[tptacek]

Spent several years in San Francisco. Hated it. Moved back to the midwest (Ann Arbor, then back home to Chicago).

What don't I like about SFBay? With the caveat that it's been almost 10 years since I lived there, let me make you a list:

* It's expensive. What that means is, you have fewer options on where to live, and the options aren't as nice.

* Apart from tacos, the casual food options are much worse. Concrete example: where do you go for late dinner after a show, besides a diner in the Castro and Mel's?

* There are very few decent music venues. Among my many complaints about SF, this is one that appears to have gotten much worse since I left; read JWZ's blog on SF's "war on fun".

* It is impossible to catch a cab.

* It is very difficult (and dangerous) to park. My car was towed in San Francisco and lost by the city for over a month.

* San Francisco is deceptively small. Deceptive, because SFBay is a major metro area that happens to sprawl from a small urban core. What this means is that many of your friends who ostensibly live in the same "place" as you are actually an hour's drive each way to get to.

* Similarly, many (technically, most) of the jobs in the "area" are actually a 1+ hour commute each way from your house. At the time, I didn't know anybody who took the train from San Francisco to South Bay; maybe that's changed, but my perception is everyone just drives and puts up with the horrible commute. 280 sure is pretty sometimes, though.

* It's filthy. I've been back recently and know this to still be true: San Francisco has a maintenance problem, and it's different and worse than Manhattan. Manhattan feels like you're always picking your way through someone's gigantic cluttered basement. This alters your expectations of the environment and makes bags of garbage on the street easier to take. San Francisco is flat and open and that makes the piles of human feces somehow harder to take.

* Public transportation in San Francisco, is a joke compared to NYC or Chicago or even Seattle. It achieves Houstonian levels of walkability despite a miniscule footprint.

* The Haight and the stretch of Golden Gate Park right off the Haight is disgusting. I'm in favor of legalization, but if we're going to do it with red light districts, we should at least cordon them off and make that clear.

* Too much of San Francisco is a tourist trap. Every big city has tourist areas, but it's more painful in San Francisco because the city is so small. In NYC and Chicago there are actual Italian restaurant neighborhoods and they aren't full of frat boys.

* San Francisco doesn't have neighborhoods like other cities do. People tend to counter this by saying "but the inner sunset is totally different from the outer sunset". When's the last time they had a block party? How many of their neighbors have they entertained in their houses in the last year?

* There are no seasons (ok, there's "grey" season and "yellow" season). It's about to be Autumn here in Chicago. Autumn in the midwest is amazing and I missed it, a lot.

* Everyone's in tech. This makes the social scene boring and incestuous. Also, unless you build products that serve the echo chamber, it makes it harder to sell to companies, because the industries in San Francisco aren't diverse.

I'm trying hard with this list not to ding San Francisco for things that other cities excel at. It's not reasonable to hate a city for not meeting the highest bars set by other cities. For instance, fine dining in San Francisco is, if you properly exclude Yountville from your definition of "San Francisco", simply not as good as NYC or even Chicago. San Francisco doesn't have world-class museums. It doesn't have a noteworthy theater scene, or (to my knowledge) excellence in any of the performing arts. But then, Chicago doesn't have redwood forests or beaches you can set bonfires on with no notice.

[seldo]

Wow. I guess it's all about what you're used to. I've only ever lived in London (and Trinidad), and my experience was mostly opposite. Remember, this is all relative to London:

* SF is super, super cheap. My apartment was the same size for half the price and in a much better area.

* Food is so plentiful and cheap, it is EVERYWHERE. The portion of my budget devoted to food fell by 75%, even though I eat out all the time. The range of cuisines and the quality compares well, too, even though London is 10x the size.

* I don't go out to gigs much, so no claims here.

* Cabs are about 20% of the price, and you can summon them with an iPhone app. Amazing.

* Parking: I've never driven in either city.

* Size: no question that people who live down-peninsula might as well be in another country. See: public transit.

