Exactly. Everyone I meet in SF seems convinced that: 1) San Francisco is an amazing, modern, international city that is a fantastic place to live; and 2) anyone would be foolish to not live in SF if they want to work in technology.
They are of course wrong on both accounts. San Francisco is a shitty big city, and it is basically the most expensive place to live in the country. I never thought I would say this, but New York is cheap compared to the rent prices in SF. And for what? Shitty un-walkable neighborhoods? Urine everywhere? And everyone has to drive a fucking car if you really want to be able to get around feasibly all the time.
Tech jobs are plentiful in any large city. However, there are plenty of large cities with working public transit systems, decently-well run city governments and non-homogenous cultures that aren't overrun with white/asian males with bad social skills. San Francisco is not one of them.
I of course completely agree with your disdain for people who subscribe to #2. And I'll be the first to admit that SF is hardly a "modern" city. But the rest is just bullshit.
SF is a fantastic place to live? Why? Because I live here and I love it. And that's really the only opinion in that regard that matters. I'm not claiming it's perfect. I doubt any place is.
It's expensive, sure, but NYC is certainly not cheap by comparison (have you looked at NYC rents in desirable neighborhoods? really, have you?). Regardless, my tech-startup salary more than makes up for the cost: >50% of my take-home pay goes right to my savings account, untouched. Even with eating out for pretty much every meal, and going out to bars and the like 4-5 days a week. I do have friends who work more conventional jobs at larger companies, not in tech, and while some of them don't have the cushion I have, they're able to pay the bills, have fun, and still save some amount of money.
I walk all over the place (today I walked a little over 6 miles). Anyone who believes that SF can't be walkable is lazy, unhealthily out of shape, or both. If you live out in the Sunset or Richmond, sure, you're going to need to take the bus to places on the other side of the city. When I'm feeling lazy, I take the bus. If I'm in a hurry, I take a taxi. You do realize that there are tons of taxis in NYC, right? Far more than in SF, right? And traffic is much worse there. The public transportation in NYC is far better than in SF, but cars still have their place in both cities.
I even own a car, but I find I drive it rarely more often than once a week, and sometimes I will go 3 weeks without taking it out of the garage. The majority of my SF-dwelling friends (over 75%) do not own cars. And no, not all (or even the majority) of my friends are programmers. (Logically, I should get rid of my car, but emotionally, I can't bring myself to do it.)
Honestly, I'm surprised and disappointed that you're being so negative here; the comments in your history seem pretty reasonable and educated (if a bit overly snarky at times). Sounds like you have some kind of axe to grind. SF is a much nicer, more livable city than you make it out to be. It may not be your cup of tea, but that's for you to decide for yourself, not for you to declare to others.
Regarding the article, I think it was pretty bad. It reads as pompous and entitled, and exhibits a lack of awareness of the outside world or any acknowledgement of perspective. But it's not reflective of SF (or its inhabitants) as a whole.
I assume you live in SF/bay area because you seem unaware of what rent prices are in other large cities. Just take a look at two searches on craigslist:
Rent is clearly much higher in San Francisco. And for much, much les desirable neighborhoods. There are numerous neighborhoods in New York (the village, LES, Upper East or West Sides, Brooklyn Heights, Astoria, Green Point, LI City, Gramercy, a thousand more) where one could feasibly find a small but cheap studio or 1br for around 2k/month. This is close to 1k cheaper than the nicest neighborhoods in SF.
And all of this analysis ignores the fact that the nicest neighborhoods in NY are vastly better than SF. Better grocery stores. Nobody owns a car; you'd be a fool to spend money on one. Cleaner neighborhoods where people don't urinate in the street. A much larger selection of restaurants and shops.
I suspect San Francisco's residents are either aware of the many shortcomings, or have just never lived in a big city and thus assume that all big cities are expensive and lacking, when it's clearly not the case.
(I compare to NYC because I know that city best, but I'm confident Seattle, Boston, Austin, Denver, and many others are probably fine places to live as well, and at less than half the cost of SF.)
They are of course wrong on both accounts. San Francisco is a shitty big city, and it is basically the most expensive place to live in the country. I never thought I would say this, but New York is cheap compared to the rent prices in SF. And for what? Shitty un-walkable neighborhoods? Urine everywhere? And everyone has to drive a fucking car if you really want to be able to get around feasibly all the time.
Tech jobs are plentiful in any large city. However, there are plenty of large cities with working public transit systems, decently-well run city governments and non-homogenous cultures that aren't overrun with white/asian males with bad social skills. San Francisco is not one of them.