I was recently in SF for the first time to attend QCon. Beautiful city with a lot of character and culture IMO.
I made the mistake of taking an Uber from my hotel, about 1 mile away from the convention center. Traffic is horrendously bad and it took about 40 minutes to go one mile. It did give me a great opportunity to sit back and just sight see some buildings and what not for 40 min.
For the week I was there, I walked a lot after the conference each day to see the city. The thing that really stuck out was there was no new construction and certainly no high rises. Well of course, why wouldn’t prices go up then?
The roads were also pretty atrocious. I understand taxes are high. What exactly do they spend tax dollars on? Serious question.
I’d certainly would like to visit again but honestly it’s not a place I’d want to live in.
The city government is bloated, pension plans are unsustainably generous, there is corruption of course, there is a homeless industrial complex that sucks up funds and does little, there are costly building codes that were written to benefit various trades, even though fire prevention has improved greatly, the SFFD spews FUD everytime a good government type suggests a few firehouses could be closed, Police refuse to do their jobs and blames the City Attorney, and it is true the City Attorney doesn’t do their job bit its no excuse for the SFPD, MUNI has the highest cost per mile in the US, and on and on.
As one SF Chronicle article put it in describing CA Governor Newsom, SF politics are a lion's den that produces strong candidates for the national stage.
Which in perspective says not that SF functions well, but rather that it functions so poorly that you have to have immense skill to survive.
And like other established cities with some history, there is a vein of the upper crust - people whose parents owned property, went to the local prep schools and now own some property themselves. That's a thing that contributes to the quagmire, since it creates more complex entanglements than the basic economics would suggest. A lot of the tech billionaires have made moves to muscle in on this scene, which has perhaps helped it from getting too stagnant, but contributes to its overall incoherence.
Pensions often become bloated because it's easy for a politician to hand out future benefits to get current votes. It's hit-and-run gift giving: robbing the future Peter to pay the current Paul. An average politician's reign is roughly 10 years, but pension problems show up multiple decades later. We'd have to change our political incentive system to solve that. Same goes for national debt.
I'm really glad to hear you enjoyed it. I grew up in SF, lived here most of my adult life (I'm in my late 40s), and the state of SF hurts. San Franciscans might have a rep for being a bit snobby toward tourists, but a lot of us actually appreciate them, at least certain kinds of tourists. There are tourists who come back often and know the restaurants, clubs, theater, music venues, and history better than most locals, and I consider them a part of the city, really, an integral part of it. There aren't many truly urban places in the United States, and while SF isn't close to NY on this front, it's one of the other places where real urban-ness exists to an extent where you can find it. In that sense, I think SF belongs to everyone, not just the people who live here. And in a lot of ways, I think SF has been taken from you. Some grit is part of urban life, but the blight has gotten bad enough that I understand why a lot of people feel that they no longer enjoy the urban experience in SF. There certainly are parts of SF where this effect is much less pronounced, and many of them are gorgeous (a walk along Chrissy field, looking out at the bay, with the golden gate bridge to your left, the bay in the middle, Alcatraz and sailboats, and the city shimmering to your right, is a pretty awesome experience, the kind that stays in your mind long after you've gone back home).
But the thing is, that thing that makes SF rare, especially in the western half of the US, the urban qualities, are without question tarnished at this point. My grandmother grew up in rural Idaho in the early 20th century, and she told me that when someone said "the city", they actually meant San Francisco. Visiting a really urban place was a fascinating experience.
There's still an urban pleasure to be found here, and I'm always encouraged to hear that someone did find it on a first trip here. Hope that was the case for you.
Roughly almost 600 Billion is spent on the homeless problem. Unfortunately, due to the incredibly high cost of housing, that money doesn't go very far. It'd be interesting to see a breakdown of where exactly all that money goes. Anecdotally, I've read articles of government funded syringes lining some of the streets.
As for why you don't see more high rises going up, that's due to regulations which increase cost. I saw one tech crunch article that said super computers are now required to comply with all the regulations: https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/08/why-you-need-a-supercomput...
Ironically, affordability regulations actually drive the cost of building up to the point where no one can afford it anymore and nothing gets built. Why is this allowed? A big chunk of the SF population is deeply conservative ( politically liberal), but actually conservative in that they dont want anything to change. Meanwhile more and more jobs are added every day exacerbating a huge imbalance between housing and jobs, and employers continue to wonder why they can't find "talent".
On the plus side, there's no shortage of fun spots in SF: the fisherman's wharf, the embarcadero, the presidio, etc. Lots of fun restaurants and cafes, etc.
Everything you described sounds like blatant corruption or at minimum, extreme selfishness. Im not a fan of conservative politics (grew up in conservative areas), but what you describe sounds like the batshit crazy end of the other side of the spectrum.
absurd. you spent a grand total of 1 week of your life there, and experienced normal city traffic for any major urban center. you also went to places within walking distance of the conference center.
and after that grand total of time (and how many long time residents did you have a meaningful conversation with?), it's definitely not for you.
I would never like to live there either, but not based on a 1 week myopic view. SF is definitely taking a turn for the worse, even of a short timeframe like that last decade. However your review is quite poor. I hope you don't come to snap judgements like that about technology you deploy.
Comments
I was recently in SF for the first time to attend QCon. Beautiful city with a lot of character and culture IMO.
