I've already blogged about this topic a few times, but it just keeps coming up. Today it's this article in the San Francisco Chronicle which goes out of its way to snarkily mock Los Angeles. Just another in a long line of "SF is so way much cooler and better and funner than LA" articles/stories/etc. I've heard over many many years. So, in much the same style as the Chronicle's story, here's my response...
----
Signs on the Muni buses proclaim San Francisco as "The City that Knows How," which is ironic considering that it took 10 years and 3 elections to decide if "the City" (which is how residents of this 700,000-person town refer to San Francisco in a geographic region where the largest city, of more than 1 million residents, is actually San Jose) would tear down a five-block section of elevated freeway and replace it with essentially a freeway with traffic lights at street level. Sure, you can stroll along the Octavia boulevard today and not feel as threatened by shadows and dirty underpasses as you once were, and now you just have to navigate the shopping carts and cars that don't understand what the extra alleys are for along each side of the 6-lane road. Still, the new Patricia's Green is a beautiful space with a temporary art exhibit that brings a little bit of Black Rock City to the neighborhood.
The gold leaf covered dome of City Hall - the leafing which was paid for using city funds designated for creation and maintenance of open space - is about the most striking architectural element anywhere for miles in the Tenderloin, where the majority of people strolling the streets are more likely to panhandle, stare or yell at you than they are to simply ignore you and go about their business. But don't let that distract you from the aromas of urine and feces that greet your nostrils as you stroll the streets, only to come across any number of nooks that often serve as open-air toilets. And the "real" public toilets that dot the landscape are not for the faint of heart. For just 50 cents, you too can have your senses accosted and your mind blown by the sight of needles and vomit while you attempt to do your business without touching anything for fear of what may linger afterward.
So for $2 you head down into the Muni, San Francisco's version of a subway, where the half-mile ride from Civic Center to Powell station can take anywhere from 5 to 25 minutes depending on the time of day, the day of the week, and myriad other totally unrelated factors that make each and every day a special one on Muni. Sometimes it's that someone got caught in the door and almost slammed into a station wall; other times it's that the doors simply stopped working on one train, backing up the entire single-line subway; and other times there's just no explanation (which seems to most often be the case). But hey, you only paid $2, so suck it up. It's not like you were going to drive, right? And, if you did drive, good luck affording (or finding) parking, so you're probably best off walking - it's free and can actually be quite pleasant.
You arrive at Powell station and are greeted first thing out the gates by panhandlers at the base and top of the escalator out of the dingy "plaza" which features a below-street-level "coffee shop" that is sometimes open, sometimes not, and always patronized by more pigeons than people. Now that you're here, though, it's time to ride one of the cable cars, which are San Francisco's world-reknowned moving national historic landmarks (the only moving national landmarks in the country). However, be prepared to wait in a long line and pony up $5 for a one-way trip, for if there's anything that "The City that knows how" knows how to do it's empty out your pockets and make you gladly do it.
Once you get to the end of the cable car line, 2 hours later (of which one and a half hours were spent in line), you arrive at tourist hell, also known as Fisherman's Wharf. Yes, this was at one time a functioning wharf, for fishermen even, and it basically still serves that purpose. But, like all things San Francisco that once were just functional things that people used to get their work done, it has been commoditized and commercialized and now you can watch the fishermen doing their work as if Disneyland relocated from Anaheim to SF and this is part of the "small world" exhibit. And that is something San Francisco knows how to do... take once ordinary things and make them spectacularly exciting. It's like being in a place where everything we generally take for granted elsewhere is so different and glorified. What? You want to repaint your house? That'll be at last a half-dozen neighborhood group meetings, a historic preservation permit, and one year later you'll just be going from one shade of dark blue to another.
Take another example: big box development. Want to hit the Home Depot, or Ikea, or Target? You'll have to leave the City. And now Target likely won't get a store in SF because they gave $150,000 to a major a*hole anti-gay candidate for governor in Minnesota (yes, this caused even yours truly to boycott them). On the other hand, for many years Target has consistently been one of the country's most LGBT-supportive companies for their employees. And the alternative to a Target or Home Depot is... what exactly? How are you going to know if every single purchase you make was manufactured, distributed, and sold by good progressive-leaning companies?
