quite cheating by ignoring the disclaimers. Overall, it felt like a pretty good assessment. "What sickens me most about San Francisco is not its dirt, or its large homeless population, or its questionable safety, but that locals and the city government seem to accept these circumstances." On the good side, he didn't really go into the outdoor advantages (nearby access to mountains and ocean, in town trails and bays) but he's got a good handle on the downsides. Perhaps the reason that San Francisco is so relentlessly progressive in its politics is that the residents can all see first hand the divide between the rich and the poor?
- hughprime 17y ago
  Perhaps the reason that San Francisco is so relentlessly progressive in its politics is that the residents can all see first hand the divide between the rich and the poor? I've always thought of it as the other way around. A less "progressive" city would have cracked down on all the bums, vagrants and low-level crime long ago. One Giuliani-style mayor and the Tenderloin would look like... well, Times Square. (Admittedly it would probably just kick the problem to the other side of the Bay.)
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
Dilpil 17y ago
As someone who will (relatively) soon be graduating and choosing a city to live in, does anyone have similar reviews for New York, Chicago, ect?
- rogerthat 17y ago
  NYC rocks. It's clean and one of the safest cities in the U.S. these days. Whether you can find a job is another question.
- tptacek 17y ago
  Chicago rocks. It has the same climate as NYC. It's a huge city --- much bigger than SF --- and it's compact, well connected with public transportation, and filled with walkable neighborhoods. Everything NYC provides, Chicago provides more comfortably. Like NYC, it is straightforward to start a company in Chicago, and like NYC, there are hundreds of businesses to sell services and products to. Unlike NYC, Chicago is cheap and still stocked to with talent. There is no better city in the US to bootstrap a business in.
  - sachinag 17y ago
    I absolutely agree with the bootstrap comment. NYC, in my six years there, compared to my six years and change in Chicago/Aurora, is substantially warmer in the winter.
- dschobel 17y ago
  Here's my Chicago review. Bottom line: Fantastic city with a terrible terrible climate. The good: * Great cultural institutions (the ballet, symphony and opera are world-class). * Fantastic restaurants. You could go to a different restaurant every night of the week for a year and not expend the supply of good eats in this town. * It's clean and safe and cheap for such a big city. * If you like music, every band that matters comes to town. Lots of good local music as well. The bad: * Horrible horrible winters. You get ridiculous bouts of cold where it'll stay below -10F for weeks on end. * The winter lasts over four months, and summer is like 2.5. If you need sun and like the outdoors, Chicago is probably not the place for you * It's flat. Which basically leaves you with... ice fishing for winter activities. * The local and state government are corrupt as hell and everyone just accepts it as a characteristic of Chicago and laugh it off. Don't follow the local politics, it's too infuriating. * Related to the previous point, we have one of the highest sales tax rates in the US. * Lousy public transportation as well. The average age of the buses is 16 years. Which is worse than every major city in america. * You'll pay a lot of taxes for lousy and outdated infrastructure. * The tech scene is so-so. There are a few startups but the vast majority of jobs are in Finance.
thesethings 17y ago
I'm from the Bay Area, lived in San Francisco, and now live in Portland, Oregon (where the author of the blog post intends to move). Portland is a place I am completely blown away by on many levels (civic, workflow, rawk, wackiness, food), and in other ways impatient with (won't take the time to criticize Portland here, but it's not perfect). I agree with most every criticism he has of San Francisco, but maybe don't hold the same vibe of judgement. Ultimately, he seems to be on the right track, that San Francisco is not working for him. That's really all we should focus on when deciding where to live. Look inside yourself, think of what you need, and what type of place makes that easier to achieve. Unique Challenges for him I imagine holding a high-profile job at red-hot company (Twitter) in San Francisco/Silicon Valley could be claustrophobic socially and physically. Also, a bit of a monoculture, intellectually, as he described. (In the middle of a really diverse place, I've witnessed an eery lack of diversity when attending some SF tech events.) And he totally fairly introduced his blog post as such (for young tech types). But many tech types might be able to overcome some of the challenges he had, just because it's extremely unlikely they have the same work + media + community demands that Alex has. Anyway, I'm not really disagreeing with anything he said. His post was great. Also, if he reads this, I want him to not stop writing things that actually state an opinion, no matter how rowdy reactions get. :D San Francisco workarounds (for everybody else) If you're stuck in San Francisco, and getting annoyed by things, i have some workarounds: * Live "on the other side of the hill." I lived in the inner Richmond district (the San Francisco neighborhood, not the city). Every time there was a massive fair/festival (mentioned in the blog post), I didn't know about it. * Living on the other side of the hill also changes up the sorts of people you live around. Less dot-commers. * Take BART/Car out to the rest of the Bay Area. Cities like Fremont and Redwood City have lots of interesting destination to get you out of the bubble (indian movie theaters, streets where you HAVE to speak Spanish (as a speaker of Spanish, a pleasant experience for me.)). * Seriously evaluate whether your friends are d-bags * Seriously evaluate whether you sometimes are a d-bag * If you are for sure not a d-bag, and are sure your friends are not d-bags, avoid places where d-bags are. You are who you are around. You are probably ruling out places in the Marina right about now. Sorry, not agressive enough. Even really cool places on Saturdays might be making you sick. * Make sure there is meaning in your life. This is not a San Francisco thing, but almost everybody I've witnessed who is extremely unhappy with the place he/she lives, has something else pretty heavy going on in his/her life. Real talk. I left San Francisco extremely annoyed with the ridiculous real estate situation, my quality of life, and lots of other stuff. All those opinions still hold true, but I now sit back and see some things I did to make life more difficult for myself. After experiencing the civic magic of Portland, I'm more patient, interested, and appreciative of ALL city landscapes and experiences, including San Francisco's. I could easily see moving there again one day.
boucher 17y ago
I'd say that LA has many of the same issues. Most of LA is very dirty (though a few of the most touristy areas are very clean). If nothing else the air quality alone is reason enough to consider it dirty. Public transportation in LA is worse than San Francisco, especially once you need to get out of the core of the city. San Francisco has BART and Caltrain which make traveling between the city and most of the nearby regions pretty convenient (though the price has been climbing). Within the city, the bus has served me pretty well. Especially with nextmuni.com to tell you when the next bus will actually arrive. I've never had an incident on a bus in SF (admittedly I haven't been here long), but when I lived in LA I rarely took the bus without having to deal with someone who was truly crazy. And LA traffic is so much worse than San Francisco, traveling by bus makes that much less sense.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
teuobk 17y ago
"There is, I’ve found, precious little to do here, particularly if you’re not inclined towards sports or the outdoors." While I don't necessarily disagree with this point, I think it's a shame if you don't explore the sports and outdoors opportunities near SF. Twenty minutes by bike can put you in the hills of Marin County. A few miles to the west of the City will bring you to Ocean Beach. A short car ride to the south gives you access to the vast forested area of the peninsula, notably Big Basin State Park. A few hours in a car can get you to some of the most beautiful places on Earth, including Lake Tahoe, Yosemite, and Big Sur. Hike, backpack, ski, surf, sail... The road cycling in the area is world-famous. There are several tracks within a reasonable distance if club auto racing is your thing. Heck, there are even a few ice arenas in town on which you can play ice hockey. In short, there is plenty to do (if you like sports or the outdoors).
- tptacek 17y ago
  One thing I miss about San Francisco is that if you're bored, you can go out to the beaches south of San Francisco with some beers and light a fire. I have western Michigan for that now, but it's obviously not a spur of the moment thing.
dschobel 17y ago
I thought his complaint about a lack of things to do on a Saturday was odd. He says there's a decent cultural scene and he's not into the sports/outdoors. I'm curious what he would expect a city provide?
- timr 17y ago
  Moreover, his ideal city is Portland. Now, I like Portland; it's a nice place. But if you want urban culture and a population that isn't obsessed with outdoor recreation, you're in for disappointment there. Honestly, it sounds like the guy just doesn't like it here, and is looking for reasons to justify his feelings. To each his own.
  - rdouble 17y ago
    Moreover, his ideal city is Portland He does mention that his hobbies are beer and coffee. Portland probably beats anywhere in the US in terms of per-capita coffee shops and beer bars (and strip clubs.)
    - timr 17y ago
      Seattle makes Portland look pathetic when it comes to coffee, but I'll have to concede the beer and the strip club crowns. ;-)
- pmorici 17y ago
  Didn't he say the culture sucked except for the ballet? At any rate he seems to suggest he like museums and since he is originally from D.C. Which probably has more museums monuments and architecture to view than any other city in the country it no small wonder he is disappointed.
tptacek 17y ago
I second al3x and add what I said last time: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=170750 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=170750 Bill Wyman, who has never written a word that rang false to me, said it better than either of us back in '99: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/11/03/sf/index.html http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/11/03/sf/index.html Alex sees an upside to SF that I don't. Apparently you can DJ at a club in San Francisco. But your favorite band skips San Francisco, because there are so few venues to play at. I could opine about that, but JWZ said it better than I did: http://www.dnalounge.com/donate/ http://www.dnalounge.com/donate/ (San Francisco was a crappy place to see music back when bands were playing the Maritime Hall, lest you think I'm being opportunistic here). There are some excellent restaurants in San Francisco. Unfortunately for SF, NYC, DC, Boston, Chicago, and Seattle can all go toe-to-toe with it. SF gives you Michael Mina, NYC gives you Per Se, and throws in The Spotted Pig. For such a small city, SF throws down admirably, but it is simply outgunned by the big cities. Of course, this is all a moot point, since you're probably not going to live in San Francisco if you move to the bay area. You are probably going to live somewhere in the South Bay, and the South Bay is an unforgiveable suburban wasteland. Alex is one kind of person for whom San Francisco isn't ideal. I was him 10 years ago. Now I'm a different kind of person for whom San Francisco doesn't work: someone who wants to live in an actual neighborhood. There are 6 other young families with kids on my block, and I know them all; we have block parties. I never once met a neighbor in San Francisco; not in SOMA, not in Bayview, and not in Noe Valley. But, hey, great dim sum. Seals. Really old trees. Knock yourself out.
- dschobel 17y ago
  And the technical epicenter of the world. Don't forget that.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    I found that not to be a win.