* Commute: this does indeed suck. My solution was to quit and get a job in the city itself.

* Dirty: no question, it's dirty. And very poorly governed in a number of ways. London has much more adult supervision.

* Public transit: hoo-boy is it terrible. Ameliorated somewhat by cabs being cheap. But if you want to get down-peninsula caltrain is ridiculous for somebody used to London-style commuter rail.

* Haight: ...then don't live in the Haight? Every city has bad areas.

* Tourist traps: similarly, every city has these. In San Francisco they are usefully separate from the areas I actually like to visit, so I can ignore them, while Leicester Square/Oxford Circus are both working districts AND tourist traps.

* Neighbourhoods: London is a dense core with hundreds of miles of pointless, characterless suburbs in zones 3 through 5. San Francisco has distinct, self-sufficient neighbourhoods with totally different characters. This was one of the biggest differences I found when I moved. As for block parties... well, we had one two weeks ago, but I don't really see the point of them anyway. I don't hang out with people primarily based on their geographical proximity to me.

* Seasons: it's always spring! I grew up in the tropics, so I always hated winter, and San Francisco doesn't have one, so that's fine with me.

* Tech: the city is full of nerds. But there's also an incredibly vibrant and mostly unpretentious tech-arts scene, which I love.

Finally, as one of The Gays, there's no city more inclusive and open-minded of everyone -- sometimes hilariously so.

[tptacek]

I'm not at all surprised to hear someone point out that London is more expensive than San Francisco. I am shocked to hear someone from London say that San Francisco has better cab service.

[nphase]

I think his version of "better cab service" is different than yours. You think of better cab service as being able to walk outside and immediately catch one. He thinks of better cab service as easily summoning one from his smartphone. (Seems like a very SF-esque solution to the problem, no?)

[seldo]

Well, I also live in the Mission next to Valencia, where it is ludicrously easy to catch a cab, though I appreciate that it's impossible to catch them in, e.g., Sunset, so I didn't mention it as an advantage.

Of course, in London you literally can't catch a black cab outside of the center (they're not even allowed to do so past a certain radius) so you have to call a minicab. So SF still wins.

[MC27]

London is so well integrated that there's little reason to use a taxi. That's why you have to call to book one, because most people use them for unusual trips, such as going to the airport with a lot of luggage, attending an event with formal wear etc. Much cheaper and quicker to use the tube.

[enf]

A map of where in San Francisco people succeed in catching taxis in practice, if you want it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4956860071/in/set-721...

[smallblacksun]

"San Francisco is flat and open and that makes the piles of human feces somehow harder to take."

I've heard San Francisco called a lot of things, but "flat" is not one of them. Am I misunderstanding you here?

[tptacek]

You're right. Flat was a bad word. I'm referring to the west coast style of architecture, where things are built "out" instead of "up"; the landscape itself though is charmingly bumpy.

[evgen]

The original question was about the bay area and not necessarily SF itself. You have identified several downsides to living in SF, but few of them apply to the bay area as a whole. In fact, one can walk down the list to see that most of them are very specific to living in SF.

* [...] fine dining in San Francisco is, if you properly exclude Yountville from your definition of "San Francisco", simply not as good as NYC or even Chicago.

Let's revisit this one after Michelin hands out stars for Chicago in November. I am betting that just the south bay will have more than the entirety of Chicago. (Seriously, other than Alinea you really don't have fine dining in Chicago :)

* San Francisco doesn't have world-class museums.

The SF bay area has a lot of good museums and several world-class ones for specific niches -- the Monterey Bay aquarium is easily the equal of the Shedd and The Tech in San Jose and Computer History Museum in Mountain View are some of the best technology museums in the world. For art we have fewer impressionists, but much better asian art.

* It doesn't have a noteworthy theater scene, or (to my knowledge) excellence in any of the performing arts.

This is one of those odd things where I would have said the same thing about Chicago in comparison to San Francisco. SF Opera is not the Met, but more than a few people would put it above the Lyric Opera in most rankings. SF tends to fall down a bit when it comes to plays (ACT being the local exception to this general rule) but does better than most places when you add musical theatre into the mix. Comedy is really the only performing art that Chicago seems to do better than the bay area...

