Originally Posted by ConcernedParent
Understatement. All of these perpetually smug and uber-liberal cities tend to have the ugliest of wimminz. (See also: Portland, Ore).
Here is the way I think about NY and SF.
If you are on the east coast and ambitious and smart - you head out to NY and try and become a investment banker or other business person.
On the west coast - you go to Silicon Valley and try a startup.
On the east coast - if you are gorgeous - you head out to NY and try and become a model or actress.
On the west coast - you head out to LA.
So basically, if you are ambitious and smart, you leave SF for the Peninsula; and if you are hot, you go down to LA.
Whereas NY is a destination for both.
SF would be better if they loosened up the building code a lot. The old houses aren't very charming, they are mostly ratty. More density and more mixed-use would lower rents and make the city interesting. Then they wouldn't need the retarded rent stabilization that encourages super high initial rents and minimal ongoing investment.