San Fran-Worst Destination?!
 

I am reading the post about the "Worst Destination" and it seems as though San Fran is mentioned as a "not so great place" in every other post. Planning an August visit (4 days for San Fran) and extremely excited about it. I have read many good things about the city on this site, but feeling a bit bummed about it making the list in "worst destination." Should I NOT be excited for this trip so I can be pleasantly surprised? What a horrible attitude to take.

Anybody that says San Francisco is on the worst destination list is an idiot. It is one of the greatest cities in the world. You will love your visit.

My husband and I LOVE San Francisco. It's a gorgeous city with lots of great restaurants and sights. We walk from one end of the city to the other, ride the cable cars, shop. We'd go there all the time if we could get away.

I'll go out one a limb here and say that some people who picked S.F as a "worst" did so because the gay influence there. Dependfing on what part of the city you're in, you'll see examples of same-sex affection frequently, and that bothers some people (i know, because they've told me so). <BR>That said, I will note that SF is one of my favorite places to visit. It's beautiful and culturally diverse. It makes LA look like Peoria -- with apologies to those of you from Peoria. <BR> <BR>And by the way, I'm married and about as straight as you can get.

Shannon: <BR>I live next door to SF and I have worked, played and have relatives who live in SF. <BR>Do not change your plans because of the opinions of others. SF was a part of YOUR travel passion so go for it. <BR>Know what YOU want out of your four days and four nights and you will be fine. Your attitude is what counts. If you based your trvel on the various opinions of people on the internet you probably would stay stuck to your keyboard asking 20 questions and never going and getting your own opinion to bring back to the internet. <BR>Where else are you going and what are some of the top things on your list that you plan to do in SF? Share them if you want. Be prepared for anything and everything to be said about YOUR plans. <BR>p.s. go to some other travel sites and get some other perspectives... <BR> <BR>Happy Travels <BR>Oaktown

shannon, <BR> <BR>some people love san francisco and some don't, i've found that more love it. i think that it all depends upon what kind of a person you are and what kind of travelling you enjoy. san francisco is a city: yes, it has traffic, crowds, areas that are run down, etc. but, on the other hand, it's got great art museums and theatre, fabulous restaurants, unbelievable scenery, excellent shopping, beautiful neighborhoods, and a character that is unique, which can't be found anywhere else in the world. it's a city steeped in history which prides itself on its cultural and social diversity. perhaps some people just aren't city types. they may have a preference for vast, open spaces, plenty of parking, no restaurant waits, stores with names they know, spotlessly clean streets, and a commonality of community. if so, then san francisco may not be for them. but then why travel? for those of us who like to experience the unfamiliar, see new sights, hear new sounds, san francisco is for you! so i guess my point is, don't you dare let other people's opinions of the city dull your excitement for your upcoming trip! :) that's one of the pleasures of going on holiday, the buildup in the months before.

Make up your own mind and don't plan your vacations on consideration of other people's dislikes. This forum holds a majority who idolize San Fran. and some people post just to be negative and defensive against them. <BR> <BR>We enjoyed San Francisco immensely and thought it was especially beautiful in it's own very individual way. The general physical pace and the evident appreciation for the best things in life had more in common with some European cities than with the other USA cities that I have visited. Having said that you should also know it is very expensive and not as tourist friendly, in our opinion, as many on these boards seem to believe. I've been to maybe 20 to 25 major USA cities and it's probably in the top three for confusing signs etc. Take the public transport everywhere and don't attempt to drive, if you can help it. If you are young and/or into styling, you will love it.

To Jim: <BR> <BR>I am one of the people who answered "SF" on one of the boards which asked which city was a disappointment. I grudgingly said SF, because it has a reputation that almost no city can live up to. That said, I would return to SF any time - I loved it (but I did not LOVE it, as everyone told me I would). It is a great city, great scenery, etc., and whoever posted this question here should go. <BR> <BR>BTW, your assumption that the reason I listed SF as a disappointment was because of gay people is astoundingly ignorant (by trying to be so PC, you violated one of its basic tenets - not to prejudge). I am a big-city liberal who is extremely open to gay people - if anything, I thought after my first time to SF that it was remarkably "un-gay" outside the Castro.

I have to agree with the above poster who summed up my thoughts exactly. I liked the city immensely but I think that it is so hyped that it would be impossible for any city to live up to that. I would still include it as a city not to be missed. <BR>PS- I am also straight but not uncomfortable in a gay community. My company serves the gay community and half the staff is gay.

