Don't kid yourself, San Jose is still the pathetic cousin of San Francisco. Of course, Oakland is it's red-headed step brother.

Don't kid yourself, San Jose is still the pathetic cousin of San Francisco. Of course, Oakland is it's red-headed step brother.

Ah San Francisco, where self-importance flows from the mouths of the delusional.

Ah San Francisco, where self-importance flows from the mouths of the delusional.

I live closer to San Jose, actually. When locals say that they're going to the city, they don't mean SJ.

When I visited SF, the locals told me not to call it San Francisco but to call it "The City." I laughed. It's not Paris, it's just pretentious - and it's prone to attacks of entitlement, like still claiming San Jose just to hurt the A's.

the locals told me not to call it San Francisco but to call it "The City." I laughed. It's not Paris

It's not Manhattan, either.

It's not even L.A.

When I visited SF, the locals told me not to call it San Francisco but to call it "The City." I laughed. It's not Paris, it's just pretentious

They're weird that way. They told me not to call it "Frisco" either, even though I hadn't actually done that or even thought of doing that. I asked why they found "Frisco" so offensive and no one knew the answer. Then someone looked it up and found out that apparently 19th century miners called it that and SF dwellers didn't want to be associated with miners because they didn't project the urbane sophistication that SF dwellers wanted. Of course no one could explain how that applied in the [then] 20th century.

San Jose is a very nice, pleasant suburb. I don't understand why people compare it to San Francisco.

the locals told me not to call it San Francisco but to call it "The City." I laughed. It's not Paris

It's not Manhattan, either.

I imagine it's because, for a generation or so, it was the closest thing to an industrial, East Coast-style city for a thousand miles in any direction (and signifcantly more than that in most directions). I also think that "Frisco", "San Fran", and any other abbreviated version of the full name that you care to formulate are loathed by locals, which doesn't leave many alternatives for those who are into that whole brevity thing.

They're weird that way. They told me not to call it "Frisco" either, even though I hadn't actually done that or even thought of doing that. I asked why they found "Frisco" so offensive and no one knew

Frisco is a city in Texas, Utah, Idaho, Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. As far as I (which is to say, Wikipedia) can tell, there's only one currently extant city named San Francisco in the US.

it was the closest thing to an industrial, East Coast-style city for a thousand miles in any direction (and signifcantly more than that in most directions).

Especially west.

San JosA's?

As ever, Repoz's memory astounds me.

It isn't Manhattan, or LA. and thank God for that.

Frisco is a city in Texas, Utah, Idaho, Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. As far as I (which is to say, Wikipedia) can tell, there's only one currently extant city named San Francisco in the US.

Frisco, North Carolina is a gas station on the highway that runs along the Outer Banks. It is not a city under any extant definition of the term.

Having spent almost no time in San Jose, and having lived the last 6 years in SF, I can state with absolute certainty that San Jose is better than SF. I've lived all over the country, and this is easily my least favorite place to live. Why yes, I'd love to pay triple the cost of living to be in a traffic-congested, self-important, bloated fossil of a city.

This is the New Orleans of the West coast - romanticized as some iconic American destination by people who doesn't actually have to live here.

Why don't you commute from somewhere else, Whiny McWhinenstein?

I like San Francisco and New Orleans but wouldn't want to live in either one. Love to visit though, both great cities for food.

I used to live in Santa Clara, but always enjoyed my visits to Frisco. It was like entering another world, you'd leave the brilliant sunshine for an ominous mist, walk up and down ancient streets manned by boisterous layabouts, and eat the most amazing food.

it was the closest thing to an industrial, East Coast-style city for a thousand miles in any direction (and signifcantly more than that in most directions).

Do any other cities on the west coast have a skyline as big as SF (the proper way to shorten San Francisco by the way)? I'm from Santa Cruz so I have no rooting interest here. LA doesn't and seems more like a suburb than a city to me.

It will always be Yerba Buena to me.

Do any other cities on the west coast have a skyline as big as SF

No.

They told me not to call it "Frisco" either, even though I hadn't actually done that or even thought of doing that. I asked why they found "Frisco" so offensive and no one knew the answer. Then someone looked it up and found out that apparently 19th century miners called it that and SF dwellers didn't want to be associated with miners because they didn't project the urbane sophistication that SF dwellers wanted. Of course no one could explain how that applied in the [then] 20th century.

It's just one of those things that isn't done because it isn't. It's nothing to do with miners so there's no reason to evince surprise that the fictional explanation based on that theory doesn't have any currency. Nobody from around here calls it 'Frisco' or 'San Fran' because those aren't local nicknames for the city. So calling it that isn't loathsome or offensive, it just marks you as an outsider. Being marked as an outsider in any context invites scorn.

There really doesn't have to be any underlying sociopsychology or what have you. It's just not what it's called.

As [19] notes, 'S.F.' is really one of the few commonly accepted nicknames for San Francisco, but verbalizing 'S.F.' leaves a lot to be desired. Hence 'the City.' Everyone knows what you're talking about when you say that anywhere in the greater Bay Area, so while one is free to think it sounds pretentious, that's what's most often used.

