Author Topic: Ok, San Francisco. (Read 5391 times)

Winston Smith · « **on:** October 12, 2005, 07:30:44 PM »

If you take away the politics, I love this city.

Only about one in seven people are nice, but they are genuinely nice. None of this fake stuff I enountered in LA or the Midwest.

The food is good.

The people are attractive.

The Police are harsh where they need to be and gentle where they don't.

Some beautiful areas, as well. The weather isn't so bad once you get out of the west side (where I live).

What do you guys think?

PS: San Francisco is called 'The city' out here. I'm pretty sure there are other towns in other areas with that moniker. Is this true?

jefnvk · « **Reply #1 on:** October 12, 2005, 08:26:23 PM »

If you live most anywhere, you can replace San Francisco with your hometown name, and it is still true.

What part of the Midwest didn't you like the people? My experience has been that (outside of big cities) 6 out of 7 are nice, and the seventh is just having a bad day.

...has left the building. · « **Reply #2 on:** October 13, 2005, 03:04:37 AM »

San Francisco is hands down the best city I've ever been to...without regard to politics. My Chinese side of the family is from there and I've visited quite a bit. I love that I can be downtown in a museum and then pretend I'm in Japan by going to the botantical gardens in less than a half hour. I can get REAL Chinese food, see amazing redwoods, ride a motorcycle on hills/twisties, enjoy the local music scene, etc. etc. etc. After I get my MBA, I'm seriously thinking about relocating there.

jefnvk- If you don't dress/look/act like a Midwesterner, most of the midwestern courtesy is fake in my humble opinion. I know where Winston is coming from but its hard to explain....

JAlexander · « **Reply #3 on:** October 13, 2005, 03:31:24 AM »

I lived in San Francisco for two years and Minneapolis for one, so I'm pretty familiar with both kinds of folks. That said, San Francisco has better food but the people in Minneapolis are more polite. For instance, I never got made fun of in Minneapolis, but I did get called a redneck in San Francisco.
That said, I do like visiting San Francisco and the Bay Area for the excellent (and cheap) sushi. There are parts of California that I loved, and would happily live, were it not for the insane state politics.
My best friend summed it up perfectly when he said that San Francisco like an R-rated Disneyland.

James

Art Eatman · « **Reply #4 on:** October 13, 2005, 04:11:03 AM »

I have many fond memories of "The City". It's a shame the politics have messed it up. The portents of today's California were evident back in the 1960s/1970s, of course. But, Top of the Mark will always be neat, along with Cliff House. And you can't take away the natural beauty. Just need to replace most of the people with adults.

Two other world-class cities, IMO, are Hong Kong and Paris. Each has an aura, an atmosphere, that is far better than other pretenders. Forget Tokyo or New York City and other supersuctionvilles.

Art

Werewolf · « **Reply #5 on:** October 13, 2005, 04:55:17 AM »

My inlaws used to live in San Fran - consequently I visited there a number of times.

As the old saying goes:
It's a nice place to visit... but I wouldn't want to live there! expresses my feelings about the place very well.

280plus · « **Reply #6 on:** October 13, 2005, 04:59:49 AM »

Quote

What do you guys think?

I think you better get the hell out of there before the next big one hits. You're DUE!!:O

Cheesy

natedog · « **Reply #7 on:** October 13, 2005, 05:08:41 AM »

I was just up there last weekend. It was waaay too crowded on North Point street because of the Fleet Week thing. Weather was perfect. Sorry I didn't give you a ring Winston, I lost your cell phone number.

charby · « **Reply #8 on:** October 13, 2005, 05:23:19 AM »

Quote from: jefnvk

What part of the Midwest didn't you like the people? My experience has been that (outside of big cities) 6 out of 7 are nice, and the seventh is just having a bad day.

Or their daddy was hot s**t back in high school so they act all uppity

Chabry

El Tejon · « **Reply #9 on:** October 13, 2005, 07:41:55 AM »

Excluding the politics, I love it! Oh, except the 49ers, not as eeevil as the Patriots, but they play the Colts so they must be loathed!