Shannon-I lived in the Bay Area for several years, and while I did not live in SF, I certainly visited countless times. We lived in San Jose, and SF was our idea of a wonderful day trip. We also loved Sausalito and Tiburon. I could never understand what the big attraction was to tour Alcatraz. I'm sure many people found it fascinating, but it was just not on our things to do list.

Thanks all for lifting my spirits about San Fran. I have been eager to visit the city for years. <BR>Oaktown, I am planning on staying at the White Swan for five days (no car during this time. Not sure yet what plans we have to do in San Fran (hopefully going to do the Alcatraz tour-yes so touristy) and heading to Big Sur for a day. Then up to Napa (although, I have read on this post that Sonoma may be better). Always up for suggestions. (25 yrs old, live in NJ and frequent NYC) <BR>I have posted with a few questions before and more may follow. Thanks for all of your responses.

Although it is not the "worst" destination, neither is it necessarily the "best". It has its moments, but IMHO did not live up to the expectations created by many unqualified and glowing reviews. It is an interesting city, but go with reasonable expectations.

I did SF as a tourist and then, years later, as a resident. Frankly, I can see why some people would not like it. Many Americans are used to lots of open space, warm summer weather, and a car culture. SF doesn't have that when you're a tourist seeing the city. Also, it took me some time to discover the best the city had to offer, and a tourist would miss some of those things. <BR> <BR>So go, enjoy, and stay away from Fisherman's Wharf. Just make sure to appreciate the uniqueness of SF. No one can dispute that SF is the only place on earth like SF.

Shannon and everyone... <BR> <BR>Remember in every post on virtually every thread on these boards....everything you are reading is just (to borrow a phrase from Neal Sanders) *One Travelers Opinion*. No more, no less. No one person can speak for all others in selection of any destination, whether it be hotel, restaurant, or city. We are all at different stages in our lives and different socio-economic levels. What is fantastic for one could just as easily be the worst experience for the next. <BR> <BR>You'll get a wide range of opinions on every subject. The boards are allowing you to make an educated guess, narrow choices, but in no way eliminate the homework you should be doing as well to ensure that your trip is the best for you considering your likes and dislikes.

Shannon: <BR>Your plans sound fine. The White Swan is a gem. You will enjoy yourself. You go ahead to Alcatraz and the Fisherman's Wharf, Lombard Street(the crooked part) and just do your thing! <BR>Go to web sites that rate restaurants and by all means stop by the bookstore and hit up the magazine section to find out the latest reviews on SF. <BR>Big Sur can be "done" in a day with a highly suggested overnight. With our traffic and the distance to Big Sur you will be so glad that you have a night in that area. <BR>Sonoma is lovely. Do a little reserach on wineries that YOU like and use that as your guide. Your favorite restaurant wine list is another good place to start your thoughts as for where you want to get a pour and a picture! We have tons of great/good wineries. We collect and attend winemaker dinners so if you get stuck, holler. <BR>If you want to dance the night away, I can let you know the "up-to-now" on that as well. Clubs change as soon as the ink dries... <BR> <BR>Happy Travels <BR>Oaktown

Wow. I've never heard anyone say they didn't like SF. Shannon--you'll have a great time.

I agree with Mrs. Oyl, every word of it, and building upon her very reasonable, closely reasoned response, I would say this: debating about San Francisco ... are you all out of your everloving, nutty, fri**ing minds? SF is one of the premier, fab, fad, just don't make me leave places in this whole entire world. And if you don't want to go there, then check your pulse ... or if you've the equipment, check for brain waves. Me oh my ... I know this will bring down the wrath of Fodors upon my head, but some of you guys are definitely smoking some good stuff, but getting the wrong results. ... Scotty ... oh, Scotty ... I say, Scotty .... Scotty? Beam me up anytime now ... Scotty? I think this debate did poor Scotty in, or he might be tokking one himself, just to ease the anguish. And now I must repair to my favortite bar and have that martini ... 3 olives, please. I need it!!! Heck, I've earned it. And now, back to you, OO. Ciao

Shannon, I read those posts and considered responding with a rebuttal, but decided that wasn't really in line with the original question. But I could not disagree more with those who would put San Francisco anywhere NEAR a "worst" list. It is a wonderful city; easily one of our top North American destinations, in my view. A four-day visit is about right (it's interesting, but tends to be on the pricey side and you can do a lot in the time you have). I would be very surprised if you don't have an absolutely wonderful time and if you are like many of us, it will be high on your list for a return visit, too. Happy Trails! :o)

S.F. is often compared to Boston and as a Bostonian I was anxious to see S.F. Let me tell you I fell in love with S.F., and all the touristy things, the hills, restaurants, people,etc. Have yet even on a second trip to go to Alcatraz I don't understand the attraction, but walking along the waterfront, hearing the seals, going to Scoma, doing the tourist things. S.F. is a great jumping off spot to go up to Sonoma (nicer and less touristy than Napa), go down to Carmel. Our favorite time and weather has been October when we "ran" into the Blue Angels practicing their manuevers over the Bay..breaking the sound barrier all day long...push carts along the water front... You can drive in S.F. and taxi cabs are reasonable..yep, I left my heart there too. There is nothing wrong in being a tourist, I love it... I'd go there anytime...

As a grandson of one of the prominent San Fran founding families (the Magnins - check out Cyril Magnin Sq. in SF.) I often kiss the ground on my grand father's grave for moving to LA in 1917. At that time, my grandfather said that LA would be NY with palm trees. And he was right. I admit that LA is harder to explore than teeny SF. But it has far surpassed SF in culture, (as even the SF Chronicle recognized a decade ago) and every other indicia of a metropolitan city. Chose any five days at random, and compare the entertainment section of the LA Times vs. the SF Chronicle (one of the worst "big city" papers in the US.) LA rules. In 1955, SF had it over LA, and it has rested on it's laurels ever since, as it was left in the gutter. Anyone who compares LA to Peoria is just plain ignorant. Anyone who thinks SF is clean is either blind or drunk. <BR> <BR>Try LA.

Dave, I realize you're just trying to get a response out of people to get attention. <BR>That said, to everyone else, ignore Dave's comments. <BR> <BR>Now Dave: if you want to compare LA and SF let's compare apples to apples, OK? Are you comparing the cities proper or the metro/surrounding areas? <BR>You'll lose the argument quickly if you compare the cities proper. Of course the city of LA has very few redeeming qualities while the city of SF has a laundry list of attractive qualities. <BR> <BR>I assume you're talking about the area in general. Now if you factor in the Bay area's numerous gems you must include Napa Valley, the redwood forests and the beauties of Marin County, Carmel, Big Sur, Monterey, and some would say Yosemite and even Lake Tahoe. <BR>Sure the argument for LA would then include Santa Barbara, Newport, etc, but when you tally everything up, there isn't an area in the ENTIRE U.S. that has more attractive aspects for the traveller than the Bay area. <BR>Sorry, but LA will always be California's tourism stepchild.

Yes, you should visit that "pokey and twee" (see Joe Queenan's article in the LA TImes in '98?) big town in the north ( grew up in the Bay area), but it is the most overrated hyped city in the US. First of all, it's not a city, but a big small town. There are not "great museums in SF", try the Getty, the LACMA, the Huntington Hartingford, the Norton Simon,etc down south. There is NOT great theatre at all: nothing compares to the Ahmanson, the D. Chandler, the Shubert, South Coast Rep., Pasadenda Playhouse, the Bowl; the place is riding on its reputation and counting on you to believe it. Yes, the setting is lovely, there are pictureseque Victorian houses; it's all so cute . Yes, they do have DiMaggio. They also a BIG homeless problem, major agressive panhandlers, attitude ( which residents of truly great cities do not--I never heard a Londoner , Parisian, or a New Yorker claim their city was the greatest..they don't have to). So, visit, but take it with a grain of salt. <BR>Next year, rent a car and join Anthony Hopkins and Placido Domingo in celebrating Southern CA.

Caught in your own noose, Rick!! <BR> <BR>"...residents of truly great cities don't have to claim their cities are the greatest...they don't have to". <BR> <BR>Then why is it that residents of LA are always whining on this board about how LA is so wonderful and that it gets no respect??! <BR> <BR>Hmmmm. <BR>Makes you think, doesn't it?

The ENTIRE San Fran Bay Area is VASTLY OVERRATED -- PERIOD; END OF STORY!!!

To exangeleno: <BR>I am not just trying to get a response. The concession by the SF Chronicle was in a Sunday magazine article comparing the two cities. The article first noted that business and industry had experienced a southern migration in the last few decades. It then went on to discuss culture, saying that culture, "that whimmsied whore of money" had followed industry south, and that LA has passed SF. Funny, when culture was in SF, she was a classy lady. <BR> <BR>When I say LA, I mean within reasonable range in the metro areal. I am in LA, but I consider N. Hollywood in the Valley part of LA. If I want to go to a show there it takes 15 min. to get there. About the same time as it takes to get to SF downtown from some parts of SF. In other words, what is convenient. As for diversity, when I drive downtown, I like to count the different ethnic businesses that I pass in a relatively short drive. Ditto for the number of people I interact with. In the next two hours, I will probably be having dealing with people from at least 6 different backgrounds, and I work alone. <BR> <BR>Now, I am just talking the metro area. If you want to tack on Napa to SF, let's do apples and apples. I will throw in Big Bear, Palm Springs, Joshua, and a score of others, which I hesitate to mention because my spelling is so bad. <BR> <BR>Final story: I was living in NY in the 80's. Went to a party, where two ex-NYers were bitching about the fact that they had to live in LA. I asked them why, and they said that's where work was (they were in entertainment.) They said there was nothing in LA. I started listing things that they had never done. Finally, I mentioned the Huntington, and one guy said, "but that's in Pasadena." <BR>I told him it was only 15 minutes from where he lived and to ignore political boundries. He said, "It's 15 min. if you have a car." <BR>At which point his partner said, "but we have a car." <BR>It's all here in LA, if you want to go there.

