Hacker News Reader

Comment by run4yourlives | Hacker News Reader

This seems more of a "West Coast vs. East Coast" article than it is a "San Fran" article.

For the most part, the author is highlighting the differences that anybody living on the East Coast will experience in moving to one of the western coastal cities, save perhaps LA, which as everyone already knows is its own little planet.

Most of these "hints" hold true for San Diego, San Fran, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver. They are all in the same vibe the way Philly, New York, Boston, and Toronto are "the same vibe".

View on HN

I'm sorry, I just don't think these points are true for the other cities you mention. As a Seattle inhabitant, the descriptions of San Francisco-specific weather, rent, cost of living, costumes, events, transients, canine-friendliness, fog, commuting, and other things just do not apply here. Of the first few things mentioned, only the strong neighborhood identity is something we share.

It's most certainly true with regards to weather. Nights are noticeably colder everywhere on the west coast than in the hot, humid north east.

canine-friendliness

I'm not sure you understand what a canine-unfriendly city looks like - Seattle is certainly canine friendly.

fog

Not as bad, sure, but fog in Philly or Toronto is like an bi-annual event.

Actually, a lot of it is pretty similar, especially if coming from the east coast.

* Weather - replace fog with overcast/drizzle.

* Rent & Cost of living - Seattle is not cheap by any means, and rent and house prices are really steep until you get quite far from the city.

* Canine-friendliness - Definitely a west coast thing, there are tons of dogs in Seattle, dog parks, and companies that allow dogs at work.

* Commuting and public transit - Commuting is bad here, I-5 and its interchanges with I-90 and WA-520 are pathetic. On top of that, native Seattleites are terrible drivers - driving below the speed limit in the left lanes, blindly changing lanes, and don't know how to use a 4-way stop. Then there is the layout of Seattle, with bad east-west travel and the ongoing road construction.

Coming from not the west coast, San Fran, Portland, and Seattle do have some similarities - and aptly described as 'west coast' feel.

If you live in the Seattle suburbs you're going to have a bad time, but it's not bad living within walking distance of most workplaces, the rent is lower than SF and the city isn't allergic to development, and salaries are almost as high, so you're considerably ahead overall.

Also our public transit is awful.

I've lived in both Seattle and SF - the situations are quite different.

SF weather is nothing like Seattle weather. Sure, they lean towards the chilly side, but Seattle doesn't have the curious microclimates that SF has, which is actually a substantial deal in daily life.

Ditto rent and cost of living. Seattle isn't cheap cheap, but the cost of living as a proportion of the average software engineer's salary is night and day. Seattle is downright cheap compared to SF - I went from paying $2200 for a brand spanking new 2BR (doorman, gym, elevators, the works) to $2200 for a tiny studio built in the 20s. It's really night and day. Even as a well-paid engineer (say, $120K+) you constantly feel at least a little bit poor, whereas in Seattle a software engineer (say, $90K+) feels like they're swimming in a pool made of pure money. I've been in both situations personally.

Not only are Seattle rents substantially lower, but state taxes in Washington are ZERO, compared to roughly 10% in California.

State INCOME tax.

The similarity, in my experience, is more visible when held in relation to the East Coast. For west coast cities, you're probably right, but I'd bet most people would consider Seattle closer to SF than to NYC or Boston. Someone from the east coast would never call NYC and Boston similar, but they're closer to each other than they are to SF or Seattle.

Having lived in and around both, I would say NYC and Boston are fairly similar. Boston's whole psyche is based around staunchly insisting on not being inferior to New York.

Came in to say that much of it's true about Portland. The weather's better. Rent and the cost of living is cheaper, but finding a place close-in to downtown is still highly competitive (ie - you have to be ready to put down a deposit as soon as you find a place you like; there is no real opportunity to look at other places and come back). PBR is losing some of its cachet - you just as often see Hamm's or Old German as PBR anymore. I'm pretty sure anyone who has ever live near a city can agree that the 'burbs are always further out than a real-estate agent says they are.

...and unlike Oakland, all the shit people say about Gresham is true.

(ie - you have to be ready to put down a deposit as soon as you find a place you like; there is no real opportunity to look at other places and come back).

You mean that's not normal?