[15] is also 100% correct. I live just across the bay from the city, and I barely like to GO there because of the traffic, the expense, the total lack of parking, and the traffic.

San Francisco is funny in that everyone who is from there tells you how great it is to live there because of how unique it is , yet every day some other part of what made it unique disappears to be replaced by the same Big Box stores that dot the rest of the Bay Area.

but verbalizing 'S.F.' leaves a lot to be desired.

Beg pardon.

All seriousness aside, I think the insistence on no Frisco comes from the gospel of Herb Caen.

All seriousness aside, I think the insistence on no Frisco comes from the gospel of Herb Caen.

I agree. Another part of what I miss about SF was reading his columns in the Chron.

Having spent almost no time in San Jose, and having lived the last 6 years in SF, I can state with absolute certainty that San Jose is better than SF. I've lived all over the country, and this is easily my least favorite place to live. Why yes, I'd love to pay triple the cost of living to be in a traffic-congested, self-important, bloated fossil of a city.

Then go, nobody's forcing you to stay in San Francisco. Wah wah wah.

I think San Fran is better than saying Frisco, or Cali which for some reason erks me. (Unless you are Notorious BIG)

Things that are good/great about Bay Area (for me):
1) Huge Asian/Chinese population, particularly from Taiwan (ymmv)
2) Hub of the tech industry (ymmv)
3) Generally very highly educated/thoughtful/achievement oriented people* (probably more than anywhere other than Boston)
4) Good food/restaurant/bar/scene (comparable to other leading metropolises)
5) Easy driving range to everything from the beach, wine country, Lake Tahoe, Yosemite and more.
6) Better weather than almost all other places in the US

*Can be pretentious

Collectively, I can't think of anywhere I'd rather live, particularly as a young Chinese person who works in tech.

Things that I like about SF relative to the rest of the Bay Area
1) Better restaurants/bar/club scene
2) Relatively walkable
3) Close to a lot of jobs (including my current one)

Things that aren't as good about SF
1) Traffic getting in can be bad (can be mitigated by living there, which is what I'm working on)
2) Housing is expensive
3) Asian food is not as good as in the peninsula/South Bay**
4) Kind of dirty

**Excluding Cantonese food

As for San Jose, there's nothing wrong with it, but I'd say unless you lived there or worked there (a large population to be sure), there's just not much reason to go there. As Flynn notes, it's mostly a big suburb.

As for nicknames, I don't really know why people don't tend to say San Fran or Frisco, just that it sounds weird. "The City" makes sense in the context of the Bay Area (or at least peninsula/South Bay, where I live) because SF is the only really urban area in that part of the bay.

They told me not to call it "Frisco" either, even though I hadn't actually done that or even thought of doing that. I asked why they found "Frisco" so offensive and no one knew the answer. Then someone looked it up and found out that apparently 19th century miners called it that and SF dwellers didn't want to be associated with miners because they didn't project the urbane sophistication that SF dwellers wanted. Of course no one could explain how that applied in the [then] 20th century.

It's just one of those things that isn't done because it isn't. It's nothing to do with miners so there's no reason to evince surprise that the fictional explanation based on that theory doesn't have any currency. Nobody from around here calls it 'Frisco' or 'San Fran' because those aren't local nicknames for the city. So calling it that isn't loathsome or offensive, it just marks you as an outsider. Being marked as an outsider in any context invites scorn.

There really doesn't have to be any underlying sociopsychology or what have you. It's just not what it's called.

As [19] notes, 'S.F.' is really one of the few commonly accepted nicknames for San Francisco, but verbalizing 'S.F.' leaves a lot to be desired. Hence 'the City.' Everyone knows what you're talking about when you say that anywhere in the greater Bay Area, so while one is free to think it sounds pretentious, that's what's most often used.

[15] is also 100% correct. I live just across the bay from the city, and I barely like to GO there because of the traffic, the expense, the total lack of parking, and the traffic.

All of this may be true, but nobody outside San Francisco cares. I thought it strange that the locals assumed I would care, and that they needed to raise the topic. My reaction to their bizarre instruction not to call it "Frisco", which they did consider "loathsome" by the way, was "why are you telling me this, and why should I care?".

I used to live in Santa Clara, but always enjoyed my visits to Frisco. It was like entering another world, you'd leave the brilliant sunshine for an ominous mist, walk up and down ancient streets manned by boisterous layabouts, and eat the most amazing food.

Sure, a 1500 mile drive will result in some environment changes.

I think San Fran is better than saying Frisco, or Cali which for some reason erks me. (Unless you are Notorious BIG)

If you were a true Bay Area resident, Notorious BIG would irk you even more.

All of this may be true, but nobody outside San Francisco cares. I thought it strange that the locals assumed I would care, and that they needed to raise the topic. My reaction to their bizarre instruction not to call it "Frisco", which they did consider "loathsome" by the way, was "why are you telling me this, and why should I care?".