[dzlobin]

Seriously, other than Alinea you really don't have fine dining in Chicago

Moto, Schwa l20 blackbird publican avec

Those are just off the top of my head.

[tptacek]

Avenues Topolo Everest Graham Elliot Bonsoiree Trotters Nomades Tru mk Nomi Vie... is this even an argument worth dignifying?

[dzlobin]

Agreed.

btw, since I know your tastes lie close to mine, are you coming to Lincoln soon or what?

[evgen]

It was a joke :)

OTOH, I could easily put together a similar list of great restaurants in the bay area if you happen to visit. Let's wait until a reputable third party provides a basis for comparison before we continue poking each other with the trolling stick.

[tptacek]

I'll admit that I don't pay attention to opera and that you may have me there, but the Chicago Symphony Orchestra trounces SFS in every ranking I can find (CSO tops the Philharmonic in some credible reviews, so this isn't a fair fight).

You also can't say "SF tends to fall down when it comes to plays" and then in the same sentence say "comedy is the only performing art that Chicago does better in"; Chicago has a vibrant theater scene, and while it isn't NYC, nothing is.

So, where does that leave us?

Opera: SF > Chicago

Theater: Chicago > SF

Comedy: Chicago > SF

Symphony: Chicago > SF

Look, I get that we're trolling each other here, though. San Francisco is a bad place to see new comedy, but it clearly has credible opera and symphony. It's not a ding on San Francisco that "you can't hear good classical music".

[evgen]

I think that in the midst of various edits I lost track of the point I was trying to make in that section about performing arts. I was not conceding theatre, just aiming to point out that there are some very good theatrical companies in SF and a batch of mediocrity. In SF the patronage scene seems to go like this: Opera > ACT > Ballet > SFS > other theatrical companies. I am not sure why this is the case, but people with bluer blood than mine have deigned it to be so.

It seems that in most of these performing arts rankings you have NYC at the top, LA a long way down the scale for a lot of things (mostly as remnants and/or supporting players for the movie biz) and below that places like Chicago, SF, and Boston fighting it out for third place in various categories.

Yes, you will see a better comedy show in Chicago, catch a better opera or weird performance art piece in SF, and probably hear a better symphony in Boston. Either way, I would say that SF is far from the performing arts wasteland you originally suggested...

[tlrobinson]

The Haight isn't that bad, I certainly wouldn't call it a red light district. I lived a block from Haight and Ashbury for a year, and while the fauxbos can be annoying they're mostly harmless.

Tenderloin is much scarier. My friend got punched in the face by a random guy walking down the street.

[rdouble]

I lived around the corner from the Haight, too and I'm not sure what would make the area a "red light district." The hippie hill drum circle? Guys selling weed? American Apparel? Ben and Jerry's? The Gap?

The worst aspect of the Haight is the gauntlet of gutter punks between Cole and Clayton. It's actually a very nice, dare I say, "gentrified" area, aside from that particular stretch.

[tptacek]

I'm referring to the open-air drug market (and, more importantly, the crowd that market attracts). I'm not suggesting that it's a haven for prostitutes.

The drugs don't bother me; it's the people sitting on the curbs, pissing on the sidewalks, accosting strangers for change, offering drugs, asking for drugs, hiding in the bushes, howling at the moon that bother me.

Ironically, I've never had a problem in the Tenderloin. I lived in SOMA for a year and walked from there through the Tenderloin to my office.

[sabj]

I've had bad problems in the Tenderloin but during the daytime I really enjoy upper / lower haight, find it to be very lovely. Beautiful houses and lots of nice shops and restaurants.

[uuilly]

As an SF resident I concur w/ most of what you're saying. For me it's not a deal breaker, but I can see how it could be. Almost every one of your bullet points can be explained by the phrase, "Liberalism gone nuclear."