Things are different in less 'happening' cities, smaller towns or out in the burbs. You can actually spend a few days looking at units and have time to think about which you want. You can come back a 3-4 days later without worrying too much about your first choice being leased. If it is, you can probably get your 2nd.

You lost credibility with me by repeated use of the vulgar "San Fran". It's THE CITY. :)

What part of the Mission do you live in?

Dolores.

San Diego, THE CITY, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver

Yep, I can see how that would work.

:) upvote for not having LA in that reply.

Yes, no one from the Bay Area refers to San Francisco as "San Fran". Even worse is when people refer to it as "Frisco". It's either SF or "The City".

Only _some_ people from the city proper frown upon "San Fran", frisco, etc. Most people don't care and more over people that I know from elsewhere in the Bay area do some times call it San Fran or Frisco, if only to annoy people who get annoyed by the monikers.

I couldn't care less what people call it. When I lived in towns closer to San Jose, 'San Jose' was the reference 'city'.

The only people who seem to get annoyed with the term "San Fran" and Frisco are either transplants or hipsters(which are usually transplants to begin with). Some of the old schoolers and hip hop community still use the term Frisco.

"The City" refers to the core of whatever urban area you're in. It's meaningless outside of your local frame of reference. The only place in the US that has a halfway legitimate claim universal ownership of that name is NYC and that's tenuous at best.

If you read more carefully, I said people from the Bay Area call SF "The City". I didn't say it was the universal name for SF, just for the people in the area.

Sure, but if you read more carefully, you'd understand the context for the rest of the entire conversation is national, if not North American.

You can't expect everyone to switch context on your whim simply because you want to.

Don't you mean Frisco?

Actually, it's 'frisco'

mmm.....

Disagree: http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/dont-call-it-frisco-laundroma...

Tell a New Yorker that SF is called The City and they're guaranteed to laugh ;)

Saul Steinberg might put you guys on his map if it were to be made today, but you never know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Aven...

Hah, I thought exactly the same. Even out here in Sacramento people call it "The City" (fair enough, Sacramento is just a big-ass, boring suburban sprawl)

I just visited Sacramento this summer, and it seemed about 100x more interesting than where I'm from.

Well, where are you from? I'm so sad for you right now...

The middle of Wisconsin. But don't mourn for me. I always find things to do.

Coming as an Australian, where our brand of English is inherently lazy and involves skipping syllables wherever possible, the idea that you would frown upon a simple shortening of the name is ridiculous. Frisco does sound pretty lame though, I can understand that one.

Definitely true with regards to sports and costumes, but otherwise I'm not so sure this holds any more. Everything around D.C. is much further away than you think, for example, and more than half the people I meet work in the tech sector somewhere. I have friends in Boston and it's much the same there - live in the 'burbs and you won't leave your neighborhood much except to go to work, as the city is very spread out. The East Coast is changing, especially D.C., which is a totally different city than it was even 10 years ago, and has a burgeoning startup scene that is not solely dependent on the government teat. There are a lot more young people here, doing interesting things, than there used to be. I would wager than in another decade the differences between East and West Coast will be even fewer, if things keep on the same general trajectory.

As someone who lives in Boston, I would like to point out the falsehood of this. Boston is not spread out. By area it is tiny. From where I live I can walk through five major neighborhoods in half an hour, some of which are among the most densely populated neighborhoods in the country. Boston has much more in common with SF than it does DC.

No. There's something to be said about West Coast vs East Coast vibes, but the article accurately describes SF and it mostly doesn't apply to the smaller cities like Portland, Seattle and especially Vancouver.

Aside from the obvious, what exactly doesn't apply?

I have very close friends in Vancouver, and over the last 20 years, I've been to there often, throughout all parts of the season. I'm fairly familiar with it. If I could retire in Vancouver I would because it's a nice, quiet, slow-paced town. Even at the height of work hours, there is very little traffic downtown.

It doesn't have the same flair that a city like SF has. SF has major events throughout the year. It has a culture of weirdness, wackiness, lots of technology, lots of greed. It has very vastly different neighborhoods with vastly different cultures. Haight is completely different from Noe which is different from Castro which is different from the Marina. It's not like West End vs East End in Vancouver.

There is a culture of risk taking. People always coming up with stupid or crazy startups, trying to push it on the local businesses. There are lots of great restaurants as well. There is zero night life in Vancouver, and a few very good restaurants (but a lot of great sushi restaurants, much better than SF). Downtown is practically dead by 8pm, which is nice. Granville Street which should be like Market Street, is instead almost like a dead street, Robson has a lot of tourists, but no real culture except coffee shops.