- physcab 17y ago
  I'm really surprised that you said you were "unlucky" to live in Santa Clara. I went to undergrad at Santa Clara University and it was perfect. Gorgeous weather year round (warmer and less windy than SF), slightly more reasonable rent, incredible diversity of food, and compulsively clean. Oh, and every weekend you had the choice of going to SF, Santa Cruz, Los Gatos, and Palo Alto to name a few.
hyperbovine 17y ago
Shoulda tried Oakland. We've got better weather, cheaper rent, actual diversity, awesome dining, more than one real park, and I've walked around my hood at all hours of the day & night and never once felt threatened. (Granted, there are some parts of Oak where this would not be a great idea.) The city annoys the shit outta me, but it's a fun place to visit sometimes.
- jaytee_clone 17y ago
  I second that. I have been going to free festivals every weekend in Oakland. Combined with San Francisco, Berkeley, there are far more things to do than I can make it to. Ultimately, of course, being content is not about finding more fun things. It's about finding more things fun.
- idm 17y ago
  Berkeley and Oakland here - it was amazing. Got robbed once, saw one murder on my property, but it was five years and not much else happened. Okay, that's an understatement, but there was so much else happening that I actually think it was a net positive. For context, I live in Toronto now, and I think it's also awesome... but the east bay was better!
  - babyshake 17y ago
    I live in Oakland too. What I've found is that there are microneighborhoods (a few square blocks) that are very unsafe (such as the area frequently called 'ghosttown'), but you quickly learn to differentiate a lack of wealth from a lack of safety.
- aaroneous 17y ago
  I've always found that the city looked its best when viewed from across the Bay in Oakland rather than up close in the city itself.
  - hyperbovine 17y ago
    I agree, although Treasure Island and Alcatraz are both hard to top provided you can see anything. Very distinct views too.
gexla 17y ago
...be sure to wear some flowers in your hair. Sorry, couldn't help it. ;)
timcederman 17y ago
I loved living in Mountain View and being able to be in the city in 40 minutes whenever I felt like it, and enjoy a quiet, clean life in the suburbs, with a 5 minute commute. Lots of geek happenings in Palo Alto, Mountain View and Sunnyvale, some live gigs at Shoreline Amphitheatre (with discount/early tickets for residents!), live comedy at Rooster T Feather's (where the first Pong machine was installed), and amazing food at places like Alexander's Steakhouse (in Cupertino), made the South Bay very appealing. I had no problems driving up to the city for a mid-week show or event, and I could get a 4 star hotel room in the city for $70 on Priceline, meaning I could live in Mountain View during the week and stay in the city every weekend and it still be cheaper/more convenient than living in the city proper.
zand 17y ago
"As above, it’s easy to meet people through work or a common interest, but harder to meet random friendly strangers. Rarely in San Francisco has a kindness been done to me by a stranger..." This statement was demonstrated all too literally for me my first night out in SF as a proud, newly minted resident: It was a Friday night out with co-workers at my new job, and I had a blast. Really felt like it was easy to click with people, and that they were all so much more interesting than the "d-bags" I'm used to pretending to get along with at bars. Then again, these were co-workers--all very talented in their own right--and probably not an accurate sample. Contrast with what happened immediately following: on the way out of the bar, at around midnight (not too late), I was stopped and robbed by a gang. Mind you, this was a nice part of a "safe" neighborhood (Castro). Bad luck I guess, but the worst of it was trying to find a sympathetic soul to (at the very least) let me use a phone. As soon as it was apparent that I needed assistance, this well-dressed twentysomething became invisible. Even the cops couldn't have been less helpful, and thought it best to drop me off where it had happened. In most other cities I've been to around the world, I can't imagine folks being so apathetic.
- jmtulloss 17y ago
  I feel that this is closely related to the homeless problem. I positively avoid most people who look like they want to approach me on the street because they are almost always homeless. If they can get the point across that they're not homeless or asking for money, I open up quite a bit, but since that's not usually the case, I can be as cold as the next guy.
  - zand 17y ago
    You make a valid point, which had occurred to me at the time, and after living here a bit longer I fully understand how easy (necessary?) it is to desensitize to those in need. But remember I was well-dressed, articulate and (mostly) sober. It all worked out in the end, just struck me as a bit disturbing: What if I'd been physically harmed? Would your average stranger be more or less likely to lend a hand?
  - jlees 17y ago
    Living somewhere else where it's quite common to have a homeless person come up to you on the street and ramble on with a muttered 'excuse me madam sorry to bother you but...' low monotone that almost exclusively leads up to 'give me money' - yes. You learn what to say to instantly tell people you're not one of them. And it does lead to a general avoidance of other people on the street. Having said that, I'd like to think that if someone genuinely needed help it would be a little more obvious and they would get it...
grandalf 17y ago
His points are OK... But why harp on the sidewalks of SF when there is poo in every single hamburger made? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=2&pagewanted=3 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=2&#3... Bottom line: I don't think a person is qualified to rip on a whole city unless he has lived in at least 5 different neighborhoods and has actually made a bunch of friends. SF takes work to maximize. Portland is nice too, but more like a busy suburb than a city fwiw. I qualify that by saying that SF should be thought of as a cluster of neighborhoods rather than a city.
joshuaxls 17y ago
If you look at his tweets you see that he got miffed over LoveFest this weekend. And that he made a passive-aggressive post about making this post. http://twitter.com/al3x http://twitter.com/al3x He should reconsider living in a big city. Yes, SoMa had both LoveFest and Folsom St. Fair happen within the span of a week, but for the rest of the year it stays relatively quiet. Try Daly City. They don't have any festivals there.
- novum 17y ago
  I noticed this too. He was also miffed at the Folsom St. Fair. It's very interesting how social media gives you much more context around someone's blog posts.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    The Folsom Street Fair is a bit off-putting, and that's not a "big city" "little city" thing --- I'm a city person.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Heh, interesting link. I started reading the tweets and got upset when there was no "downmod" button :)
geuis 17y ago
Sorry, but I've got the contrasted view. I moved to SF 2.5 years ago from the Ft. Lauderdale/Miami area. Other than Alex's comments about the weather, I simply disagree with just about everything else he's said. I've live all over the country. NY, Miami, and various parts of the Bible-belt. I've visited other cities like Chicago and Montreal. Moving out to SF was different than anywhere else I've lived. SF is not dirty. I've heard the comments before, from people who have grown up and only lived in the Bay area to those who come from big and small cities alike. NYC smells like garbage. Any time I've been there, it literally smells like week old garbage. The same thing for Miami, except much more humid. From the times I lived in the suburbs of Ft. Lauderdale to partying on South Beach and hanging out in Coconut Grove, to walking through the streets of NY and Chicago, the streets are dirty with trash and other random crap. And don't even get me started on the homeless problem in Miami. They make the homeless folk here in SF look like suburbanites. The air in SF is very, very clean. Its largely due to the constant breeze from the Pacific. Down in the valley is a bit different and gets pretty smoggy at times. Basically, there is no where else that I want to be. The culture out here is fantastic. The people ARE FRIENDLY. I live in Lower Haight and have never been mugged, robbed, or anything. Its pretty easy to stay safe here, just like anywhere. Don't be a fucking tard and walk through bad neighborhoods by yourself at 2 in the morning. Most of the problems people have, they cause themselves. It is definitely more expensive out here than back east, but the pay for tech jobs is way, way better. I am making roughly 3x the amount I was making in Florida for less work. I'm much closer to the 6 digit salary range than the low 5 digit like I used to be. I'm not sure what the problem people have with SF. This is one of the best places to live in the world, period.
- alex_c 17y ago
  Just because there are dirtier cities out there doesn't mean SF is clean (and, like any other city, there are dirtier areas and cleaner areas). Depends on where you come from, I guess. The author seems to come from Washington - I've only visited it briefly, but I definitely got more of a "clean" impression there than in SF. Coming from Toronto, that was definitely part of my first impression - "dirtier than I expected", and "whoa, I didn't expect so many homeless". I still love the city, but I don't think it's valid to dismiss the criticism just because there are worse cases out there.
notphilatall 17y ago
The author seems to have a hard time venturing out of tech circles to make social connections. Out of this arises a feeling of alienation and resentment for those who are enjoying themselves socially. I have plenty of liberal guilt, but I don't let it prevent me from celebrating the courage of gay couples or making costumes with friends for b2b (or going to lovefest and dancing until sunrise). Want something to do on a Saturday afternoon? Volunteer at a homeless shelter, if you care about social issues at that level. On the other hand, don't. Take your resentment with you to Portland and don't let it keep you from enjoying its wealth of cultural offerings, which are sure to dwarf San Francisco's attempt at socio-intellectual relevance.
breck 17y ago
> There is, I’ve found, precious little to do here, particularly if you’re not inclined towards sports or the outdoors. but if you are inclined towards sports or the outdoors, SF is the best place in the country. i went surfing and hiking last week. also went on a couple of double digit bike rides. not too many places back east like that.
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  I don't think that's true. You can do everything you just said in pretty much every city in Southern California. Yet I don't have to contend with massive over population. In fact, I live in a suburb of Los Angeles and am no more than 20 miles away from everything you mentioned. But my city has a population density of only 2,137 people per square mile. While San Francisco on the other hand has a population density of 17,000 people per square mile. So I wouldn't throw around "best place in the country" so liberally.
- davidw 17y ago
  SF proper is terrible for most outdoors activities: you have to drive at the very least across the golden gate to do much of anything. Maybe it's ok for a Big City, but that's another reason why I wouldn't want to live in a Big City. I like outdoors activities, and don't like dealing with traffic just to participate in them. Of course if you're comparing with 'back east', sure it's probably not so bad, but if you've ever lived in a place that's really good for outdoors sports, SF isn't all that great.
  - thesethings 17y ago
    Yeah. In Portland you don't have to first drive out of the city to start your experience. I can start on a bike trail in Portland, and riding out of the city is part of my activity. (Sidebar to visitors: check out the Springwater Corridor. Cyclists/walkers/horse riders)
  - jamie 17y ago
