San Francisco is overpriced, over-hped, and most of all OVERRATED.

The folks who diss SF in this 'Quick Topic' are absolutely correct! I've lived on the West Coast since '92, mostly in Seattle, now in Portland, as well as a year in SF (thank god only a year--that was MORE than enough!). Well, what can I say? At least I went there, gave it a go, and got it out of my system once and for all. Ugh. So overcrowded and impersonal. The cost of housing DEFINITELY does not reflect of VALUE of living there. You can easily get the same progressive, cosmopolitan, "left coast" vibe living in Portland or Seattle for a faaaar more reasonable price. San Francisco sucks. Why? Because while it might have been AWESOME for Jack Kerouack et al back in the 50's or 60's, it has long since lost it's lustre and the rabid capitalist scum (read that real estate assholes) have ruined it for counter-cultural artsy types. Let's face it: how can artists who are already totally underpaid in the USA really hope to make art, be in a band, write, etc. when they are ALWAYS having to worry about making rent? Fucking ridiculous, this $1,000/mo for an effin' studio apartment! Fuck that shit. Artists, leftists, and other creatives should leave SF in droves, and they are. I call bullshit on being fleeced by real estate assholes just to live in a huge, stinking, tourist trap that SF is. Overpriced, over-hyped, and over-crowded. Old, cool, awesome SF died back in 1970. That's the SF I will always love and hold dear in my mind. The SF of today is a shadow of it's former, much lovlier self.

--Snazmo

I have spent the last 4.5 years in SF as an art student at the Academy of Art College. While I grew from my time here, SF itself has left me underwhelmed.

What remains of the counter-culture the city is famous for, is more of a jaded, grungy, hippie-fallout that have lost the ideals that once were. Even in an art school, I find the energetic eccentricities to be particularly low. San Francisco is past its prime.

Haight-Ashbury has a GAP and a Ben & Jerry's on the intersection. Downtown is most notable for its abundance of smelly obnoxious bums. Everything costs more than anywhere else in the US (except perhaps NY). The metermaids are vicious to the point of rabid. Oh, and it's cold and foggy all the time.

Really the only reason the "Peace & love" monacker has stuck on SF is that it brings hordes of mulling tourists.

I have often wondered where the progressive cities are today, where the next "big thing" is coming from... I would have loved to live here in the 60's, but this place is only sliding farther from that energetic ideal.

Where are the boom towns of today? I would love to hear about any cool places anyone else knows about...

Thanks

Off-topic but I'm dying to know from Sheri E who and where the good fishmonger is in the Sunset. I need a good fishmonger. Honest. Email if you'd like: meg AT megnut.com

Something Tom hints at that needs amplification:

The hills! The farging HILLS! They look good from down below, they look good from the Bay, they make everything else look good when you're on 'em. Some have buildings, some are nice and green, one set sprouts a beautiful austere bridge to another, browner set 'o hills.

I grew up on congested Long Island; I find there's something utterly crushing and claustrophobic and directionless about flat, developed urban / suburban areas. I really got a kick out of Pittsburgh, the 3D city where I went to grad school, and San Fran, well DAMN, that's a city with lots of vertical relief!

When you go to Paris, or London, or New York, you immediately know you're in a 'world class' city. It just feels that way. Of all the West coast cities, San Francisco comes close but not quite. Kind of like Chicago with a 3rd dimension.

I visited a couple of years ago, and was struck by how far downhill the downtown area had gone, at least in comparison to my previous visit say 10 years earlier - aforementioned street people the main detraction. Cured any ideas I had about moving there (would never have considered the endless suburbia of Silicon Valley, gives me the willies just thinking about it.)

Ahahahaha!

I'm glad the invasion of internet silliness occurred. It was a bit like Spring Break for about three years. And it left my condo worth several hundred $k more than it was back when me and my friends were just enjoying our geek lives!

I think that indoorsy people, who judge a place mostly by its urban whatever, tend to overlook the cool outdoors stuff we have here. Surfing, hanggliding, mountainbiking, sailing, easy access to skiing, peakbagging, etc..

Nick, nice to see you here. That way we can beat you senseless in person. Much better.

I want to bruise you about two things in particular:

1) Please don't blame a region for what is said about it in Red Herring and Wired. These sentences -- "But, for a brief moment, SF/SV had an idea of itself as the center of the new world. The city set ambitious goals for itself. It failed, like a startup that can't live up to its own hype." -- indicate that you bought some of that hype yourself. Never, never confuse regular city inhabitants with Willie Brown (that was one of the few things in your piece that I agreed with). There's a big difference between a real city and its boosterism. It's like me thinking New York is crime-free because Giuliani turned Times Square into a theme park.