RadioFreeSeaLab · « **Reply #10 on:** October 13, 2005, 08:26:05 AM »

Bah. San Diego is better Tongue

Standing Wolf · « **Reply #11 on:** October 13, 2005, 12:02:40 PM »

I used to love going to San Francsico. I still miss Baker Beach and North Beach. Maybe I always willbut no city, no matter how charming, is worth the loss of my civil rights.

Stickjockey · « **Reply #12 on:** October 14, 2005, 01:15:15 PM »

SF is a gorgeous city, politics notwithstanding. Just about the only two things I don't like about it are the cost of living and the traffic. Not sure what to do about the COL, but the traffic can easily be circumvented by using the public transit system or your feet.

The Rabbi · « **Reply #13 on:** October 14, 2005, 01:21:50 PM »

Nice city. But so was Cape Town not too long ago.. Politics has ruined both.

thorn · « **Reply #14 on:** October 14, 2005, 11:27:34 PM »

>>The Police are harsh where they need to be and gentle where they don't.<<<
in so many ways too.

>>no city, no matter how charming, is worth the loss of my civil rights.<<<

i will never get this logic. if going around the world to fight for fredom makes sense, doesnt sticking it out here also?
oh well, i know, not worth the effort, a lost cause.

one less no vote for prop H.

i wish i could afford to live in SF, but then again, Berkeley has one huge advantage, the hills. lots of open, empty trees and streams.

with the motorcycle, SF is so totally accesible(15min), easy to navigate , and parking is no problem.
mass transit also great.
i love going to SF. the parks, just walking around the streets, the wackos, haight/ ashbury, tyhe mission, the CLUBS (girls to no end)
have to admit so many "spiritual" people drive me a bit nuts, but whatever. i will never grow tired of san francisco. of course, it's easier when you dont live there. i only go for entertainment, visiting.

i will totally go to SF at 12am just for a burrito. it's that good. the club scene can't be beat, especially for the psytrance music i like, or hippy garbage i also like.
for me, there is no more happening place. there are other cities like LA or NY that might be more
ehhh, hard to convey the feeling here, "happening" is what i call it.

whatever made all those hippies come here in the 60s is still bringing the freaks here, put it that way.

the masive gay population- ehh, whatever. kinda funny, any lady reading this - you ever gone to a club and been hit on by a million lame guys all night? well, i know how you feel, and for all of us lame guys- sorry!

whatever- if girls can deal with it, so can i.

the all night dance clubs really make this one of the best cities on earth to me, the awesome underground artist/ music culture that is all over the bay area.

...has left the building. · « **Reply #15 on:** October 15, 2005, 04:39:40 AM »

On the gay issue- That is one of the most overblown characteristics of SF that people who have never been there mention. When I came back from my last visit, everyone kept asking me about it...annoying!

MaterDei · « **Reply #16 on:** October 15, 2005, 05:05:19 AM »

I'm a California native and really enjoy going back and visiting every now and then. California is not the place for me to live though. Why would I go/stay somewhere in America to fight for civil rights when I can go somewhere and live with more rights and still fight the good fight for more? Besides, SF is too expensive.

If I wanted to live in a city with an atmosphere similar to San Francisco (which I don't), I'd move to Austin.

atek3 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 15, 2005, 09:25:11 AM »

I like the city*, but I'm a bigger fan of Berkeley. The politics suck.

Re: the gay thing... funny story. So I've got this new co-worker from china. He used to work in albany, NY. He's obsessed with "the gay". He's like, "you know in SF they have gay street?", I'm like, "you mean the castro?", "yes that's it, I hear gay can get married there." "Um, no that was a gavin newsom thing, it failed." "Gavin newsom, he look gay." "um, I guess, I think he just cares about his appearance more than most." "Isn't it wierd that they have gay street?" "Um, only if you're moved here from albany."

What makes this conversation doubly funny is that my co-worker who is gay and from hong kong is just listening to the conversation and trying to avoid laughing out loud.

atek3

*San Francisco.

SalukiFan · « **Reply #18 on:** October 16, 2005, 05:51:22 AM »

Quote from: Daniel Flory

On the gay issue- That is one of the most overblown characteristics of SF that people who have never been there mention. When I came back from my last visit, everyone kept asking me about it...annoying!