    Don't forget that the weather here means you can comfortably go running year round. In fact, the san francisco half is in January. That's a huge advantage that SF-proper has. Soccer, running, and cycling are all activities you can do every single day in SF-proper.
davidw 17y ago
That really rings true for me. I enjoyed my time in San Francisco, but really got a sense that it was not a place in "equilibrium", so to speak. Families can't really live there unless there's a million dollars for a house somewhere, which means that you have to be pretty wealthy, or you're headed out to some other city in the bay area. SF was great for being single, but it just struck me as being a bit artificial. Here in Padova, there are wealthy people, poor people, young people, families, elderly people - a nice mix, in other words. Same with Portland. Also, he's right about so many people being in tech. Here in Padova, I have more friends who aren't in tech, and that makes me happy - I love to hang out with my tech friends too, and talk about this or that, but sometimes it's nice to get away from that, and in SF I never felt I could, despite trying. That said, as someone born and raised in Oregon, I just don't think I could deal with moving back to the rainy part of the state. Endless drizzly gray days get pretty depressing. They don't even feel very 'cozy'; winter in Innsbruck was way better; watching the snow fall or waking up to a brilliant blue day with snow covered mountains was much better than sloshing around in the dismal gray day after day. I'm actually not sure where I'd go if I went back to the US. Southern Oregon is nice in some ways, but not much going on at all in tech. Boulder looks appealing in several ways, but I've never been there, and it looks like they have a strong sense of 'smug' of their own, something I'm not a big fan of. Edit Let's see... other random notes * Portland, for me, had better food than SF. This was because I worked downtown in Portland and had a nice variety of affordable and diverse lunch options. Where I worked in SF didn't have nearly as good a selection. * Portland has Powells. Powells is awesome. * Portland is closer to more outdoor stuff, although I always got depressed in summer because of the thought of my precious few sunny days slipping by sitting in an office. Even with good technical gear, it's hard to stay warm in 5C and steady rain on a bike.
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  At one point I stayed a couple months with some friends in San Francisco and I utterly hated it. When discussing it with my friends, who love it there, they gave me some very valuable insight. They basically said they believe most people would hate it in San Francisco but that's the whole point. Because the people who love it there don't really fit in many other places. It's a sanctuary for a certain type of culture and that's where its value is. Everyone deserves a place where they can fit in and for the young idealist, the aging hippie, and all the other odd balls that call that place home that's where they belong. But yes, as a consequence that means that a lot of other groups (most families for instance) don't belong. Not every environment has to be all inclusive.
davidmathers 17y ago
What sickens me most about San Francisco is not its dirt, or its large homeless population, or its questionable safety, but that locals and the city government seem to accept these circumstances. What al3x appears to not know: It's not about passive acceptance. There is a major political force that fights for the circumstances that he finds (and I find) so objectionable. In this mentally defective "progressive" movement--that can't tell the difference between helping the poor and helping poverty--cleaning up bad neighborhoods is called "gentrification" and fought tooth and nail. Likewise any plan to fight homelessness that isn't some variation of "give the homeless more free money." The result is a massive political deadlock between two sides that can never agree on anything. Perpetual warfare. The situation is, in reality, both much better and much worse than he understands. Better because we're not a city full of selfish bohemians. Worse because we are a backwards, provincial city with a deeply broken political culture. But, even though I also hate victorian architecture, I can't think of anywhere else I would rather live. Portland is way too homogenous and small-town for me. Edit: btw, I love my transit situation. I use a combination of bicycle (mostly), City CarShare (a fleet of cars at my disposal), Muni trains, and cabs. Not owning a car is a fairly high priority for me. And the only city with decent public transportation is Paris.
- aaronbrethorst 17y ago
  Try Seattle. Our usual response to gentrification is "oh that sucks...Oh hey, a new cupcake shop just opened up!" No really. Edit: plus, Ben Gibbard, the lead singer of Death Cab for Cutie, jogged past my place the other day. Evidently Zooey Deschanel now lives in my neighborhood. Most of my neighbors are not involved in tech. I'm sitting in the bar around the corner from my apartment writing this on a big couch drinking a great local microbrew while using their free wifi. If I really wanted a stable job, I'd go back to Microsoft. The only downside to this whole thing is that Zooey Deschanel is now married.
  - davidmathers 17y ago
    Evidently Zooey Deschanel now lives in my neighborhood. I don't even know who that is. In LA you'd have movie star neighbors. The "famous" people in my neighborhood are internet micro-celebrities like Veronica Belmont and porn stars like Madison Young. Perfect, for me. Edit: ah, I see now that Zooey Deschanel is a movie star. Also, downvote wtf? Seriously, explain yourselves. I'm perplexed by your rejection of my comment.
tptacek 17y ago
Things you can get in San Francisco that you can't really get anywhere else: * An unplanned beach bonfire at 1AM * Solid dim sum for lunch on a weekday * Access to a vast open air drug market * A day on a 30 foot sailboat in April * Weekly tech meetups * Plants from a shop dedicated solely to freshwater aquarium plants * The drive down CA-85 to Half Moon Bay
- jdminhbg 17y ago
  For certain very restricted values of "anywhere," I suppose.
babyshake 17y ago
"Unreliable and inadequate public transit, paling in comparison to most any other major city in the world." Compared to the Chicago public transit system, the BART is much, much, much better.
natemartin 17y ago
Disclosure: This is coming from a San Francisco native. (one of those rare ones that still live in the city.) As soon as I read this sentence: "There may be some fog, or a bit of rain from time to time, but most of the time it’s sunny and hovering around the high 60s to lower 70s." I knew that the author of this piece has fallen into a trap that many people who move here for work fall into; they never venture away from certain neighborhoods, and this filters their view of the city. That sentence clued me in because of the word "sunny." Yes, the Mission and SOMA are sunny, but the rest of the city is foggy, nearly all the time. If the author made it over twin peaks out to the Sunset, or the Richmond, you might not find as much sunny weather, and you won't find startup offices, but you'll find the real neighborhoods of this city. Are there bad neighborhoods in the city? Of course, like any city. However, because our city is constrained geographically, there is no real transition zone between good and bad areas. You can be walking through a generally OK neighborhood (say at 4th and Howard), walk a couple of blocks, and be in one of the worst parts of the city (6th and Howard.) Since the Mission and SOMA are near these bad areas, if that's the only part of the city you frequent, then the city will seem dirty. Maybe he does have an issue that everyone he knows works in the tech field. It's really not hard to meet people in this city, maybe he should try striking up a conversation with a random stranger at a bar. I assure you most locals will be glad to talk. I have friends here that are teachers, police officers, fire-fighters in training, journalists, and yes, in the tech field as well. We have plenty of things to talk about besides the latest startup. I'd suggest that the author makes it out to the Richmond, or the Sunset. It's not dirty, there's plenty of restaurants, and plenty of people that don't work in tech fields. You'll find the real residents of the city there, not just people passing through. Though it won't be sunny. (Also, really? Beer is underrepresented here? Where has he been going? From his other blog post, he doesn't seem to like any west coast beers. You can't call our beer selection "underrepresented" if you don't like the local beer styles. There are literally hundreds of microbreweries in this state. He can't really be surprised that the most common beer will be local.) Edit: Also, if any of you reading this are planning on moving out to SF, or just moved out here, feel free to email me ( natmartin <at> gmail.com ), and I'd be glad to give you advice on neighborhoods to check out, things to do, or introduce you to some good people here.
petercooper 17y ago
It’s as if all parties don’t occupy the same city, see the same shameful sights on the street, and bear the same responsibilities to taxes and charity that might help address these deep-seated and difficult problems. If you think it's bad in SF, try Los Angeles. The different types of people mentioned don't just sit in different neighborhoods; they wall themselves off in almost San Francisco sized sub-cities. That said, I'd still choose to live in LA over SF any day of the week.
jamie 17y ago
I'm amazed how caught up in the SF tech-scene people can get. Sometimes, it feels like anyone who ever used vi or emacs moved to the Mission or SoMa. I know those are trendy places for engineers to live, but this city is really a bunch of small villages. Pac Heights, Nob Hill, NB, Russian Hill, Cole Valley, Bernal, Noe, and Hayes Valley are all wonderful, clean, "diverse" neighborhoods (well, diverse in the sense that your neighbors aren't engineers). I think a lot of people get myopic when they either live in the same neighborhood they work in or cluster too closely with people from their industry. While Lovefest was indeed this weekend, so was Oktoberfest, the Fillmore Food and Wine festival, and the Hardly Strictly Bluegrass festival. The Bluegrass festival was free, outside, and featured some amazing music. http://www.hardlystrictlybluegrass.com/ http://www.hardlystrictlybluegrass.com/ There's a lot to appreciate here in the city that isn't tech related!
siavosh 17y ago
I've been in NYC for the past 3 years, and about to move to SF in a couple weeks. Here's a reflection of nyc I've been working on: My first vivid image of New York City was from Salinger's A Catcher in the Rye. It was an intimidating and claustrophobic image. It was a city filled with sleepless characters running around in the cold trying to figure themselves out or trying to con someone somehow. To Salinger's credit, after almost three years living here, my first impression wasn't too far off. It's hard to find a city more stratified along class lines. Or a place more materialistic yet also so bohemian. A city of greed and poverty but also of immense heart and empathy. It is a city to suite every mood while at times suiting none. A city of everything. A city you want to describe as a muse but stop when it seems it could not be any more machine like and heartless. Among its eight million inhabitants, it breeds patience out of necessity but can explode with anger without warning. And when it does, it may be rude and it may be ugly, but it does not fester and you learn that in New York nothing is personal. If you fly into La Guardia in early autumn, the lights of the city make the overcast clouds glow a synthetic orange. It reminds you the city is vibrant and will be long after you decide to leave. The lights dazzle and mystify me still. Flying in for one of the last times before i leave for the other city on the coast, I don't try to find the places I know but scan the skyline for places I may have never been. Maybe that's the New York mystique, at least for me. After three years, those lights still look alien. When I look back, I don't think of what I did but of the so many things left undone. This is my lasting impression of this city, and it leaves me not with regret but instead hope, for I can always return as if it were my first time.

