Maybe I spent hours and hours sauntering through all the wrong parts. I could have totally missed the worthwhile bits of the city, just as I can imagine a visitor to Paris doing. But I'm starting to think that the people who live in San Francisco are, in some sense, kidding themselves. Or at least they don't travel much.
(For Europeans, I'd compare the lack of interesting-ness to Geneva, maybe.)
These are things you appreciate and can grow from by living here in the long term, but are easy to miss if all you do is walk around and see low-rise buildings and homeless people. There are far more exciting cities in terms of bustle and grandeur, and more livable, well-maintained, inexpensive cities for everyday activity.
I doubt you've had a chance to explore the city district-by-district if you think it's soulless.
There are many homeless people but they don't bother anyone and they're a product of the city's open culture.
I've lived in few (San Diego, Boston, Phoenix, Los Angeles), visited many more in the US and abroad for work, I'd rank San Francisco near the bottom of the pack.
This might not be the case for you, but many people I've met who really love SF moved here in their 20s. Any city is going to be amazing at that age -- you're young and independent and thriving on the new experiences a city provides. Naturally, you're going to form an attachment.
Most people who move to SF later in their life seem less tolerant of its many problems.
Not saying my impression was right. Maybe there are limits on what can be gleaned from a trip, as suggested by the parent.
Perhaps if you are coming here to conduct commerce and nothing else it will just feel like... a place to conduct commerce! But that's something you can say about every financial district in the world. The places that have "soul" are almost never the places dominated by office towers.
Don't get me wrong, SF has many, many serious problems. Not being a city is not among them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
Uh... it depends on where you draw the line for city.
It could be anywhere between 1 through 21
Definitely not the case. Lots of people live in the city of San Francisco, though it's also true a lot of people commute in from the South and East Bays.
There are good things about the city, but the homeless problem (and really, that's what I think this is about) is a very serious issue that makes the place much, much less desirable.
That describes many cities so much better than it describes SF.
To answer your question. I like it alright. Not enough to live there. But filled with 9-5ers? When I think of SF I think of the incredibly packed dolores park on a sunny saturday, the small 2 story homes running towards the ocean in outer sunset, or the huge amount of music venues.
I lived near 24th and mission spent most of my non-work time in that area (mission / noe valley). I took BART to work and back. I picked up groceries at local grocery stores, fishmonger, and butcher. There was a butcher, fishmonger, and grocery stores nearby, with both south-east asian and hispanic ingredients.
Mission street has various grocery stores, hispanic restaurants, and Sun Fat Seafood. Valencia had some quirky stores, good restaurants, and coffee shops. If you head east on 24th, it's similar to mission, plus dynamo donunts and humphrey slocombe ice cream. West on 24th is Noe Valley, which is a little more upscale and full of people with either strollers or dogs. Lots of single-family and small multi-unit housing in the area.
It had pretty much everything I needed in walking distance.
The financial district does fit your description (it's a ghost town on weekends), but I presume that's typical of financial districts.
But if you lived in say, the Mission, and didn't own a car, those things would be mitigated. (You'd get used to the smell).