Toronto might be more congested in parts, but it's much less racist and incestuous, and perhaps equally overpriced.
Halifax might be more incestuous.
Calgary might be more racists.
Montreal might be more elitists, but he didn't mention that.
Whereas, in defense of San Francisco, San Francisco has Oakland. It has Fremont. It has Berkeley. It has Richmond. So when you think about San Francisco, you don't have to think about the congested, racists, incestuous and certainly overpriced part. You can think of the whole. Which is far from that. Especially when compared to Vancouver. A rather depressing, squat, shabby and moist city.
My thoughts when I was in Vancouver were 1. If it wasn't for the border ending right here, there'd be no city here. The city here would be Seattle. 2. Vancouver stopped thinking in the 70s. Everything is just a short 70s convenience store building. 3. Yes, the natural beauty is amazing, which is why the city sucks so much. People would rather leave daily. 4. The natives really got it bad here. Never were they defeated like their eastern and southern counterparts, but still they were simply taken over. You can sense their deep frustration with their lack of autonomy and it's a feeling that I think is completely justified. and finally 5. No wonder Heroin is so popular here. I'd do heroin too if I lived here.
But I guess people love where they live. Even if that place is god awfully moist and moldy like Vancouver.