Just a perspective for other readers: I recently moved to the Bay Area. I've lived quite a few places around the world and US. Some I consider the nicest in th

Just a perspective for other readers: I recently moved to the Bay Area. I've lived quite a few places around the world and US. Some I consider the nicest in the world (Tokyo) and some I don't consider nice at all. I'd formed my view of SF based on comments I'd heard like these on HN, and was prepared for the worst when beginning to visit for the weekend. Having now had several excursions into the city including places considered not that nice like the Tenderloin or Mission, I can't see how it's any worse than any other US city, and in fact consider it nicer than most other large cities in the US I've been to, like NYC and Chicago. Maybe it's because I only visit on weekends and don't live there, but from the perspective of a frequent visitor it seems really nice to me, and I didn't go in expecting that nor am I a person particularly biased towards having rose colored views of things. I wonder if maybe people in SF expect it to not have the same problems as other large metros like NYC. I'd be curious to hear from someone who has lived in both and thinks SF is "apocalyptic" what experiences made them think that. I think in the Bay Area there's a large number of people who don't realize (or have chosen to forget) how inconvenient life can still be on average around the world and even the country, compared to the idyllic circumstances they've created here (especially in the valley). It's what makes it so easy for them to come across as judgemental or tone deaf when discussing problems at the national level.