126 points by madmotive 17y ago

icey 17y ago

I've been looking in to relocating recently; the area between San Fransisco and San Jose has been high on my list, but I've always been a little put off about the fact that it's hard to find any balanced discussions about what the quality of life is like there. I get that it's the #1 place for a geek to be, but I'm taking my wife as well and she's not a geek at all. It's nice to see someone talking a little bit about the area without all of the gilded verbiage. (Of course, #2 on my list right now is Portland, and I'm finding myself having a similar problem with discussion about that city right now as well ;))

ecq 17y ago
Palo Alto and Cupertino are nice.
- boucher 17y ago
  There's not much going on in Cupertino. Palo Alto is a much nicer place to live. It's also much more expensive.
  - strlen 17y ago
    Mountain View is affordable (compared to both Cupertino and Palo Alto, but unfortunately not to the rest of San Jose) - there's a great deal of good restaurants, it's a major Caltrain station (for a trip to the city). It also escapes most of the suburban cliches (there's independent grocery stories, fewer chain stores -- other than the Walmart/Target area near San Antonio).
    - boucher 17y ago
      It's pretty crazy how cheap San Jose is, especially over in the eastern part of town. But it's just not that exciting of a place to move to. Mountain View is much better than Cupertino, so long as you are relatively close to Castro St. Highly recommended if you want to live in that area and don't want to pay Palo Alto prices.
      - zand 17y ago
        I can't recommend San Jose, especially the eastern side, unless all you do after leaving the office is sleep.
      - nostrademons 17y ago
        I think Mountain View's one of the best values in Silicon Valley right now. Prices are reasonable, but there's a fair amount of cultural stuff that goes on downtown, and the town isn't quite as suburbany-stripmall as Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, or San Jose.

benreesman 17y ago

I moved to SF a few weeks ago and so far have found this to be a fair assessment. That said, I think this city suits me better than it does Alex and I have every intention to stay. Any HN people in SF that would like to have a pint and clue me in to the city would be very welcome!

aschobel 17y ago
of course http://mailhide.recaptcha.net/d?k=01J1hxEbMLvXRdFv0HJBn4nw==&c=5Rcfb-tEcL8FL6zWbogNWNXTDTtToX2IIjqdx7W5sjk= http://mailhide.recaptcha.net/d?k=01J1hxEbMLvXRdFv0HJBn4nw==...
natemartin 17y ago
I'd be glad to tell you a bit about the city from a native's perspective. Email me natmartin at gmail.com

rg 17y ago

Alex Payne doesn't appear to see the connection between one of his good points: "San Francisco boasts superb weather. ... There may be some fog, or a bit of rain from time to time, but most of the time it’s sunny and hovering around the high 60s to lower 70s." and a closely-related bad point: "the sight of homeless persons in varying states of dishevelment". If you're homeless, being so in a spot where it's nearly always comfortable to be outside is perfectly sensible. It's not surprising that there are fewer homeless people in areas where it snows and freezes. His link to http://emptyage.honan.net/mth/2009/07/are-you-going-to-san-francisco.html http://emptyage.honan.net/mth/2009/07/are-you-going-to-san-f... is well worth following, particularly for the good advice: "If you're moving 3,000 (or even 300) miles to live in San Francisco; live in San Francisco. And by I don't simply mean that you should not live in the East Bay or the Peninsula or Marin. I mean live in a part of the city that your great-grandparents would recognize as being San Francisco. Somewhere that was entirely residential, and all of the homes in your neighborhood existed, prior to 1915." The old neighborhoods of San Francisco are wonderful, with considerable village character, nothing like living in SOMA or the Tenderloin.

wvl 17y ago
Perhaps, also the connection between: " It’s entirely possible to have a bad meal in San Francisco, but to do so is entirely your fault: Yelp and other social recommendation services are better represented here than anywhere else in the world, and a suggestion for a good restaurant is always just a couple clicks (or taps) away." and: "Enormous competition for limited resources. You will wait for everything. The better a thing is (food, coffee, a nice place to sit), the longer you’ll wait for it. When you finally get what you want, you’ll be crammed in with others trying to enjoy the same place/thing, diminishing everyone’s enjoyment."
- jmtulloss 17y ago
  Agreed. I find that I have a much better time hitting the coffee shops that don't get the yelpers in a twitch than I do hitting the hotspots. I'm not waiting an hour for coffee at ritual. It's good, but it's not an hour wait good.
17y ago

rdouble 17y ago

I lived in SF for 5 years and recently moved to NYC. SF is dirty in the gross parts, but it's not as dirty as places like Chicago, NYC or even Paris. It just so happens the dirtiest parts of SF are where startup people work and hang out: SOMA, Tenderloin, the Mission. The level of dirtiness in these areas is so off the scale (one regularly steps over human poo) that it warps one's perspective as to how dirty the city is in general. In contrast there is a layer of garbage and grime everywhere in New York City. So much so that after a day of walking around in the summer, you can turn a white handtowel black just by wiping the sweat off your brow...

rogerthat 17y ago
In contrast there is a layer of garbage and grime everywhere in New York City. So much so that after a day of walking around in the summer, you can turn a white handtowel black just by wiping the sweat off your brow... That's because the NYC summer is hot, not because the city is dirty. (Maybe you have oily pores?)
- rdouble 17y ago
  That's because the NYC summer is hot That's true, but it's still a dirty city. However, it's a different type of dirty than SF. The dirty parts of SF are dirty due to insanity and apathy. NYC is dirty because there are so many people out and about, all the time.
  - elblanco 17y ago
    I've noticed this as well. NYC is grimy and can get dirty, but it's not the kind of unsanitary filth that you might find in a sewer. As such, I don't mind walking about all day and getting a bit sooty, at least I won't catch something from it.
dschobel 17y ago
There's a lot wrong with Chicago, but I have to say, this is far and away the cleanest and safest big American city I've been in. The climate may suck, the public transportation a joke, the government corrupt as hell, but doggone it, it's clean!

nkurz 17y ago

I'm living in the East Bay rather than San Francisco, so I wasn't quite cheating by ignoring the disclaimers. Overall, it felt like a pretty good assessment. "What sickens me most about San Francisco is not its dirt, or its large homeless population, or its questionable safety, but that locals and the city government seem to accept these circumstances." On the good side, he didn't really go into the outdoor advantages (nearby access to mountains and ocean, in town trails and bays) but he's got a good handle on the downsides. Perhaps the reason that San Francisco is so relentlessly progressive in its politics is that the residents can all see first hand the divide between the rich and the poor?

hughprime 17y ago
Perhaps the reason that San Francisco is so relentlessly progressive in its politics is that the residents can all see first hand the divide between the rich and the poor? I've always thought of it as the other way around. A less "progressive" city would have cracked down on all the bums, vagrants and low-level crime long ago. One Giuliani-style mayor and the Tenderloin would look like... well, Times Square. (Admittedly it would probably just kick the problem to the other side of the Bay.)
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

Dilpil 17y ago

As someone who will (relatively) soon be graduating and choosing a city to live in, does anyone have similar reviews for New York, Chicago, ect?

rogerthat 17y ago
NYC rocks. It's clean and one of the safest cities in the U.S. these days. Whether you can find a job is another question.
tptacek 17y ago
Chicago rocks. It has the same climate as NYC. It's a huge city --- much bigger than SF --- and it's compact, well connected with public transportation, and filled with walkable neighborhoods. Everything NYC provides, Chicago provides more comfortably. Like NYC, it is straightforward to start a company in Chicago, and like NYC, there are hundreds of businesses to sell services and products to. Unlike NYC, Chicago is cheap and still stocked to with talent. There is no better city in the US to bootstrap a business in.
- sachinag 17y ago
  I absolutely agree with the bootstrap comment. NYC, in my six years there, compared to my six years and change in Chicago/Aurora, is substantially warmer in the winter.
dschobel 17y ago
Here's my Chicago review. Bottom line: Fantastic city with a terrible terrible climate. The good: * Great cultural institutions (the ballet, symphony and opera are world-class). * Fantastic restaurants. You could go to a different restaurant every night of the week for a year and not expend the supply of good eats in this town. * It's clean and safe and cheap for such a big city. * If you like music, every band that matters comes to town. Lots of good local music as well. The bad: * Horrible horrible winters. You get ridiculous bouts of cold where it'll stay below -10F for weeks on end. * The winter lasts over four months, and summer is like 2.5. If you need sun and like the outdoors, Chicago is probably not the place for you * It's flat. Which basically leaves you with... ice fishing for winter activities. * The local and state government are corrupt as hell and everyone just accepts it as a characteristic of Chicago and laugh it off. Don't follow the local politics, it's too infuriating. * Related to the previous point, we have one of the highest sales tax rates in the US. * Lousy public transportation as well. The average age of the buses is 16 years. Which is worse than every major city in america. * You'll pay a lot of taxes for lousy and outdated infrastructure. * The tech scene is so-so. There are a few startups but the vast majority of jobs are in Finance.

thesethings 17y ago

I'm from the Bay Area, lived in San Francisco, and now live in Portland, Oregon (where the author of the blog post intends to move). Portland is a place I am completely blown away by on many levels (civic, workflow, rawk, wackiness, food), and in other ways impatient with (won't take the time to criticize Portland here, but it's not perfect). I agree with most every criticism he has of San Francisco, but maybe don't hold the same vibe of judgement. Ultimately, he seems to be on the right track, that San Francisco is not working for him. That's really all we should focus on when deciding where to live. Look inside yourself, think of what you need, and what type of place makes that easier to achieve. Unique Challenges for him I imagine holding a high-profile job at red-hot company (Twitter) in San Francisco/Silicon Valley could be claustrophobic socially and physically. Also, a bit of a monoculture, intellectually, as he described. (In the middle of a really diverse place, I've witnessed an eery lack of diversity when attending some SF tech events.) And he totally fairly introduced his blog post as such (for young tech types). But many tech types might be able to overcome some of the challenges he had, just because it's extremely unlikely they have the same work + media + community demands that Alex has. Anyway, I'm not really disagreeing with anything he said. His post was great. Also, if he reads this, I want him to not stop writing things that actually state an opinion, no matter how rowdy reactions get. :D San Francisco workarounds (for everybody else) If you're stuck in San Francisco, and getting annoyed by things, i have some workarounds: * Live "on the other side of the hill." I lived in the inner Richmond district (the San Francisco neighborhood, not the city). Every time there was a massive fair/festival (mentioned in the blog post), I didn't know about it. * Living on the other side of the hill also changes up the sorts of people you live around. Less dot-commers. * Take BART/Car out to the rest of the Bay Area. Cities like Fremont and Redwood City have lots of interesting destination to get you out of the bubble (indian movie theaters, streets where you HAVE to speak Spanish (as a speaker of Spanish, a pleasant experience for me.)). * Seriously evaluate whether your friends are d-bags * Seriously evaluate whether you sometimes are a d-bag * If you are for sure not a d-bag, and are sure your friends are not d-bags, avoid places where d-bags are. You are who you are around. You are probably ruling out places in the Marina right about now. Sorry, not agressive enough. Even really cool places on Saturdays might be making you sick. * Make sure there is meaning in your life. This is not a San Francisco thing, but almost everybody I've witnessed who is extremely unhappy with the place he/she lives, has something else pretty heavy going on in his/her life. Real talk. I left San Francisco extremely annoyed with the ridiculous real estate situation, my quality of life, and lots of other stuff. All those opinions still hold true, but I now sit back and see some things I did to make life more difficult for myself. After experiencing the civic magic of Portland, I'm more patient, interested, and appreciative of ALL city landscapes and experiences, including San Francisco's. I could easily see moving there again one day.

boucher 17y ago

I'd say that LA has many of the same issues. Most of LA is very dirty (though a few of the most touristy areas are very clean). If nothing else the air quality alone is reason enough to consider it dirty. Public transportation in LA is worse than San Francisco, especially once you need to get out of the core of the city. San Francisco has BART and Caltrain which make traveling between the city and most of the nearby regions pretty convenient (though the price has been climbing). Within the city, the bus has served me pretty well. Especially with nextmuni.com to tell you when the next bus will actually arrive. I've never had an incident on a bus in SF (admittedly I haven't been here long), but when I lived in LA I rarely took the bus without having to deal with someone who was truly crazy. And LA traffic is so much worse than San Francisco, traveling by bus makes that much less sense.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

teuobk 17y ago

"There is, I’ve found, precious little to do here, particularly if you’re not inclined towards sports or the outdoors." While I don't necessarily disagree with this point, I think it's a shame if you don't explore the sports and outdoors opportunities near SF. Twenty minutes by bike can put you in the hills of Marin County. A few miles to the west of the City will bring you to Ocean Beach. A short car ride to the south gives you access to the vast forested area of the peninsula, notably Big Basin State Park. A few hours in a car can get you to some of the most beautiful places on Earth, including Lake Tahoe, Yosemite, and Big Sur. Hike, backpack, ski, surf, sail... The road cycling in the area is world-famous. There are several tracks within a reasonable distance if club auto racing is your thing. Heck, there are even a few ice arenas in town on which you can play ice hockey. In short, there is plenty to do (if you like sports or the outdoors).

tptacek 17y ago
One thing I miss about San Francisco is that if you're bored, you can go out to the beaches south of San Francisco with some beers and light a fire. I have western Michigan for that now, but it's obviously not a spur of the moment thing.

dschobel 17y ago

I thought his complaint about a lack of things to do on a Saturday was odd. He says there's a decent cultural scene and he's not into the sports/outdoors. I'm curious what he would expect a city provide?

timr 17y ago
Moreover, his ideal city is Portland. Now, I like Portland; it's a nice place. But if you want urban culture and a population that isn't obsessed with outdoor recreation, you're in for disappointment there. Honestly, it sounds like the guy just doesn't like it here, and is looking for reasons to justify his feelings. To each his own.
- rdouble 17y ago
  Moreover, his ideal city is Portland He does mention that his hobbies are beer and coffee. Portland probably beats anywhere in the US in terms of per-capita coffee shops and beer bars (and strip clubs.)
  - timr 17y ago
    Seattle makes Portland look pathetic when it comes to coffee, but I'll have to concede the beer and the strip club crowns. ;-)
pmorici 17y ago
Didn't he say the culture sucked except for the ballet? At any rate he seems to suggest he like museums and since he is originally from D.C. Which probably has more museums monuments and architecture to view than any other city in the country it no small wonder he is disappointed.

tptacek 17y ago

I second al3x and add what I said last time: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=170750 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=170750 Bill Wyman, who has never written a word that rang false to me, said it better than either of us back in '99: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/11/03/sf/index.html http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/11/03/sf/index.html Alex sees an upside to SF that I don't. Apparently you can DJ at a club in San Francisco. But your favorite band skips San Francisco, because there are so few venues to play at. I could opine about that, but JWZ said it better than I did: http://www.dnalounge.com/donate/ http://www.dnalounge.com/donate/ (San Francisco was a crappy place to see music back when bands were playing the Maritime Hall, lest you think I'm being opportunistic here). There are some excellent restaurants in San Francisco. Unfortunately for SF, NYC, DC, Boston, Chicago, and Seattle can all go toe-to-toe with it. SF gives you Michael Mina, NYC gives you Per Se, and throws in The Spotted Pig. For such a small city, SF throws down admirably, but it is simply outgunned by the big cities. Of course, this is all a moot point, since you're probably not going to live in San Francisco if you move to the bay area. You are probably going to live somewhere in the South Bay, and the South Bay is an unforgiveable suburban wasteland. Alex is one kind of person for whom San Francisco isn't ideal. I was him 10 years ago. Now I'm a different kind of person for whom San Francisco doesn't work: someone who wants to live in an actual neighborhood. There are 6 other young families with kids on my block, and I know them all; we have block parties. I never once met a neighbor in San Francisco; not in SOMA, not in Bayview, and not in Noe Valley. But, hey, great dim sum. Seals. Really old trees. Knock yourself out.

dschobel 17y ago
And the technical epicenter of the world. Don't forget that.
- tptacek 17y ago
  I found that not to be a win.
physcab 17y ago
I'm really surprised that you said you were "unlucky" to live in Santa Clara. I went to undergrad at Santa Clara University and it was perfect. Gorgeous weather year round (warmer and less windy than SF), slightly more reasonable rent, incredible diversity of food, and compulsively clean. Oh, and every weekend you had the choice of going to SF, Santa Cruz, Los Gatos, and Palo Alto to name a few.

hyperbovine 17y ago

Shoulda tried Oakland. We've got better weather, cheaper rent, actual diversity, awesome dining, more than one real park, and I've walked around my hood at all hours of the day & night and never once felt threatened. (Granted, there are some parts of Oak where this would not be a great idea.) The city annoys the shit outta me, but it's a fun place to visit sometimes.

jaytee_clone 17y ago
I second that. I have been going to free festivals every weekend in Oakland. Combined with San Francisco, Berkeley, there are far more things to do than I can make it to. Ultimately, of course, being content is not about finding more fun things. It's about finding more things fun.
idm 17y ago
Berkeley and Oakland here - it was amazing. Got robbed once, saw one murder on my property, but it was five years and not much else happened. Okay, that's an understatement, but there was so much else happening that I actually think it was a net positive. For context, I live in Toronto now, and I think it's also awesome... but the east bay was better!
- babyshake 17y ago
  I live in Oakland too. What I've found is that there are microneighborhoods (a few square blocks) that are very unsafe (such as the area frequently called 'ghosttown'), but you quickly learn to differentiate a lack of wealth from a lack of safety.
aaroneous 17y ago
I've always found that the city looked its best when viewed from across the Bay in Oakland rather than up close in the city itself.
- hyperbovine 17y ago
  I agree, although Treasure Island and Alcatraz are both hard to top provided you can see anything. Very distinct views too.

gexla 17y ago

...be sure to wear some flowers in your hair. Sorry, couldn't help it. ;)

timcederman 17y ago

I loved living in Mountain View and being able to be in the city in 40 minutes whenever I felt like it, and enjoy a quiet, clean life in the suburbs, with a 5 minute commute. Lots of geek happenings in Palo Alto, Mountain View and Sunnyvale, some live gigs at Shoreline Amphitheatre (with discount/early tickets for residents!), live comedy at Rooster T Feather's (where the first Pong machine was installed), and amazing food at places like Alexander's Steakhouse (in Cupertino), made the South Bay very appealing. I had no problems driving up to the city for a mid-week show or event, and I could get a 4 star hotel room in the city for $70 on Priceline, meaning I could live in Mountain View during the week and stay in the city every weekend and it still be cheaper/more convenient than living in the city proper.

zand 17y ago

"As above, it’s easy to meet people through work or a common interest, but harder to meet random friendly strangers. Rarely in San Francisco has a kindness been done to me by a stranger..." This statement was demonstrated all too literally for me my first night out in SF as a proud, newly minted resident: It was a Friday night out with co-workers at my new job, and I had a blast. Really felt like it was easy to click with people, and that they were all so much more interesting than the "d-bags" I'm used to pretending to get along with at bars. Then again, these were co-workers--all very talented in their own right--and probably not an accurate sample. Contrast with what happened immediately following: on the way out of the bar, at around midnight (not too late), I was stopped and robbed by a gang. Mind you, this was a nice part of a "safe" neighborhood (Castro). Bad luck I guess, but the worst of it was trying to find a sympathetic soul to (at the very least) let me use a phone. As soon as it was apparent that I needed assistance, this well-dressed twentysomething became invisible. Even the cops couldn't have been less helpful, and thought it best to drop me off where it had happened. In most other cities I've been to around the world, I can't imagine folks being so apathetic.