[Expensive] -> Rent control and Private property restrictions. Housing supply is limited w/ endless permits and restrictions on building additions or subdividing space. And rent controls not only create artificial scarcity by not allowing price to rise w/ demand, but they also encourage people to stay in large places long after they need them. Imagine what the web would look like if you had to wait for months for a zoning board to approve your server expansion.

[Casual Food] -> Wait staff must be given minimum wage and health insurance whereas the wait staff in most other cities live off tips. What happens is restaurants become EXTREMELY expensive to run and they usually fire the wait staff at lower end places. You'll notice the order at register and take a number tag game played a lot to get around it. I know a few high end chefs who had to move their restaurants to Oakland b/c their waiters made more than them.

[Music] -> Don't have anything for you on this one.

[Cabs] -> Government set prices are too low. Demand exceeds supply at that price and there is an artificial shortage.

[Parking] -> Tickets are one of the most reliable ways to pay for all the hair-brained social experiments that take place here.

[Small] -> Fixed housing supply. See rent control / private property restrictions.

[Commute] -> I don't have an easy explanation.

[Filthy] -> Amen. We don't have a homeless problem we have a zombie problem. Your run of the mill drug addict is seen as a victim rather than a scourge. He is given food, money and shelter by the government to continue his habit. My friend worked for a non-profit in the Tenderloin that offered shelter, clothes, showers, haircuts and job help to anyone indefinitely as long as they submitted to drug tests. Their beds in 3 buildings were always empty and they shut down.

[Public Transpo] -> Make a bus driver too expensive by catering too much to the unions and busses have to get bigger. It's the opposite effect of the long tail. Instead of many small vans and more custom routes, you have few huge routes that serve nobody very well. Also the homeless ride the bus for free.

[Haight] -> In the late 60's the Grateful Dead and their followers began to get sketched out living there. Heroin and crime have been the norm there for years. It's foul and there is no police presence.

All of these policies had very good intentions. But the intention of a policy does not determine it's outcome. Furthermore, almost none of their side effects are ever measured by the government. It's fine if you want to experiment, but at least measure the result.

[houseabsolute]

Re: cabs, it seems like the price is plenty high from the perspective of a buyer. The real problem I suspect is that the city limits the number of medallions issued to 1,500 per year. There are people who wait years to get a medallion.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/iteam&id=6... -- "The city of San Francisco limits the number of cabs on the streets by handing out 1,500 permits or 'taxi medallions.' Drivers on the list wait up to 10 years to get one."

[uuilly]

Wow, nice find. So they fix the price AND the supply. Our urban overlords have reached a Soviet level of confidence in their ability to manage an economy.

[houseabsolute]

The cabbies are in on it too. The prices are higher than they would probably be in a truly free market for cab fares, and that situation can be maintained more easily when the incumbents can prevent new competitors from entering the market.

[uuilly]

Oh for sure:

cartel |kärˈtel| noun an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition : the Colombian drug cartels. • chiefly historical a coalition or cooperative arrangement between political parties intended to promote a mutual interest.

[houseabsolute]

From Adam Smith:

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public." - Adam Smith

[mtviewdave]

>Rent control and Private property restrictions.

San Francisco isn't expensive because of rent control. San Francisco is expensive because the entire SF Bay Area is expensive. Rent control doesn't help, but there are plenty of places in the Bay Area that have never had rent control, and yet are expensive (and indeed were expensive long before San Francisco was).

[michaelhalligan]

If rent control went away along with the Ellis act, in 5 years the average rent in San Francisco would be 15% lower than what it is today. Rent control very severely distorts both the rental and the real estate market in many direct and indirect ways.

[orblivion]

> * It's about to be Autumn here in Chicago. Autumn in the midwest is amazing and I missed it, a lot.

I live in Chicago and I still miss it, because I keep blinking every year. I feel like I have to go back to Minnesota to see a real autumn.