2) "...many San Francisco old-timers like the fact that it's a village..." Ah, what charming condescension. It's not a village. It's a city. Yes, it's smaller than New York, London, or Los Angeles, three of the largest cities in the world. But this blaming SF for not being NYC, London, or LA, well, it's like blaming a California roll for not being a knish.

I mean, if you simply said, "I miss New York (or LA, or whichever)," that'd be different. Fine, lots to miss. I don't think anyone here is saying SF is the same as London. I only lived in London for a year, more than a decade ago, and I still miss it. But it's hard for me to suffer much when here I can still get option paralysis any day of the week. (Thanks for that term, Zed.)

If you're pining for the fjords, get on the boat to Norway. But don't blame San Francisco Bay for not being the fjords. It wasn't the fjords when you got here, no matter what they said in the brochure. If you'd looked outside your cage, you could have figured that out for yourself.

I'm sure you have beautiful plumage.

Edited by author 02-15-2002 06:33 PM
I like how, according to Nick, San Francisco is "at the northern end of Silicon Valley." For the record, SF is not at the northern end of anything; it is not an appendage.

One cannot compare SF to any of the cities listed below. And why would one want to? Why does it need to "stack up"? It's not like any other city in the world and that is one reason why it is considered a mecca for many, many people.

This stereotyping of our neighborhoods indicates that he doesn't really know what goes on here. First of all, the Sunset is rich in many cultures. Not just Chinese. Does he assume that all people with slanted eyes come from China? We have Vietnamese, Japanese, Hong Kong People, Malay, Korean, Mainland Chinese, Taiwanese, etc. etc. etc. in our neighborhood. Those are in addition to Russians, Irish, Middle Eastern and an overall international mix. Including little old me from Los Angeles. Our local fishmonger is a Parisian transplant.

I think the seperatist ghetto is in Denton's mind. He sees somebody who speaks Spanish and assumes they are Mexican. The Mission happens to be another neighborhood that is diversely populated.

And those "wilder writers" moved to L.A. when people like Denton started showing up. I have many friends who were part of that siliconvalleyboomtime exodus to L.A., New Orleans, and NYC.

Denton's editorial is rife with fallacy but I don't have time to go point for point.

I don't think it's fair to cast such disparaging criticisms of a city one doesn't really know. Come to think of it, this reminds me of the Texans in Paris who claimed that Houston was better because:

1. There was more parking.
2. They had airconditioning.

Oh, and I entertain almost every weekend. Come to one of my dinner parties and see what it's all about. Or is the Sunset too foggy for you, Mr. Denton?

"Personal discovery is rarely interesting and, in most normal cities, robustly ignored"

Perhaps Nick could dismiss SF as a "City With Too Much Time On Its Hands."

You know what, you're right. San Francisco is a helluva lot better than most American cities. I'm comparing it to New York, London, or Los Angeles. By that standard, unfair as it may be, San Francisco doesn't stack up.

True, many San Francisco old-timers like the fact that it's a village. They don't want it to be New York. But, for a brief moment, SF/SV had an idea of itself as the center of the new world. The city set ambitious goals for itself. It failed, like a startup that can't live up to its own hype.

nick@nickdenton.org

I read the article late last night, and was all set to rant after a good night's sleep, but BeltedSwiss pretty much covered my points.

I did find it ironic that two entries after condemning the idea of making homelessness illegal, Cory was endorsing an article criticizing San Francisco, a city that routinely harasses the homeless, trashes their encampments and carts, etc., for its lax tolerance of "those people."

And I gotta wonder... how much culture do you need? Within convenient biking distance of my house in the middle of Berkeley, I already have so many interesting choices every weekend that it could induce option paralysis. And San Francisco has more -- more than anyone could possibly pursue, enough for potential option paralysis every day of the week. Why is not having even _more_ choices than anyone could possibly pursue so intolerable?

Yeah, SF isn't Manhattan. If your define adequately cool as Manhattan, then SF isn't adequately cool. A great triumph of argument by definition.

By some stereotypes I'm a local villain... moved to Berkeley from the East Coast late in '95, and worked for web startups in San Francisco. But I didn't come here to get rich quick; I fell in love with Berkeley when I first visited in '91, and had been planning to move here since.

Sure, the area has flaws. Sure, there are interesting things going on elsewhere, too. But I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

Damn, a telemarketer woke me up. Don't worry, I promise not to rant like that again.

But Sighmoan... the Mission is probably the place _least_ like that article in all of SF. I mean, the Mission is pretty big, but if you're anywhere near the Market-Cesar Chavez-Folsom-Duboce quadrangle you're within easy walking distance of a truly astounding multi-ethnic array of restaurants, coffeehouses, bookstores, performance spaces, small clubs, bars, small weird shops, and, uh, people. Open late, too, with good transit.