It's possible that you happened to run into some unusually aggressive people about it, but every large tribe has some people like that, like pink hat wearing Red Sox fans. In general though, I think most tribes of people tend to have strong feelings about naming -- see Myanmar/Burma or Mumbai/Bombay. I have no idea what feelings actual New Yorkers have toward referring to New York as Gotham, if any, but if it wasn't a commonly accepted term within the local community, I wouldn't be surprised to hear about it.

Speaking of names for New York, I knew a kid at summer camp who insisted on calling NYC "The City" in passing conversation (e.g. "I got this at this music store in The City where they had every Butthole Surfers album"), and responding with a scornful shake of the head to anyone who didn't know that "The City" means New York. Not all of us come from the greater New York area, you windbag. People like that are annoying anywhere.

I live just across the bay from the city, and I barely like to GO there because of the traffic, the expense, the total lack of parking, and the traffic.

Though that's the beauty of actually living in the city- I'm close to BART and multiple MUNI lines so I don't need a car, making three of those four things completely non-existent issues for me. I'm going on my eighth year here and my only problem with San Francisco is the majority of people that live here, whom I find so obnoxious, empty, and tech-driven (seriously people, it's ok to not check your phone for a few seconds) that I really want to get the **** out of here. I really miss Chicago in that regard, though I know it's changing there too.

If you were a true Bay Area resident, Notorious BIG would irk you even more.

Ya well I'm from Santa Cruz where we get irked by the word hella so go figure.

new orleans native who lives in L.A., who visits S.F. as much as possible.

-all the years i lived in new orleans we natives would get a kick out of non-natives who couldn't pronounce new orleans (it's not 'new or-lee-ans', its more like 'noo orlins' or if you are a real yat its shortened to 'n'awlins'.), or who would say 'poor boy' when they meant a po boy. but the people i knew were never snide about it, everybody was pals by the end of the day.

-i love to visit S.F., was warned right away not to call it 'frisco', but since i had spent all my adult life in a similar 'charm' city like new orleans, i knew what that was about, so was careful not to do so. i could see how living there could wear on a person, but i wouldn't mind being able to afford it and give it a go. i really like to visit. btw, the love hate between L.A. and san francisco is mostly one-way. most angelenos really like S.F.

-L.A. is a city. don't mistake that. it is a huge, sprawling city and its a city that is shockingly beautiful and shockingly ugly, sometimes simultaneously.

sf is a fine food city, but oaklánd´s miles better at the moment.

SF is always going to hate LA. Angelenos can be as nice as they want, but SF will never forgive them for just being there. We will resent LA until it falls into the ocean for taking our rightful place as the crown jewel of the West Coast. Also F the Dodgers and Lakers and USC. Kings too.

A guy who wrote a book on the Giants-Dodgers rivalry once called SF Brooklyn with a Manhattan state of mind, which is a pretty good analogy. 'Specially cause there's lots of hipsters...

I grew up in San Francisco and I live in London now, so I probably have a different point of view on space than the rest of you. I've also never learned how to drive, which is only possible in San Francisco, New York, Chicago and maybe Boston. But I don't find SF that difficult to live in. Sure it's very expensive, but most coastal big cities are very expensive. Boston was just eye-watering the last time I was there. It's fairly easy to get around in, as long as you're patient and unlike most cities if Muni pisses you off too much you can just walk (BART is great on the other hand). Hell, I walked from the Embarcadero to my aunt's house in the Castro and it only took me about an hour and 15 minutes. It's that small of a city.

The money is a big obstacle, but...meh, it is what it is. I wish I got to have a big backyard like my cousins in Connecticut got, but they all would rather eat knives than move back to the suburbs. I'd be pleased as punch to be back home.

sf is a fine food city, but oaklánd´s miles better at the moment.

I don't know if I would go that far (there is great food in totally out of the way neighborhoods in SF now) but the rent prices are tightening the screws on adventurous food.

the love hate between L.A. and san francisco is mostly one-way. most angelenos really like S.F.

Not mostly. Just about entirely.

All of this may be true, but nobody outside San Francisco cares. I thought it strange that the locals assumed I would care, and that they needed to raise the topic. My reaction to their bizarre instruction not to call it "Frisco", which they did consider "loathsome" by the way, was "why are you telling me this, and why should I care?".

The denizens of Frisco seem to struggle with how to pronounce the name of their burg, they have to stretch it out with la di da terms to make it "San Frisco" or something like that, sort of like calling a crap "le crepe" in hopes others won't notice the stink.

Frisco is a wonderful place to visit, too bad the collapse of CA will essentially be centered there.

True, the food is good in SF - but beyond that, the city is just a big steaming pile of self-absorption and pretentiousness.

Please explain how an entire city can be pretentious.

I thought San Francisco had a pretty solid theater scene when I was there, I'd say only New York (duh) and Chicago were clearly superior in that respect. I guess liking live theater can be sorta pretentious.