Hi: <BR> <BR>Here is my 2-cents on San Francisco. I travel for business once a month if not more to S.F. If you love out-doors mixed with very upscale population then SF is one of the best places for you! My only complains are: <BR> <BR>1. Very aggressive homeless in the tourist spots <BR>2. Dot-commers have taken the heart out of the city. Too many people wearing black and looking very bored with the whole thing. <BR>3. Great walking town. Provided you have strong legs! Oh those hills! <BR>4. Fishermans Wharf. Love or hate area! (I kind-of like it, tourist are always having fun!) <BR>5. Dont call it 'Frisco. At least that what the locals say. <BR>6. Weather....cooler than you expect! The "fog" , ya know! <BR>7. Nice Ballpark <BR>8. Huge airport. Watch out for the plane landing next to your plane! <BR> <BR>I am a snob for my city NYC! Now that is one great town. <BR> <BR>JOHN <BR>

The "attitude" to which Rick refers is a reference to the Queenan article , which is very funny and quite accurate. If you can find it, read it for a laugh. <BR> <BR>SF is not the "worst destination', it's just hyped way out of proportion to what it offers. It has indeed lost much of its cultural status. And, yes, bring a sweater even in August. <BR> <BR>Michele

Love it! I think the airport is what gives it a bad rap. And the fact that people don't understand that there's no place to park a rental car. <BR> <BR>Don't tie your feelings to other peoples' opinion. Have fun! <BR>

shannon, <BR>don't let rick from southern california discourage you. he alleges that there are no great art museums or theatre in the city, which is totally unfounded. in fact, there is ballet, the opera, the symphony as well. the museums are diverse ranging from the museum of modern art, the asian heritage museum, and the de young, for instance. as for theatre, we have tons of great theatre within a couple blocks downtown with as many new, innovative, theatre groups in the mission, civic center, etc. it's clear that although rick said he grew up in the "bay area", he was not from san francicsco and obviously did not experience many of the charms of the city that adults (not children) are interested in such as art, music and theatre. rick appears to be trying to compare all the attractions of a large portion of la county (pasadena?) which is 3-4 thousand square miles to one city which is only 7 miles wide and long. i'm also surprised that rick alleges there's attitude up here, since the same can be said of la on a grander scale. and, by the way rick, mr. dimaggio passed away a few years back so i guess we no longer "have" him.

I am somewhat amused by this LA vs. SF conversation. As an easterner who has been to both extensively, I can honestly say that SF is far better. LA's cultural scene, although possibly larger, feels very new, and somewhat of an afterthought. It feels like twenty years ago and handful of Angelenos, tired of being bashed for offering nothing culturally, slapped together some museums and theatres. SF's arts scene is so much more organically inspired and historically based. One measure of a city's art scene isn't just the number of institutions, but whether or not the locals support what they have. In that respect, SF is a far weightier arts city than LA.

The migration of business to LA halted and did an about face when silicon valley took all the luster of LAs hopes of ever monopolizing the corporate scene in CA. The heart of CAs business juggernaut is San Francisco and the 9 cunties that surround our harbor. The most educated, the richest and most expensive places in CA are within commuting distance of the golden gate. The bay area single handedly draggeed california out of recession in the 1990s while LA wallowed in riots and defense industry layoffs. We focused our energy on high technology and today command LA and the rest of the world when it comes to innovation. We have by far more millionaires( my self included) and Billionaires than any other region in the United States. The Chronicle 500 is given more respect in business circles than the LATimes 100 because the biggest companies are in the Bay area. Rick, Cyril Magnin was and is a figure in Bay area history, but you are sadly mistaken in your misguided and completley uninformed synopsis as to the economic regions in CA. Angelenos like to play the non-chalant role, but it churns their stomachs to read headline upon headline the different stories heralding the bay area's domination of the new economy. In all things, there is only one number one, and in terms of calling shots in california, LA is definitley is not it.