jmtulloss 17y ago
I feel that this is closely related to the homeless problem. I positively avoid most people who look like they want to approach me on the street because they are almost always homeless. If they can get the point across that they're not homeless or asking for money, I open up quite a bit, but since that's not usually the case, I can be as cold as the next guy.
- zand 17y ago
  You make a valid point, which had occurred to me at the time, and after living here a bit longer I fully understand how easy (necessary?) it is to desensitize to those in need. But remember I was well-dressed, articulate and (mostly) sober. It all worked out in the end, just struck me as a bit disturbing: What if I'd been physically harmed? Would your average stranger be more or less likely to lend a hand?
- jlees 17y ago
  Living somewhere else where it's quite common to have a homeless person come up to you on the street and ramble on with a muttered 'excuse me madam sorry to bother you but...' low monotone that almost exclusively leads up to 'give me money' - yes. You learn what to say to instantly tell people you're not one of them. And it does lead to a general avoidance of other people on the street. Having said that, I'd like to think that if someone genuinely needed help it would be a little more obvious and they would get it...

grandalf 17y ago

His points are OK... But why harp on the sidewalks of SF when there is poo in every single hamburger made? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=2&pagewanted=3 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=2&#3... Bottom line: I don't think a person is qualified to rip on a whole city unless he has lived in at least 5 different neighborhoods and has actually made a bunch of friends. SF takes work to maximize. Portland is nice too, but more like a busy suburb than a city fwiw. I qualify that by saying that SF should be thought of as a cluster of neighborhoods rather than a city.

joshuaxls 17y ago

If you look at his tweets you see that he got miffed over LoveFest this weekend. And that he made a passive-aggressive post about making this post. http://twitter.com/al3x http://twitter.com/al3x He should reconsider living in a big city. Yes, SoMa had both LoveFest and Folsom St. Fair happen within the span of a week, but for the rest of the year it stays relatively quiet. Try Daly City. They don't have any festivals there.

novum 17y ago
I noticed this too. He was also miffed at the Folsom St. Fair. It's very interesting how social media gives you much more context around someone's blog posts.
- tptacek 17y ago
  The Folsom Street Fair is a bit off-putting, and that's not a "big city" "little city" thing --- I'm a city person.
jrockway 17y ago
Heh, interesting link. I started reading the tweets and got upset when there was no "downmod" button :)

geuis 17y ago

Sorry, but I've got the contrasted view. I moved to SF 2.5 years ago from the Ft. Lauderdale/Miami area. Other than Alex's comments about the weather, I simply disagree with just about everything else he's said. I've live all over the country. NY, Miami, and various parts of the Bible-belt. I've visited other cities like Chicago and Montreal. Moving out to SF was different than anywhere else I've lived. SF is not dirty. I've heard the comments before, from people who have grown up and only lived in the Bay area to those who come from big and small cities alike. NYC smells like garbage. Any time I've been there, it literally smells like week old garbage. The same thing for Miami, except much more humid. From the times I lived in the suburbs of Ft. Lauderdale to partying on South Beach and hanging out in Coconut Grove, to walking through the streets of NY and Chicago, the streets are dirty with trash and other random crap. And don't even get me started on the homeless problem in Miami. They make the homeless folk here in SF look like suburbanites. The air in SF is very, very clean. Its largely due to the constant breeze from the Pacific. Down in the valley is a bit different and gets pretty smoggy at times. Basically, there is no where else that I want to be. The culture out here is fantastic. The people ARE FRIENDLY. I live in Lower Haight and have never been mugged, robbed, or anything. Its pretty easy to stay safe here, just like anywhere. Don't be a fucking tard and walk through bad neighborhoods by yourself at 2 in the morning. Most of the problems people have, they cause themselves. It is definitely more expensive out here than back east, but the pay for tech jobs is way, way better. I am making roughly 3x the amount I was making in Florida for less work. I'm much closer to the 6 digit salary range than the low 5 digit like I used to be. I'm not sure what the problem people have with SF. This is one of the best places to live in the world, period.

alex_c 17y ago
Just because there are dirtier cities out there doesn't mean SF is clean (and, like any other city, there are dirtier areas and cleaner areas). Depends on where you come from, I guess. The author seems to come from Washington - I've only visited it briefly, but I definitely got more of a "clean" impression there than in SF. Coming from Toronto, that was definitely part of my first impression - "dirtier than I expected", and "whoa, I didn't expect so many homeless". I still love the city, but I don't think it's valid to dismiss the criticism just because there are worse cases out there.

notphilatall 17y ago

The author seems to have a hard time venturing out of tech circles to make social connections. Out of this arises a feeling of alienation and resentment for those who are enjoying themselves socially. I have plenty of liberal guilt, but I don't let it prevent me from celebrating the courage of gay couples or making costumes with friends for b2b (or going to lovefest and dancing until sunrise). Want something to do on a Saturday afternoon? Volunteer at a homeless shelter, if you care about social issues at that level. On the other hand, don't. Take your resentment with you to Portland and don't let it keep you from enjoying its wealth of cultural offerings, which are sure to dwarf San Francisco's attempt at socio-intellectual relevance.

breck 17y ago

> There is, I’ve found, precious little to do here, particularly if you’re not inclined towards sports or the outdoors. but if you are inclined towards sports or the outdoors, SF is the best place in the country. i went surfing and hiking last week. also went on a couple of double digit bike rides. not too many places back east like that.

TomOfTTB 17y ago
I don't think that's true. You can do everything you just said in pretty much every city in Southern California. Yet I don't have to contend with massive over population. In fact, I live in a suburb of Los Angeles and am no more than 20 miles away from everything you mentioned. But my city has a population density of only 2,137 people per square mile. While San Francisco on the other hand has a population density of 17,000 people per square mile. So I wouldn't throw around "best place in the country" so liberally.
davidw 17y ago
SF proper is terrible for most outdoors activities: you have to drive at the very least across the golden gate to do much of anything. Maybe it's ok for a Big City, but that's another reason why I wouldn't want to live in a Big City. I like outdoors activities, and don't like dealing with traffic just to participate in them. Of course if you're comparing with 'back east', sure it's probably not so bad, but if you've ever lived in a place that's really good for outdoors sports, SF isn't all that great.
- thesethings 17y ago
  Yeah. In Portland you don't have to first drive out of the city to start your experience. I can start on a bike trail in Portland, and riding out of the city is part of my activity. (Sidebar to visitors: check out the Springwater Corridor. Cyclists/walkers/horse riders)
- jamie 17y ago
  Don't forget that the weather here means you can comfortably go running year round. In fact, the san francisco half is in January. That's a huge advantage that SF-proper has. Soccer, running, and cycling are all activities you can do every single day in SF-proper.

davidw 17y ago

That really rings true for me. I enjoyed my time in San Francisco, but really got a sense that it was not a place in "equilibrium", so to speak. Families can't really live there unless there's a million dollars for a house somewhere, which means that you have to be pretty wealthy, or you're headed out to some other city in the bay area. SF was great for being single, but it just struck me as being a bit artificial. Here in Padova, there are wealthy people, poor people, young people, families, elderly people - a nice mix, in other words. Same with Portland. Also, he's right about so many people being in tech. Here in Padova, I have more friends who aren't in tech, and that makes me happy - I love to hang out with my tech friends too, and talk about this or that, but sometimes it's nice to get away from that, and in SF I never felt I could, despite trying. That said, as someone born and raised in Oregon, I just don't think I could deal with moving back to the rainy part of the state. Endless drizzly gray days get pretty depressing. They don't even feel very 'cozy'; winter in Innsbruck was way better; watching the snow fall or waking up to a brilliant blue day with snow covered mountains was much better than sloshing around in the dismal gray day after day. I'm actually not sure where I'd go if I went back to the US. Southern Oregon is nice in some ways, but not much going on at all in tech. Boulder looks appealing in several ways, but I've never been there, and it looks like they have a strong sense of 'smug' of their own, something I'm not a big fan of. Edit Let's see... other random notes * Portland, for me, had better food than SF. This was because I worked downtown in Portland and had a nice variety of affordable and diverse lunch options. Where I worked in SF didn't have nearly as good a selection. * Portland has Powells. Powells is awesome. * Portland is closer to more outdoor stuff, although I always got depressed in summer because of the thought of my precious few sunny days slipping by sitting in an office. Even with good technical gear, it's hard to stay warm in 5C and steady rain on a bike.

