[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...