[inferiorhuman]

All the "SF is a dystopian nightmare" posts are referring to a few downtown neighborhoods which represent probably less than 5% of the city by land area.

LOL

Downtown neighborhoods? Like the Haight? Potrero? SOMA? the Tenderloin? the Mission? Western Addition? Fisherman's Wharf / Aquatic Park? Homelessness and grime isn't endemic to "downtown" San Francisco. Most of the tent cities I've seen in San Francisco are in SOMA, but even walking from the inner mission to market at night you'll find plenty of sidewalk dwellers.

[danenania]

Most of those neighborhoods are downtown... the others have some issues but aren't what people are referring to when they say "dystopian nightmare". That's mainly just Tenderloin/Soma/Civic Center, and a bit that radiates into adjoining neighborhoods from there.

Moderate homelessness is sadly an issue in any large Western city, so if you want to avoid it completely, you'll have to go to a smaller city or the suburbs (or somewhere with authoritarian policies). There also aren't any neighborhoods in Manhattan or central London/Paris/Sydney/etc. where you won't find any homeless people or some grime on the streets.

[inferiorhuman]

Most of those neighborhoods are downtown

None of those neighborhoods are downtown, check a map. Whoever did the wikipedia box lumps SOMA and TL in with little alleyways in the Financial District (a.k.a. downtown) that they're trying to pass off as neighborhoods.

the others have some issues

Some issues? When I was working in Potrero we had a bike chop shop right behind the building and 3-4 encampments within a 2 minute walk. Unlike when I worked in the Tenderloin the folks out in Potrero weren't junkies. Instead they presented with what seemed like schizophrenia. There was a lot more screaming and fighting than I was used to.

The Haight (which is also not downtown) has been luring street kids for more than half a century. In my time in the city the Haight is consistently one of the least pleasant places to walk around because the homeless folks were dramatically more aggressive than other parts of the city.

SOMA? Go visit Rainbow, and then head down Folsom (which is very much not downtown) at night after all the tents have been deployed and tell me that's a minor problem. There are fewer large encampments in the western neighborhoods but vacant lots and storefronts will find folks to live in them quickly.

Go further up Market to the Castro (also not downtown). Jane Warner Plaza has been a magnet for nudists and homeless folks pretty much since its inception a decade ago.

A few weeks ago I went to see a show in Bernal and there was a morbidly obese guy sprawled out on the sidewalk across the street from the venue. He wasn't yelling at anyone in particular so I just ignored him. Fast forward a week and I was walking around the same stretch of Mission St and came across (among other things) bloody hand prints smeared on the side of a building.

Oh? And downtown? I worked downtown (Embarcadero) for a while. After the whole occupy movement fizzled out there were plenty of people living behind Steuart by the bocce ball courts. Lower Manhattan is far more sanitized, even at night.

There's just a constant level of unmitigated human suffering in San Francisco that you don't see in other cities, and it's not limited to "a few neighborhoods that amount to 5% of San Francisco".

There also aren't any neighborhoods in Manhattan or central London/Paris/Sydney/etc. where you won't find any homeless people or some grime on the streets.

Yeah I've been to all of those cities within the past five years and none are as disgusting as San Francisco. London's pretty grimy, but San Francisco has mechanical street sweepers (and has for years) to clear the fecal matter off the sidewalk. No other city I've visited actually needs that.