I accept everyone has different aesthetics. But, the city just screams fake to me without any of the organic charm an old city or the brutal asthetic of say NY.
PS: I guess you can call it unique...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_ladies#/media/File:Pai...
Linking into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_ladies:
> "Painted ladies" is a term in American architecture used for Victorian and Edwardian houses and buildings painted in three or more colors that embellish or enhance their architectural details. The term was first used for San Francisco Victorian houses by writers Elizabeth Pomada and Michael Larsen in their 1978 book Painted Ladies - San Francisco's Resplendent Victorians.[1]
Such housing is virtually everywhere in SF if you bother walking out of the urban core. I used to lose myself for hours just wandering around SF neighborhoods.
I really wonder if you really know what slums really are. I live in Beijing, a high rise city by any definition, which has slums galore (though not the ones found in India). Even the tall buildings are dingy, lack character. I also lived in Lausanne for a couple of years...supposedly a nice city, but it definitely had its share of grit and urban fake-ness. Especially high rise social housing (say in Renens), which, while not bad, definitely had a feeling of sluminess to them.
But the reality of the city's history and demographics is far more staid. And the people living there just want jobs, affordable housing, and better public transportation just like anywhere else. And streets that don't flood during storms, and air they can breathe.
SF also does actually sit right on top of a fault line, so it is not a staid place by any stretch of the mind. It was just over 100 years ago the entire place burnt to the ground and was rebuilt by greedy logger barons (Cowell, Lick, etc.). It is a matter of time before another bad quake happens again, though maybe to Market as badly the next time. I agree they want the amenities, but SF is a port and it needs its vices, despite all calls to the contrary. People that need the amenities move to Napa or Dublin. Also, SF has never had real problems with flooding like St. Louis does (see: the hills) or the bad air like on Mexico City or LA (see: the bay fog rolling in).
I've no idea what drives the romanticism when you can smell the streets even in the rain. Then again, the French are like that and their streets are covered in doggy land-mines like SF's are.
And in terms of the stunning beauty of its geographic surroundings -- precisely none of them.
On balance there's basically no contest.
http://www.deeproot.com/blog/blog-entries/tree-cover-how-doe...
San Jose has a beauty reminiscent of Houston, Texas or Melbourne, Australia.
That's because you're talking about one of the most beautiful cities in the world (despite the attempts of some people to decry otherwise) and, as expressed through the will of its electorate, intends to stay that way. It's also a city that's keenly aware of ecosystem dynamics and environmental issues generally, and the effect of removing that removing certain kinds of trees (for example, trees of significant age, size, and/or foliage) -- particularly if they're close to the street -- can have on the neighborhood well beyond the tiny confines of your own property.
If you want to live in a city that couldn't begin to give a flying F* about trees, or anything else green, for most of its history -- and has the corresponding development footprint and visual character to show for it -- try moving to San Jose.