I made the mistake of taking an Uber from my hotel, about 1 mile away from the convention center. Traffic is horrendously bad and it took about 40 minutes to go one mile. It did give me a great opportunity to sit back and just sight see some buildings and what not for 40 min.
For the week I was there, I walked a lot after the conference each day to see the city. The thing that really stuck out was there was no new construction and certainly no high rises. Well of course, why wouldn’t prices go up then?
The roads were also pretty atrocious. I understand taxes are high. What exactly do they spend tax dollars on? Serious question.
I’d certainly would like to visit again but honestly it’s not a place I’d want to live in.
The city government is bloated, pension plans are unsustainably generous, there is corruption of course, there is a homeless industrial complex that sucks up funds and does little, there are costly building codes that were written to benefit various trades, even though fire prevention has improved greatly, the SFFD spews FUD everytime a good government type suggests a few firehouses could be closed, Police refuse to do their jobs and blames the City Attorney, and it is true the City Attorney doesn’t do their job bit its no excuse for the SFPD, MUNI has the highest cost per mile in the US, and on and on.
As one SF Chronicle article put it in describing CA Governor Newsom, SF politics are a lion's den that produces strong candidates for the national stage.
Which in perspective says not that SF functions well, but rather that it functions so poorly that you have to have immense skill to survive.
And like other established cities with some history, there is a vein of the upper crust - people whose parents owned property, went to the local prep schools and now own some property themselves. That's a thing that contributes to the quagmire, since it creates more complex entanglements than the basic economics would suggest. A lot of the tech billionaires have made moves to muscle in on this scene, which has perhaps helped it from getting too stagnant, but contributes to its overall incoherence.
Pensions often become bloated because it's easy for a politician to hand out future benefits to get current votes. It's hit-and-run gift giving: robbing the future Peter to pay the current Paul. An average politician's reign is roughly 10 years, but pension problems show up multiple decades later. We'd have to change our political incentive system to solve that. Same goes for national debt.
I'm really glad to hear you enjoyed it. I grew up in SF, lived here most of my adult life (I'm in my late 40s), and the state of SF hurts. San Franciscans might have a rep for being a bit snobby toward tourists, but a lot of us actually appreciate them, at least certain kinds of tourists. There are tourists who come back often and know the restaurants, clubs, theater, music venues, and history better than most locals, and I consider them a part of the city, really, an integral part of it. There aren't many truly urban places in the United States, and while SF isn't close to NY on this front, it's one of the other places where real urban-ness exists to an extent where you can find it. In that sense, I think SF belongs to everyone, not just the people who live here. And in a lot of ways, I think SF has been taken from you. Some grit is part of urban life, but the blight has gotten bad enough that I understand why a lot of people feel that they no longer enjoy the urban experience in SF. There certainly are parts of SF where this effect is much less pronounced, and many of them are gorgeous (a walk along Chrissy field, looking out at the bay, with the golden gate bridge to your left, the bay in the middle, Alcatraz and sailboats, and the city shimmering to your right, is a pretty awesome experience, the kind that stays in your mind long after you've gone back home).
But the thing is, that thing that makes SF rare, especially in the western half of the US, the urban qualities, are without question tarnished at this point. My grandmother grew up in rural Idaho in the early 20th century, and she told me that when someone said "the city", they actually meant San Francisco. Visiting a really urban place was a fascinating experience.
There's still an urban pleasure to be found here, and I'm always encouraged to hear that someone did find it on a first trip here. Hope that was the case for you.
Roughly almost 600 Billion is spent on the homeless problem. Unfortunately, due to the incredibly high cost of housing, that money doesn't go very far. It'd be interesting to see a breakdown of where exactly all that money goes. Anecdotally, I've read articles of government funded syringes lining some of the streets.
As for why you don't see more high rises going up, that's due to regulations which increase cost. I saw one tech crunch article that said super computers are now required to comply with all the regulations: https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/08/why-you-need-a-supercomput...
Ironically, affordability regulations actually drive the cost of building up to the point where no one can afford it anymore and nothing gets built. Why is this allowed? A big chunk of the SF population is deeply conservative ( politically liberal), but actually conservative in that they dont want anything to change. Meanwhile more and more jobs are added every day exacerbating a huge imbalance between housing and jobs, and employers continue to wonder why they can't find "talent".
On the plus side, there's no shortage of fun spots in SF: the fisherman's wharf, the embarcadero, the presidio, etc. Lots of fun restaurants and cafes, etc.
Everything you described sounds like blatant corruption or at minimum, extreme selfishness. Im not a fan of conservative politics (grew up in conservative areas), but what you describe sounds like the batshit crazy end of the other side of the spectrum.
I think you mean millions in SF.
Gov funded syringes are a useful thing to prevent the spread of diseases like HIV and hepc
yes, your right. sorry, millions.
absurd. you spent a grand total of 1 week of your life there, and experienced normal city traffic for any major urban center. you also went to places within walking distance of the conference center.
and after that grand total of time (and how many long time residents did you have a meaningful conversation with?), it's definitely not for you.
I would never like to live there either, but not based on a 1 week myopic view. SF is definitely taking a turn for the worse, even of a short timeframe like that last decade. However your review is quite poor. I hope you don't come to snap judgements like that about technology you deploy.
Are you feeling okay?