Even SF is not very walkable compared to Chicago, DC, Philly, Boston, etc. (All significantly cheaper than SF.) Even by American standards, the BART is a pretty second-rate metro. (And that's not even counting the fact that nowadays it's essentially unsafe at night, for single women, etc.)
I’ve been to SF twice in the last three years. My impression of SF’s public transport (and to be honest, walking around parts of it too) was that I did not feel very safe using the MUNI buses, especially at night. I saw on the news that a British guy got stabbed near my hotel a week after I left the first time.
On one occasion I also witnessed a bus driver drive past a guy in a wheelchair in the middle of the day. Someone on the bus challenged them on that and I vividly remember that she said “I ain’t lettin no cripple pee pee all over my bus.”
The BART was much better but obviously is more limited in where it goes.
I think a lot depends on what you're used to. I think a lot of folks accept the limited mobility they knew through school when they graduate. It becomes less acceptable as they get older. Many exceptions of course.
Is there that much of a difference between owning a car and renting a car or using Zip or having a chauffer (Lyft, Uber, taxis) tote you around? I'd get rid of my car too if I could afford to have Uber haul me everywhere.
With reference to my sibling comment, definitively yes. I personally spent less on a handful of Lyft rides per month in Houston than I did on insurance alone when I owned a car. Never mind the cost of the vehicle itself, gas, any repairs...
Even adding in the cost of my rail and bus rides, still doesn't come close to the cost of a vehicle.
It's a difference in frequency of use. In Seattle, a lot of my friends don't have cars, but use Rideshare/rentals when they need it. If you are using it a couple times a week, pretty easy to stay under the cost of car ownership when you factor in insurance/parking/maintenance etc.
The cost of owning a car in California including maintenance, fuel, parking, registration, smog check, etc. can be upwards of $10K per year. At least it was for me when I owned a car.
I walk most places and use car share or rent as necessary. I do not spend $10K per year on car share and rentals.
Literally, YMMV.
Within Midtown, the further North you go, there are a few more bars/clubs that make noise at night, so either live further South, live a few blocks East or West of the rail, or both. Huge amounts of apartment stock just came online in the last 3 years there, so you might get a solid rent deal somewhere? For me personally, being able to walk to a grocery store is always key anywhere in the world: shop every 2-3 days on the way home from work, only buy what I need, less waste. That area has two grocery stores: Randall's and Whole Foods.
Montrose is the other top spot. For me it is the #1 example of how Houston's lack of zoning can shine (versus other areas where it is a detriment). Fantastic local retail interspersed among every-other residential block. Montrose is a large-ish area and every half mile can be a slightly different "feel", but there are great options to rent newer apartments, older apartments, or rent spacious, cheap, historical houses close to things like Menil Park, or the big restaurant scene along Westheimer. Sadly the Kroger at Hawthorne is closing, but the huge HEB is dead-center of Montrose. East a bit and you're near Trader Joe's. If you're anywhere along Westheimer, the 82 bus goes to to Midtown Whole Foods and if you're along West Gray the 32 bus goes to the Kroger near River Oaks. The whole area always has things happening (check the pinboards at Inversion or Black Hole), and is next door to Midtown for even more.
If Downtown would get a larger grocery store with slightly more affordable staples (no offense to Phoenecia), and have it close-ish to where the rail lines meet, the entirety of Downtown would immediately become more viable (imo). I have friends both in Downtown, and in the Heights (solid bike culture there), but they eat out more than I do. The Heights started getting expensive ten years ago and doesn't look to stop, but it's still an option.
In about 5 years I think the Greater East End will be another great walkable/bikeable region (the actual East End, not EaDo), so depending where along the gentrification curve you prefer to live (before, during, after) it might be worth checking out now.
Also, though I did own a car, I really only used it on weekend trips out of town. If I had stayed long-term, I would have sold it, because it's expensive to own one there (parking is expensive unless you want to gamble on finding a spot on the street, and there are extra city taxes on gas and registration). Chicago is pretty walkable and has usable mass transit.
The exodus of middle class Black and Hispanic people from high cost urban areas drives some crazy income distributions in places like San Francisco: https://statisticalatlas.com/place/California/San-Francisco/.... If your apartment building, restaurants, etc., are places mainly populated by those making over $100k/year, there will be a vanishingly small number of Black people in those places. (See table 10). Contrast somewhere like Atlanta, where a third of households making $75-100k/year (a very comfortable income in that city) are Black.
The main issue is the cold. You have 3 months of amazing summer and 8 months of cold with two weeks of spring and fall on either end. If you're not from the Midwest, it can really wear on you and bring you down.
Getting robbed at gunpoint isn't. That's the real Chicago you have to contend with.
Your experience will vary greatly, depending on which areas you visit.
It also has more than triple the population of SF, or twice as many people as SF+Oakland combined, so any absolute (as opposed to per-capita) numbers aren't comparable.
In Chicago you were able to afford to live somewhere isolated from the reality of most Chicagoans.
In San Francisco you have so thoroughly priced everyone out that there isn't anywhere for the lower classes to go and so the bullshit is everywhere for everyone to deal with. Boo hoo.
You can still find many vestiges of this, like all the head shops and very non mainstream things in the Haight Ashbury, but the reality is that it is far less of a counter-cultural mecca today than it was fifty, or even twenty, years ago.
The reputation is taking a long time to catch up to that reality though.
Everyone else thinks that The Bay is culturually homogenous.
What I'm saying is turn it around on them.
There's a world of difference between "yeah, we have gay people" and being a place where LGBT people can build happy, stable lives.
LGBT : This is not really the 80s and 90s . Most big cities from DC, Atlanta, Austin ,Chicago, Phoenix, Miami have strong LGBT presence . And a lot of racial heterogeneity there too.
Art and Culture: Almost all artists that I met in Austin, Chicago , Miami , Portland , Asheville left the Bay Area . They were priced out by tech . Everything is tech in the Bay Area . Even artists have to align or suck up to tech .
High quality food: Yes, again a lot of other cities are replicating that.
The Bay Area is truly great and very beautiful . But I cannot constantly hustle at 45 while raising 2 kids , pay a million dollars for a shack . I am sort of tired of constantly competing and hustling . I am tired of being told that we are counter culture since we are not Wall Street bro’s but I need a million dollars for a 1950s 2 bedroom house .