San Francisco's tendency is to oppose all things corporate and big, even though these things can sometimes serve as magnets or vehicles for development in areas that otherwise are falling apart at the seams or totally unappealing to small business for any number of reasons. Areas like the Bayshore corridor, or the incredibly empty, and spacious, Metreon. Large and small business can and do co-exist, even as they compete for market share. In San Francisco, however, anything that can be construed as a "chain" must jump through additional hoops, essentially having to get the sign-off of the neighborhood, which in some cases has meant San Francisco-founded and based companies that have prospered using successful models have found themselves unable to open new storefronts in their hometown because they've grown too big and have become the "big, bad other."
Once you've strolled the urine-stained Civic Center, panhandler-filled Union Square, and tourist-centric (and also panhandler-filled) Fisherman's Wharf/Pier 39, you might make it to the Ferry Building, which is indeed one of San Francisco's treasures. The food may be a bit pricey, but the open-air halls and brickwork do hearken back to days of old, before the bridges were built, when people took the ferries to get to and from SF. It's a step back in time, redone for a new era, and it is a beautiful anchor at the heart of old San Francisco.
It's worth noting that almost every day of the year in San Francisco is jacket weather. There are certainly a handful of days when you can wear shorts for more than a few hours without risking getting goosebumps by 4pm. But very little else demarcates a tourist like uniform of cargo shorts and joined with an "SF" parka, which was probably purchased at no small cost at a hole-in-the-wall shop along Powell Street. Not only do the temperatures rarely rise above 70 (or fall below 50), but the wind will almost always send a chill through you. So, like a good boy scout, be prepared.
All this and more can be yours if the price is right. For San Francisco's landlords, home sellers, and hoteliers, the price is nearly always right, because about the only place in the entire country that is more expensive to live than San Francisco is Manhattan. For the low low price of $1,200 a month, you too can share an apartment with a perfect stranger and haggle with your landlord over things like... painting the walls, or, getting a pet. If you want your own place, be ready to pony up more than $2,000 a month, or compromise substantially on location and/or space.
Let's say you want to buy your own slice of heaven? In a decent neighborhood your one-person pad will cost you close to half a million dollars. In a fancy neighborhood it's more like $700,000, at least. If you're willing to forgo parking, you can lop off about 10% of that price, but about the only thing more scarce in San Francisco than land is street parking, so it's good to know these things going in. Spend a little time in San Francisco, and you'll find those people who bought their home before "the market exploded," (where their homes are now worth 3-10 times what they originally paid) but more often these days it's the folks whose mortgages are eating up more than half their paychecks, and they're the lucky ones.
San Francisco, "The City that Knows How." So much can be said, but I'll close with this...
With all this to offer and more, one wonders why so many residents, let alone media, feel compelled to trash talk SF's sister city to the south? Having been one of those trash talkers for years, the reasons seem too many to count to someone in love with the fog, the hills, the colors, and the people of San Francisco (and there are many many reasons to love SF). On the other hand, it does seem just a touch ridiculous to focus so intently on all the things going wrong with someplace else when one's own city could use a few nips and tucks of its own, and no one seems to know the first thing about fixing those (or if they do then they must accept that it'll probably take 10 years and 3 elections and hundreds of thousands of dollars to get it done).
So, lay off, San Francisco. You got a good thing going, really. Revel in that and, as Tim Gunn would say, make it work. And next time you want to trash talk Los Angeles or any other city, first think to yourself, "Am I in a position to criticize another given my own foibles?" If the answer is ever anything other than "no," get a second opinion. And if the answer is still "no," get to know your city a little better.
----
I love San Francisco and, above all else, miss my friends and family. What I've written here is from a place of love, recognizing that we all got our stuff to take care of, and I truly hope that SF figures out some solutions, particularly to its most vexing issues. In the meantime, I hope that papers like the Chronicle will stop feeling the need to give voice to mocking Los Angeles or any other city. It's unnecessary and unwarranted. The people in LA didn't make it the way it is anymore than the residents of San Francisco could all claim responsibility for it being the way it is. But every day we can and should seek to make our respective communities better.
Ironically enough, today's Chronicle features another article bemoaning the challenges with attracting entertainment business to the City from Los Angeles and elsewhere. This is just a case of too much work for too little benefit relative to the cost - or at least the perception of it - as well as city leaders who, as a whole, aren't compelled to find ways to get more entertainment business in SF. And it's just one example of when it's better to discuss ways to improve oneself than to throw stones from one's glass house.
No comments:
Post a Comment