TomOfTTB 17y ago
At one point I stayed a couple months with some friends in San Francisco and I utterly hated it. When discussing it with my friends, who love it there, they gave me some very valuable insight. They basically said they believe most people would hate it in San Francisco but that's the whole point. Because the people who love it there don't really fit in many other places. It's a sanctuary for a certain type of culture and that's where its value is. Everyone deserves a place where they can fit in and for the young idealist, the aging hippie, and all the other odd balls that call that place home that's where they belong. But yes, as a consequence that means that a lot of other groups (most families for instance) don't belong. Not every environment has to be all inclusive.

davidmathers 17y ago

What sickens me most about San Francisco is not its dirt, or its large homeless population, or its questionable safety, but that locals and the city government seem to accept these circumstances. What al3x appears to not know: It's not about passive acceptance. There is a major political force that fights for the circumstances that he finds (and I find) so objectionable. In this mentally defective "progressive" movement--that can't tell the difference between helping the poor and helping poverty--cleaning up bad neighborhoods is called "gentrification" and fought tooth and nail. Likewise any plan to fight homelessness that isn't some variation of "give the homeless more free money." The result is a massive political deadlock between two sides that can never agree on anything. Perpetual warfare. The situation is, in reality, both much better and much worse than he understands. Better because we're not a city full of selfish bohemians. Worse because we are a backwards, provincial city with a deeply broken political culture. But, even though I also hate victorian architecture, I can't think of anywhere else I would rather live. Portland is way too homogenous and small-town for me. Edit: btw, I love my transit situation. I use a combination of bicycle (mostly), City CarShare (a fleet of cars at my disposal), Muni trains, and cabs. Not owning a car is a fairly high priority for me. And the only city with decent public transportation is Paris.

aaronbrethorst 17y ago
Try Seattle. Our usual response to gentrification is "oh that sucks...Oh hey, a new cupcake shop just opened up!" No really. Edit: plus, Ben Gibbard, the lead singer of Death Cab for Cutie, jogged past my place the other day. Evidently Zooey Deschanel now lives in my neighborhood. Most of my neighbors are not involved in tech. I'm sitting in the bar around the corner from my apartment writing this on a big couch drinking a great local microbrew while using their free wifi. If I really wanted a stable job, I'd go back to Microsoft. The only downside to this whole thing is that Zooey Deschanel is now married.
- davidmathers 17y ago
  Evidently Zooey Deschanel now lives in my neighborhood. I don't even know who that is. In LA you'd have movie star neighbors. The "famous" people in my neighborhood are internet micro-celebrities like Veronica Belmont and porn stars like Madison Young. Perfect, for me. Edit: ah, I see now that Zooey Deschanel is a movie star. Also, downvote wtf? Seriously, explain yourselves. I'm perplexed by your rejection of my comment.

tptacek 17y ago

Things you can get in San Francisco that you can't really get anywhere else: * An unplanned beach bonfire at 1AM * Solid dim sum for lunch on a weekday * Access to a vast open air drug market * A day on a 30 foot sailboat in April * Weekly tech meetups * Plants from a shop dedicated solely to freshwater aquarium plants * The drive down CA-85 to Half Moon Bay

jdminhbg 17y ago
For certain very restricted values of "anywhere," I suppose.

babyshake 17y ago

"Unreliable and inadequate public transit, paling in comparison to most any other major city in the world." Compared to the Chicago public transit system, the BART is much, much, much better.

natemartin 17y ago

Disclosure: This is coming from a San Francisco native. (one of those rare ones that still live in the city.) As soon as I read this sentence: "There may be some fog, or a bit of rain from time to time, but most of the time it’s sunny and hovering around the high 60s to lower 70s." I knew that the author of this piece has fallen into a trap that many people who move here for work fall into; they never venture away from certain neighborhoods, and this filters their view of the city. That sentence clued me in because of the word "sunny." Yes, the Mission and SOMA are sunny, but the rest of the city is foggy, nearly all the time. If the author made it over twin peaks out to the Sunset, or the Richmond, you might not find as much sunny weather, and you won't find startup offices, but you'll find the real neighborhoods of this city. Are there bad neighborhoods in the city? Of course, like any city. However, because our city is constrained geographically, there is no real transition zone between good and bad areas. You can be walking through a generally OK neighborhood (say at 4th and Howard), walk a couple of blocks, and be in one of the worst parts of the city (6th and Howard.) Since the Mission and SOMA are near these bad areas, if that's the only part of the city you frequent, then the city will seem dirty. Maybe he does have an issue that everyone he knows works in the tech field. It's really not hard to meet people in this city, maybe he should try striking up a conversation with a random stranger at a bar. I assure you most locals will be glad to talk. I have friends here that are teachers, police officers, fire-fighters in training, journalists, and yes, in the tech field as well. We have plenty of things to talk about besides the latest startup. I'd suggest that the author makes it out to the Richmond, or the Sunset. It's not dirty, there's plenty of restaurants, and plenty of people that don't work in tech fields. You'll find the real residents of the city there, not just people passing through. Though it won't be sunny. (Also, really? Beer is underrepresented here? Where has he been going? From his other blog post, he doesn't seem to like any west coast beers. You can't call our beer selection "underrepresented" if you don't like the local beer styles. There are literally hundreds of microbreweries in this state. He can't really be surprised that the most common beer will be local.) Edit: Also, if any of you reading this are planning on moving out to SF, or just moved out here, feel free to email me ( natmartin <at> gmail.com ), and I'd be glad to give you advice on neighborhoods to check out, things to do, or introduce you to some good people here.

petercooper 17y ago

It’s as if all parties don’t occupy the same city, see the same shameful sights on the street, and bear the same responsibilities to taxes and charity that might help address these deep-seated and difficult problems. If you think it's bad in SF, try Los Angeles. The different types of people mentioned don't just sit in different neighborhoods; they wall themselves off in almost San Francisco sized sub-cities. That said, I'd still choose to live in LA over SF any day of the week.

jamie 17y ago

I'm amazed how caught up in the SF tech-scene people can get. Sometimes, it feels like anyone who ever used vi or emacs moved to the Mission or SoMa. I know those are trendy places for engineers to live, but this city is really a bunch of small villages. Pac Heights, Nob Hill, NB, Russian Hill, Cole Valley, Bernal, Noe, and Hayes Valley are all wonderful, clean, "diverse" neighborhoods (well, diverse in the sense that your neighbors aren't engineers). I think a lot of people get myopic when they either live in the same neighborhood they work in or cluster too closely with people from their industry. While Lovefest was indeed this weekend, so was Oktoberfest, the Fillmore Food and Wine festival, and the Hardly Strictly Bluegrass festival. The Bluegrass festival was free, outside, and featured some amazing music. http://www.hardlystrictlybluegrass.com/ http://www.hardlystrictlybluegrass.com/ There's a lot to appreciate here in the city that isn't tech related!

siavosh 17y ago

I've been in NYC for the past 3 years, and about to move to SF in a couple weeks. Here's a reflection of nyc I've been working on: My first vivid image of New York City was from Salinger's A Catcher in the Rye. It was an intimidating and claustrophobic image. It was a city filled with sleepless characters running around in the cold trying to figure themselves out or trying to con someone somehow. To Salinger's credit, after almost three years living here, my first impression wasn't too far off. It's hard to find a city more stratified along class lines. Or a place more materialistic yet also so bohemian. A city of greed and poverty but also of immense heart and empathy. It is a city to suite every mood while at times suiting none. A city of everything. A city you want to describe as a muse but stop when it seems it could not be any more machine like and heartless. Among its eight million inhabitants, it breeds patience out of necessity but can explode with anger without warning. And when it does, it may be rude and it may be ugly, but it does not fester and you learn that in New York nothing is personal. If you fly into La Guardia in early autumn, the lights of the city make the overcast clouds glow a synthetic orange. It reminds you the city is vibrant and will be long after you decide to leave. The lights dazzle and mystify me still. Flying in for one of the last times before i leave for the other city on the coast, I don't try to find the places I know but scan the skyline for places I may have never been. Maybe that's the New York mystique, at least for me. After three years, those lights still look alien. When I look back, I don't think of what I did but of the so many things left undone. This is my lasting impression of this city, and it leaves me not with regret but instead hope, for I can always return as if it were my first time.