141–150 of 201 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh yes, Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia are great as long as you don't need to get an abortion, aren't religious, gay, or non-white.
I'm curious have you been to many of these areas or are you just repeating the things you've read on reddit?
I am interested to hear from any HN readers who live in SF, as to whether or not this sounds factually accurate.
The main thing is that OP then uses that to generalize about the state of the entire city. This makes it difficult to actually have a reasonable conversation about what is working and what isn’t in SF because everything reverts to the binary “sf is/isn’t a shithole” argument. In OPs case, it actually exposes the reality behind a lot of these “random tech blogger leaving SF” stories where they don’t actually know much about the city or appear to have much of a social life outside of tech that would expose them to other parts of the city. In SF there are tons of places to live that aren’t “single family homes 4 miles from downtown” - the city is 7x7 square miles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're just arguing semantics at this point. Sure, the author admits that violent crime rate is under control. But, implicit in his post, is the fact that this is only the case because residents adopt behavioral patterns that remove them from violent crime scenes. Imagine you live in a neighborhood where walking on the right side of the street results in immediate decapitation. While it's true that you can simply alw…
> But, implicit in his post, is the fact that this is only the case because residents adopt behavioral patterns that remove them from violent crime scenes. But the same is true everywhere though. You think that Houston or St. Louis or wherever don't "adopt behavioral patterns" to make themselves feel safer too? Only SF residents are smart enough to make life in the wasteland possible? No, that's silly. SF isn't unsaf…
Cities don't have to be like this: by any standard, US cities are much less safe than those in the rest of the developed world. Where it comes to a head in San Francisco in particular is that everything is very heavily mixed together in close proximity, so commuting from a $2M townhouse to work a $300kpa job means you also pass through areas where people are literally dying in the street.
I am interested to hear from any HN readers who live in SF, as to whether or not this sounds factually accurate.
I’ve lived in SF since 2007. OP is likely factually accurate about where he lives, which is one of the worst blocks in SF. I’ll add that this was the case in 2007 as well, I wouldn’t say that 7th and Mission has gotten significantly better or worse over the years. It was likely slightly nicer when OP moved in, but that was the exception, not the historical norm. The main thing is that OP then uses that to generalize…
49 square miles, in a 7 by 7 square, roughly. (Your point stands, of course)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in lower haight, less than a two minute walk from the muni and thus less than 15 mons from downtown and I dont really encounter any of these things, except dog poops
Nice! Yeah there are definitely lower poop/riff raff density if you're willing to walk 15 mins each way. In my experience Muni+Bart is required to have good coverage of places I wanted to go (including Oakland and berkeley). Edit: and I'm a 0 transfer kind of person. Albeit I tolerated switching from Muni to Bart in same station on market street. And because my own personal tolerance for walking was higher than avera…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve lived in SF since 2007. OP is likely factually accurate about where he lives, which is one of the worst blocks in SF. I’ll add that this was the case in 2007 as well, I wouldn’t say that 7th and Mission has gotten significantly better or worse over the years. It was likely slightly nicer when OP moved in, but that was the exception, not the historical norm. The main thing is that OP then uses that to generalize…
> the city is 7 square miles. 49 square miles, in a 7 by 7 square, roughly. (Your point stands, of course)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only there were a single other way to navigate a modern city without walking, driving, or purchasing a bike...
except that the comment i was responding to was specifically about bicycles ?
There's also Revel scooters if you need more power and space for groceries, Lime scooters if you like getting injured, and there are plenty of tiny electric vehicles now that you can buy, wouldn't call a bicycle but can easily be brought into grocery stores etc. They're all over SF. I don't think it's exactly out of place to call out alternatives when discussing whether biking is a viable commuting option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those $25 Uber trips aren't necessary if you get a bike. And you don't even need to be in shape anymore with e-bikes...
How safe is your bike, even chained up, in downtown SF?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Mission District alone is almost 2 square miles. Add in a couple more decent neighborhoods (particularly the Sunset and the Richmond), and you're probably at half of SF's 49 square miles.
Are we claiming the Mission is nice? Because it's really not, even the nicer parts worsened pre, during, post pandemic.
The local crime statistics are saying that San Francisco is a safe city with crime trending downwards.
Yes, but that's more indicative of data problems (missing data).
As a thought experiment what would be the best way to seize the assets of downtown building owners or at least buy them in a metaphorical fire sale? Blockbusting! The background and history of the term is left as an exercise to the reader.