Yeah, it's funny about that because it has been theorized that the U.S. military had a lot to do with establishing San Francisco's "gay" reputation.

During World War II, the military needed as many personnel as possible for the war effort and they were more lenient about suspected gay and lesbian soldiers, sailors and marines. Once the war ended, thousands of gays were loaded on "queer ships" and given "undesirable" discharges and were dropped off at the nearest port. Now that they had been kicked out of the military and outed, many of them believed that they could not return to their hometowns. Many of them decided to stay where they were dropped off and made port cities like San Francisco and New York their homes.

But hey, they are cool cities anyway, who wouldn't want to stay?

Edited for spelling

The Rabbi · « **Reply #19 on:** October 16, 2005, 06:23:49 AM »

Quote from: SalukiFan

Quote from: Daniel Flory

On the gay issue- That is one of the most overblown characteristics of SF that people who have never been there mention. When I came back from my last visit, everyone kept asking me about it...annoying!

Yeah, it's funny about that because it has been theorized that the U.S. military had a lot to do with establishing San Fransisco's "gay" reputation.

During World War II, the military needed as many personnel as possible for the war effort and they were more lenient about suspected gay and lesbian soldiers, sailors and marines. Once the war ended, thousands of gays were loaded on "queer ships" and given "undesirable" discharges and were dropped off at the nearest port. Now that they had been kicked out of the military and outed, many of them believed that they could not return to their hometowns. Many of them decided to stay where they were dropped off and made port cities like San Fransisco and New York their homes.

But hey, they are cool cities anyway, who wouldn't want to stay?

That sounds really apocryphal. More likely, San Francisco was the locus of the hippy movement ("If you're going to San Francisco, wear some flowers in your hair"), which had a central belief in tolerance of everything under the sun. Naturally that attracted the gay element. the fact that SF has really nice weather etc probably didnt hurt either.

SalukiFan · « **Reply #20 on:** October 16, 2005, 07:10:01 AM »

Quote from: The Rabbi

Quote from: SalukiFan

Quote from: Daniel Flory

On the gay issue- That is one of the most overblown characteristics of SF that people who have never been there mention. When I came back from my last visit, everyone kept asking me about it...annoying!

Yeah, it's funny about that because it has been theorized that the U.S. military had a lot to do with establishing San Fransisco's "gay" reputation.

During World War II, the military needed as many personnel as possible for the war effort and they were more lenient about suspected gay and lesbian soldiers, sailors and marines. Once the war ended, thousands of gays were loaded on "queer ships" and given "undesirable" discharges and were dropped off at the nearest port. Now that they had been kicked out of the military and outed, many of them believed that they could not return to their hometowns. Many of them decided to stay where they were dropped off and made port cities like San Fransisco and New York their homes.

But hey, they are cool cities anyway, who wouldn't want to stay?

That sounds really apocryphal. More likely, San Francisco was the locus of the hippy movement ("If you're going to San Francisco, wear some flowers in your hair"), which had a central belief in tolerance of everything under the sun. Naturally that attracted the gay element. the fact that SF has really nice weather etc probably didnt hurt either.

I'm sure that the hippie movement and the weather helped but I do have a reference that I pulled this from. It's in a book called "Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers: A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth-Century America" by Lillian Faderman, page 126 and she refers to "Past Times: Unearthing the History of Gay G.I.s," Chicago Reader as her source.

Historian Allan Berube also wrote a book called "Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War Two" which I have not read but that looks interesting. He is quoted in the above reference (Past Times) as having said, "The government sponsored a migration of the gay community."

I agree that it does sound a bit apocryphal, but I thought it was a pretty interesting theory and besides the Faderman reference, I haven't found much to either prove or refute it.

Winston Smith · « **Reply #21 on:** October 16, 2005, 07:47:15 AM »

Quote

the fact that SF has really nice weather etc probably didnt hurt either.

Uhh.... yeaaaaah.....

News:

Author Topic: Ok, San Francisco. (Read 5391 times)

...has left the building.

...has left the building.