So go back through the article, and you'll see most of the stuff on startup life doesn't apply at all. There is no craziness or wackiness, no real tech scene, not on the scale of SF or Seattle, no sense of early adoption (not very many people has iPhones in Canada because of the draconian cell phone contracts), the idea that neighborhoods are far away doesn't exist in Vancouver because the traffic isn't nearly as bad as it is here, not even 1/10 as much fog as SF, etc.

You are essentially saying SF is bigger than Vancouver, which it is. Of course there is more of everything in SF.

Have you ever lived on the East Coast though? The differences between the actually "culture" is dramatic. It seems though that most of the people objecting to my comment only have experience on the west coast, and therefore see the differences in the cities instead of how - in reality - how similar they are, at least when compared to the eastern half of the continent.

BTW, here in Vancouver everyone I know has an iPhone, including me.

Nope - San Francisco is not much bigger. San Francisco has 800K people. Vancouver has 600K.

(It is true that there are much more people in Bay Area versus the greater Vancouver area.)

I've lived in both cities. Vancouver is basically the San Francisco of Canada. But it lacks the defiantly weird spirit of San Francisco. The insane wealth that's pumped through the city from nearby tech zillionaires does play a role, because it gives 20-year-olds really high incomes, even though they spend a lot of it on rent. But in NYC or Toronto people would be spending that money on status possessions, not constructing snail-cars that shoot fire.

And everyone having an iPhone? That was 2007 in the Bay Area.

Vancouver does have virtues of its own. The OP talks about SF's culture of fitness, but I did not notice that so much -- it's nothing compared to Vancouver. People in Vancouver have excellent work-life balance. They put in a decent effort at work, more or less 9-5, but do two different sports in their spare time. People in Vancouver look like they're 25 when they're 35. People in SF stay mentally young for longer, but the job stress tends to wear down on them. When I moved from Vancouver to SF I noticed how tired everybody looked.

(It is true that there are much more people in Bay Area versus the greater Vancouver area.)

Yeah, it's bigger. People don't stay within local municipal boundaries. Don't be ridiculous. Nobody in their right mind would argue that Vancouver and SF are the same size.

I've lived in both cities.

Great, but have you lived out east? Because that is what I'm comparing. I recognize there are differences between each city. Of course there are. What I'm saying is that there is a definite "vibe" that is shared by each of the cities on the coast, (even Portland and San Deigo have it) that is simply different from the average each coast city.

I grew up in Montreal, which is definitely more east coast but is so unlike other North American cities it's probably a poor comparison.

Your impressions of Vancouver are dated by about 5 years. A lot has changed over the last few years with the Olympics, Canada Line, BC Place renovation, Convention Centre, Shangri-La being built, etc.

> There is zero night life in Vancouver, and a few very good restaurants (but a lot of great sushi restaurants, much better than SF).

The problem with Vancouverites is that they just like to complain about the bad nightlife even though it is actually fairly vibrant. I have lived in Vancouver for about 15 years now and most of that time I've lived downtown. I can go into almost any bar and hug the bartender. There is a good live music night almost every night of the week. (Guilt & Co, Railway, Commodore, Media Club, Orpheum)

> Downtown is practically dead by 8pm, which is nice. Granville Street which should be like Market Street, is instead almost like a dead street, Robson has a lot of tourists, but no real culture except coffee shops.

Downtown being dead by 8pm is no longer true. At 30,000 people per square mile, it's one of the densest cores in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Vancouver

Granville and Robson are the tourist trap and drunk college kids strip. Gastown is usually packed on Friday and Saturday nights with drunk 19 year olds. Most of the locals hang out in Gastown, Yaletown, or South Main depending on your scene preference.

The sushi in Gastown is garbage, but Yaletown probably has better sushi than the rest of Canada and the US combined (Ki Isu, Honjin, Bistro Sakana, Minami, Blue Water, Hapa Izakaya).

And a list of more restaurants: http://www.yelp.ca/search?find_desc=Michelin+Star+Restaurant...

I liked it for that reason. Given, I'm also moving from Boston to SF this year, so it's particularly applicable to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com