[johnrob]

The biggest problem with SF is that it's in the state of California. A lot of your disappointment resides in that fatal flaw... folks who come from within the state have much lower expectations and higher opinions ;)

[mattmiller]

SF is the embodiment of what you don't like about CA. In southern CA (read San Diego) politics are a lot more centered.

[runjake]

Tom,

This is golden. Thanks for taking the time!

[tptacek]

Thanks. In fairness, I can make a list of things I liked about San Francisco too:

* Beach bonfires on weeknights.

* The drive to Monterey. Also, the drive to Half Moon Bay for Halloween pumpkins in a very nice car. There is no better city in the US to own a nice car in.

* Dim sum.

* Freshwater aquarium supplies.

* I used to really like Zeitgeist, although I hear it's gone downhill. The last time I was in town, SF seemed to have a decent cocktail scene going.

* SFBay in general has unusually good access to produce and local protein, if you go out of your way to get it; no, you can't go to Whole Foods or Berkeley Bowl and get something better than you can in Chicago --- but if you want (say) 20 duck legs for confit, there's no cheaper place to get them than in San Francisco.

* SFBay has two amazing campuses to bum around (Stanford and Berkeley) and Chicago only has one.

Unfortunately, I just spent 4 minutes trying to add something to that list and couldn't. I could go on, and on, and on, and on about Chicago. Or NYC. I think --- I can't promise, but I think --- that I could put Ann Arbor head to head with San Francisco and run it to a draw.

[wtracy]

Agreed on aquarium supplies.

Apparently the marine aquarium wholesalers have the whole of the continental U.S. divided into five "zones". The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the zones. :-)

[drbaskin]

Which campus in Chicago are you referring to? I've enjoyed bumming around NU, UC, and UIC at least as much as I enjoyed bumming around Stanford. I know, NU is not technically in Chicago, but it is as close to the loop as Stanford is to SF.

[tptacek]

I lived in Evanston for a couple years and NWU never felt like a "campus" to me; more of a college-y suburb.

I actually went to UIC, and went to St. Ignatius for high school, just blocks away from UIC campus. I can't imagine going there for fun.

The University of Chicago campus is a destination campus. It's actually pretty amazing. It has every bit as much character as Stanford; you could totally go there just to hang out and read a book.

[drbaskin]

I'm partial to the University of Chicago, so you won't get any disagreement there.

Evanston is new to me, but the campus of NU seems very pleasant -- I really like the piece of lakefront path that seems integrated into campus. Of course, the undergraduates are just starting to return, so it might be very different in a few days.

As for UIC, my friends and I would always bowl there as undergraduates, and some of the restaurants on Taylor street were much better than you could get in Hyde Park for similar prices. In other words, at least one group of undergraduates at UC would go to that area for fun.

[evgen]

Strange, as I seem to find that the UCB and Stanford campuses are about as radically different as NWU and UofC. Stanford and Northwestern both have a similar insulated feel -- they existed before the suburban growth that surrounds them and as a student you can go weeks at a time without leaving the campus. UofC and Berkeley are both in the middle of an urban zone that existed before the school and have had to fight for every square foot of campus space; at both places it is hard to ignore the fact that you are crossing chunks of "city" to get between some university buildings.

[tptacek]

It's weird, because I'd say the opposite; UofC feels more like Stanford to me, UCB feels more like NWU.

Hyde Park is part of Chicago, but it's an isolated part; it barely has train connectivity (unlike NWU), and it's walled off from the Loop by housing and light industry that is only now started to be gentrified away.

(I grew up on the south side, lived in Evanston, and had friends in Hyde Park in high school, but I didn't actually go to UofC).

[joshu]

I haven't had Dim Sum in the bay area that even approaches the best in NYC. Where are you going?

[tptacek]

It was all Yank Sing and Ton Kiang when I was there... but I'm Chicago, not NYC. NYC dim sum may very well smite the rest of the country.

[justinchen]

You need to come to the LA area for dim sum in Monterey Park or San Gabriel.

[joshu]

I guess Yank Sing is quite good. Just so expensive...