Honestly, if that kind of stuff isn't what you're looking for I'd be interested to know what you do want. Saying that non-hostilely, because I genuinely don't understand.

I know the yoyo guy if hes what san francisco has to offer Im glad I dont live there.

I thought the article was, like totally lame.

I grew up in the Bay Area and I am sick of smart out-of staters coming
here an grabbing all the good jobs. Then complaining because they don't fit into San Francisco. They have
no plans on staying, they have no respect for San Francisco and California.
They are like rapists who get what they want and then call
you a slut.

If you want to enjoy SF, you gotta get away from all the outsiders. How many real San Franciscians did the author meet?

Yes, that makes me a xenophobe toward out-of-staters and foreigners. If you had seen *your* state taken
over by these people you would be appalled
.

I live in The Mission, and, believe it, every word of that column is painfully true. I stay here because it's difficult to find a place that sucks less where a non-driving slacker like me can survive longer than 15 minutes.

Alison, I'm staying for a very good job, one that makes lviing in the city worthwhile.

Cory, if you're not a big fan of SF, why not move? I mean, there are plenty of things I don't like about London, but if, taking everything into account, I didn't think it was the best place I could possibly live then I would move. One of the delights of adulthood is the freedom to adjust one's personal environment to suit.

I dunno, Klint. Maybe London or New York? Paris? Ulan Bator?

Eeeeh, these "San Francisco sucks" articles always bug me. (Note: I don't live in San Francisco at the moment, but in one of those bedroom cities down the Peninsula.) Frankly, I'm tired of them.

First, the writer conflates San Francisco and Silicon Valley, which might be part of the same extended region but are actually, like, 40 miles apart. Different cultures. What sort of nightlife did this guy expect in Silicon Valley, for heaven's sake? There's no there there yet, if ever. Just picking up a copy of Metro before he moved in would have told him that. And saying that "all X's in San Francisco live in X", whatta maroon. Wake up, wake up, there are ethnic enclaves in every last major urban center, you lazyminded writer, you.

And if the writer ever left his apartment -- when your friends are stuck at work, go out on your own, okay? -- he'd discover fun, arty things to do not just in San Francisco but in the East Bay (which harbors more weirdass stuff than we realize, because weirdass people can afford to live there).

It's not exactly news that San Francisco is smaller than New York, or London, or Los Angeles. If you want those cities, move there. Further note: I'm from Los Angeles, I've spent considerable time in New York, and I've lived in London; you pay a price for each city's particular strengths. For instance, LA is "more culturally vibrant" only in certain ways, and you often have to drive more than an hour to wherever you want to vibrate. London is cool, but it's crumbling around the edges. New York has all that stuff going, but it also never shuts up.

The sad truth is, if you want to have a constant stream of Anglophone urban amenities available to you 24 hours a day, no more than a few blocks from 24/7 public transportation, no matter what, you probably need to move to New York. At which point you get the other aspects of New York.

Which reminds me, don't even get me started on the "San Francisco center taken over by 5,000 homeless people" bullshit. Very briefly, Giuliani's path for dealing with the homeless is not a good model, and was shut down by the courts.

Pant, pant, pant. Thanks for allowing me to get that rant off my chest. It helped distract me from the angst from another project. Work avoidance is a wonderful thing.

So, if San Francisco's lame, what's cool?

About twelve years back, I was a traveling sales trainer for a PC company. One assignment took me to a bland midwestern city. Let's call it . . . Witchita. There was a plaque in the hotel elevator touting the Skyline Lounge or somesuch . . . a bar on the top floor. The big attraction was a lady piano player named Doris. She looked kind of big and well into middle age. "Wow, how wonderfully lame!" I thought, "I bet this is the big night spot! Sneer! Smirk!"

At the training the next day, one of the sales guys at Silo asked me where I'd been put up. I mentioned the hotel's name. "WOW!" he said, "Did you go see Doris!?!?"

And then there was the time in Tulsa with the hotel hosting International Order of the Daughters of Job . . .

But anyway . . . I'll take a place like San Francisco, with all the mess and bums and pretentious impractical jackass activists and technoyuppies, over the clusters of strip-malls, subdivisions, and dead-after-six pseudo-downtowns that pass for cities in most of the country.

Cripes, I just moved to Fairly Hip and Very Livable Portland, and DANG . . . one public TV station? One public radio station? Coyotes slipping onto the light rail line to nap?

Either that guy doesn't live here or the Chinese don't know they all live in the Sunset. And culturally lagging? Hah! What about that musical with all the big hats!