Having spent a year in the Bay Area after living in Portland for 10, I really do feel there is much more creative energy in places like Portland, and also that it's a far better place to start most companies.
The problem is that the Bay Area might be full of more creative, interesting people, but the quality and cost of life down there is terrible (and nobody's fixing it), and the problems associated with that more than mitigates the benefits.
You meet smart people, but in order to pay their exorbitant rent they need to work long hours for companies that can pay them an enormous salary, and that's usually the big ones you know about already. That financial burdon, combined with chronic transportation issues, prevents the congealing of people and free time required to form the really creative new ideas and companies, and you just end up with whatever the VCs want to throw a pile of money onto.
So naturally, the thing I do find the area useful for is companies that could be considered VC/10x plays. But I feel like most companies, even very successful ones, don't fall under that criteria. And it only works for companies VCs are willing to fund, limiting your ability to get creative and outside the box.
My advice would be to go there for 1-2 years after college, then decide if all the problems with the area are worth it. Anecdotally, most people I've known eventually get sick of it and leave. And infact the problems are so bad now that the area has started losing population.
I think in order for the Bay Area (and California in general) to really become good for creatives, they need to take a deep existential look at themselves and really decide that they're willing to solve the problems. That means making radical, Marshall Plan levels of reform to zoning and property tax laws, establishment of strong regional metropolitan governments, and significant investments in better transportation. I have zero confidence in the idea that the region will continue to be successful unless they aggressively tackle these problems.