Lets talk about driving downtown. <BR> <BR>Downtown LA doesnt feel like a city center. The streets are not teeming with business suits and shoppers, however there a lot of pawn shops. Pershing Square needs something( Like Divine Intervention) to revitalize it. All the sparkling office towers stand half empty and then at night, its scarry. To say its a fun place would be stretching it. <BR> <BR>Downtown San Francisco is brimming in Sophistication and style. Armani is everywhere. Locals and tourists alike enjoy the worldclass shopping and dining( dont even think of comparing LA to SF in the fine dining department, it would be very ugly) Then there are the sights and the adjoining neighborhoods. It feels like a piece of Manhattan in early spring.

SF is in fact so fab, I'd suggest black, black and more black, except that's for NYC. In SF, I'd think a mixture of black and grey ... light wool or silk/linen/wool mix. Boring afternoon, but Great Thread(s). Ciao

Shannon, I think that you should go to San Francisco, thinking that youll be dissappointed. Because that way, when you actually arrive, the city will blow you away. As soon as you step out of the airport and the cool air hits you, your love affair with SF will begin. The visitors bureau in SF doesnt have to try that hard to sell the city, cause word-of-mouth has brings tens of millions to San Francisco every year. <BR> <BR>I came here from Houston last summer, and despite my $3000 rent in the Berkeley Hills( 2 bd, 1.5 bath) I wouldnt want to live anywhere else.

I love the Bay area,I was there in Sept. and the weather was great, but my biggest complaint is the traffic. I drove from San Francisco to a meeting in Palo Alto and it took me almost 3 hours to drive 30mi. I hear that the commute from the Oakland side of the bay is even worse. Just stay in the city and youll be okay traffic-wise.

To dontbejealous: <BR> <BR>Rick didn't post the Cyril Magnin comment, I did, and I know who he is because he was related to me. It sounds like SF has been flooded with dot.com yuppies, which is apparent when you go to SF and count the number of Starbucks downtown, as opposed to the number of small mom's and pop's places remaining. You also said that the heart of CA business is the "9 cunties" surrounding the Golden Gate. Yes, but I was trying not to get into how sleazy the North Beach area has become. <BR> <BR>SF and NY are great places to live in if you are millionaires (like yourself) or billionaires. On the other hand, I am not in that range, yet I have a lovely house with lots of charm, built in 1912, with a yard and garden, looking up to the hills, in a very nice area of town. And there are thousands and thousands of similar homes. No non-millionaire in SF could afford the type of house that I have in LA. It is true that your Victorian apartments are very pretty. But they are basically gussied up railroad flats. <BR> <BR>As for Reianne's belief that as to culture, I am very involved with the LA dance community. I frequently go to shows and am only able to see a small percent of what is available. SF has a ballet company, but there are more nights per year where you can see dance on any level in LA. Same for my friends in the arts world who go to shows all the time. Name a day, and let's compare what was playing in the two cities. (Try to find a "Drop in" tap class in SF - I did, doesn't exist.) <BR>As for the moniker "dontbejealous," I am not, having lived in both. <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>

Nathaniel, 3 hours from the city to Palo Alto????? There must have been an accident. At worst it takes and hour and small change. As to the controversy--I didn't want to get into this, but I lived in L.A. for 6 years and have lived in the Bay area for 7 more. I love both places and would never compare them. Northern and Southern CA are like two different states and both cities have much to offer, but are apples and oranges when you compare. This whole disagreement makes us Californias sound really nutty. So, it probably confirms to many Easterners that we are wacko people living in fantasyland.

Enough already. This was among the dumbest of the duh threads in a long time, and you guys just kept it going , on and on. Whgo cares whether you like LA over SF ... give your egos a break. Let this thread die, goodness sakes. It's stupid, and you are too to keep arguing about SF ... Go, don't go, who cares. To the bottom, please.

Didn't imagine this post would turn into something this intense. However, thanks for all the positive comments and I am eagerly continuing my travel plans to San Fran etc. (L, I am sorry you see this as a 'dumbest of the duh threads,' however, I felt I needed to ask). Cheers all.

Well, Shannon, you had ever right to ask ... but the asnswers were strange, to say the least ... because they resulted in this SF v. LA diatribe, when both are great cities. And I just cannot imagine what you read that suggested SF was not a place to see. If I were you, I'd find another source for future travels ... that one certainly got you started in the wrong direction. Not to go to SF, of course, would be a mistake for anyone who relishes exciting cities. One might just as well debate NYC, Paris, Venice, Bangkok, you name it. All deserve a visit, if one can manage it. Well, if you do see SF, I hope you like what you see.