SF can get old. I lived in the Bay Are for 18 years, a lot of that in SF. SF is not really a real city anymore. It’s just kind of fake city for hipsters and high tech millionaires. There aren’t a lot of families or kids in SF. I think I read where SF has the lowest number of children of any major city in the U.S. But, SF does have very attractive architecture with the Edwardians and Victorians. Much more attractive neighbords than SD. It is undeniably a gorgeous and walkable city and SD is not. But the congestion sucks, you get no summer, and the parking sucks.
Now talking about architecture, in SD we have places like Claremont. Claremont is an example of a place that has a great location close to the coast, downtown and La Jolla but IMO is dead ugly. The houses are like Mississippi sharecropper shacks. The worst of the 1950’s crap that was thrown up fast for a quick buck and these ugly 1950’s-1970’s strip centers for your downtowns in Claremont. I would put Kearny Mesa and Serra Mesa also in that Claremont category for zero character ugly 1950’s time warp. And these are $400k houses! And San Carlos is another area of SD that is considered a good middle class area of SD. But the houses are also clapboard 1950’s-1960’s ugly pieces of crap with more shitty strips centers for shopping with your 7-11 as the “anchor boutique”. The views of Cowles Mnt is the only attractive thing about it.
