Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
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.
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
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.
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
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).
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.
but verbalizing 'S.F.' leaves a lot to be desired.
All seriousness aside, I think the insistence on no Frisco comes from the gospel of Herb Caen.
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.
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  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.
 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.
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.
I think San Fran is better than saying Frisco, or Cali which for some reason erks me. (Unless you are Notorious BIG)
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 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.
If you were a true Bay Area resident, Notorious BIG would irk you even more.
sf is a fine food city, but oaklánd´s miles better at the moment.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.4355 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed