New San Francisco vs. Old San Francisco (Marina, Fillmore: transplants, real estate)

[CirclingLogan]

The perception of SF from outsiders is that the northern end is the nicest end: Telegraph Hill, Marina, North Beach, Russian Hill, Nob Hill, Pacific Heights. That's where the money and old charm is... right? I've been noticing that much of the north end looks a bit shabby and worn down, tired and past its prime. Aging restaurants sit empty at 8pm on a Saturday and the bars appeal more to clueless tourists and suburbanites than savvy locals.

Meanwhile, the southern end is booming. Hayes Valley, Mission Dolores, Castro, Lower Haight, Divis/NOPA: the housing stock seems fresher and better kept, the boutiques, restaurants, bars and coffee shops are trendier and packed, the people walking the street are hipper and younger.

Obviously, the northern neighborhoods still appeal to a certain moneyed set (they're still expensive afterall), but there does seem to be a massive shift in the culturally relevant neighborhoods of SF.

Anyone have a perspective on this?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by CirclingLogan

The perception of SF from outsiders is that the northern end is the nicest end: Telegraph Hill, Marina, North Beach, Russian Hill, Nob Hill, Pacific Heights. That's where the money and old charm is... right? I've been noticing that much of the north end looks a bit shabby and worn down, tired and past its prime. Aging restaurants sit empty at 8pm on a Saturday and the bars appeal more to clueless tourists and suburbanites than savvy locals.

Meanwhile, the southern end is booming. Hayes Valley, Mission Dolores, Castro, Lower Haight, Divis/NOPA: the housing stock seems fresher and better kept, the boutiques, restaurants, bars and coffee shops are trendier and packed, the people walking the street are hipper and younger.

Obviously, the northern neighborhoods still appeal to a certain moneyed set (they're still expensive afterall), but there does seem to be a massive shift in the culturally relevant neighborhoods of SF.

Anyone have a perspective on this?

Yeah those clueless tourists and suburbanites, why can't they be hip and savvy as the wide-eyed transplants? LOL.

[Pietro25]

I find it interesting that you refer to Hayes Valley, Mission Dolores, Castro, Lower Haight, Divis/NOPA as "the southern end" of SF. All these neighborhoods are actually north of Cesar Chavez Street, which forms the north-south border of SF.

Have you ever been to the Excelsior, Glen Park, Viz Valley, the Bayview, Balboa Park? Those are the southern neighborhoods.

Anyway, I agree with you. The neighborhoods you mention are more vibrant than North Beach and Nob Hill.

[scirocco]

The cachet of having an address in Pacific Heights, North Beach or the Marina area can never be diminished. The location, the historical value and the views are second to none in San Francisco. Most house buyers if offered the choice, and had the means to do so, to choose a place in a neighborhood like Hayes Valley or Pacific Heights, would be on the phone this minute to seal the deal on the latter. Location trumps all else in real estate.
You mention that the southern area seems fresher and better kept . We must be looking at vastly different cities. As the Marina District, Presidio and Pacific Heights appear pristine compared to many parts of the Mission, Lower Haight and Hayes Valley. Check out Fillmore St. north of Geary Blvd to see a thriving and bustling dining and shopping area in all its glory.
In fact, I would say I see far more genuine individualism in the young crowd living in the Northern Areas, than the hipper than thou mentality displayed by the youngsters in places like the Lower Haight and Hayes Valley.
Having lived in the city for 23 years, gone through the rites of passage from diehard hipster to a more amiable California hip, I am glad to reside in the "North" right now.
A very prominent member of the indie art scene once joked to me : Hipsters when they rest their heads for the night, dream of a pad in Pacific Heights. Nothing will ever change in that respect.

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by CirclingLogan

The perception of SF from outsiders is that the northern end is the nicest end: Telegraph Hill, Marina, North Beach, Russian Hill, Nob Hill, Pacific Heights. That's where the money and old charm is... right? I've been noticing that much of the north end looks a bit shabby and worn down, tired and past its prime. Aging restaurants sit empty at 8pm on a Saturday and the bars appeal more to clueless tourists and suburbanites than savvy locals.

Meanwhile, the southern end is booming. Hayes Valley, Mission Dolores, Castro, Lower Haight, Divis/NOPA: the housing stock seems fresher and better kept, the boutiques, restaurants, bars and coffee shops are trendier and packed, the people walking the street are hipper and younger.

Obviously, the northern neighborhoods still appeal to a certain moneyed set (they're still expensive afterall), but there does seem to be a massive shift in the culturally relevant neighborhoods of SF.

Anyone have a perspective on this?

Uh, as others have pointed out, those are central SF, NOT southern SF.

While you may have your own personal preferences with the 'newer', gentrified neighborhoods in SF, the real estate values completely negate your claims.

[mini_cute]

Originally Posted by scirocco

The cachet of having an address in Pacific Heights, North Beach or the Marina area can never be diminished. The location, the historical value and the views are second to none in San Francisco. Most house buyers if offered the choice, and had the means to do so, to choose a place in a neighborhood like Hayes Valley or Pacific Heights, would be on the phone this minute to seal the deal on the latter. Location trumps all else in real estate.
You mention that the southern area seems fresher and better kept . We must be looking at vastly different cities. As the Marina District, Presidio and Pacific Heights appear pristine compared to many parts of the Mission, Lower Haight and Hayes Valley. Check out Fillmore St. north of Geary Blvd to see a thriving and bustling dining and shopping area in all its glory.
In fact, I would say I see far more genuine individualism in the young crowd living in the Northern Areas, than the hipper than thou mentality displayed by the youngsters in places like the Lower Haight and Hayes Valley.
Having lived in the city for 23 years, gone through the rites of passage from diehard hipster to a more amiable California hip, I am glad to reside in the "North" right now.
A very prominent member of the indie art scene once joked to me : Hipsters when they rest their heads for the night, dream of a pad in Pacific Heights. Nothing will ever change in that respect.

I think Pac Heights is old money and has the views. If people desire classic SF, that is just about the best they can get for that. But I wouldn't describe Pac Heights as trendy and I can totally see how the OP thought the area there looked a bit shabby.

The trendy areas right now include the Mission, Hayes, parts of SoMa and South Beach. That is where the newer construction is and so looks cleaner and more modern and sleek.

I don't think every hipster dreams of living in Pac Heights. I think quite a few would rather like to live in one of those nice high rises like the Millennium- that is where Joe Montana lives btw.

I think the thing with SF right now is that it is becoming rich from just about one end to the other and when you have a lot of something, it tends to subdivide into smaller niches. So Pac Heights and Sea Cliff = rich + old SF/old money. Mission = rich + young + trendy (tech rich). It is just different variations of rich.

[CirclingLogan]

Originally Posted by sav858

Yeah those clueless tourists and suburbanites, why can't they be hip and savvy as the wide-eyed transplants? LOL.

By "outsiders", I was referring to transplants, like myself, who are fed a particular vision of the city by media and SF's own self-promotion. But, mock away.

I find it interesting that you refer to Hayes Valley, Mission Dolores, Castro, Lower Haight, Divis/NOPA as "the southern end" of SF. All these neighborhoods are actually north of Cesar Chavez Street, which forms the north-south border of SF.

You are correct. I should have been more precise.

In fact, I would say I see far more genuine individualism in the young crowd living in the Northern Areas, than the hipper than thou mentality displayed by the youngsters in places like the Lower Haight and Hayes Valley.

While these neighborhoods are definitely hipper than the north, they're still dominated by financiers and techies.

While you may have your own personal preferences with the 'newer', gentrified neighborhoods in SF, the real estate values completely negate your claims.

Certainly, I could see an older moneyed set still being willing to put more money into real estate in the north, but looking at rents around the city, I'm finding far more sub-$3k 1-bedrooms in Cow Hollow and Nob Hill than Hayes Valley or Mission Dolores.

the Marina District, Presidio and Pacific Heights appear pristine compared to many parts of the Mission, Lower Haight and Hayes Valley.

Sure, but those are dominated by older people and families (except Marina, perhaps). However, the young professional segment seems to shifting south, which will determine long-term trends.

[CirclingLogan]

Originally Posted by mini_cute

I think the thing with SF right now is that it is becoming rich from just about one end to the other and when you have a lot of something, it tends to subdivide into smaller niches. So Pac Heights and Sea Cliff = rich + old SF/old money. Mission = rich + young + trendy (tech rich). It is just different variations of rich.

This seems pretty accurate.

[dalparadise]

I live on the western slope of Russian Hill, just above the Marina and Cow Hollow. There is quite a bit of new construction in and around my neighborhood, particularly on the north end of Van Ness. As for shopping streets that are clean and well kept with interesting shops, bars, restaurants and cafes, it's hard to beat Union St., Fillmore, Upper Polk (above Broadway), and Chestnut for being clean and well kept, with small hardware stores, bakeries, boutiques, coffee bars, and some of the City's top new and old restaurants.

Also, it's not really crowded or very commercially dense (pluses in my book), but Hyde St., where it runs through Russian Hill, is one of the most charming, uniquely "San Francisco," refined and elegant streets in San Francisco, in my opinion. Just recently, an old parking garage here was redeveloped into multi-$million condos, while retaining its brick street facade. Cafes, bars and restaurants along here are off most tourists' radar. You can sit in a small, cozy restaurant with a large, Edwardian bay window and sip wine while cable cars clang by and trees shade the sidewalk. The apartment houses are well kept and the sidewalks are clean. Farther up, it's the top of Lombard's curvy bit, which is one of the most picturesque areas of the City.

I do think streets like Hayes and Valencia are becoming hipper and more modern as you point out, but I think they may be going too far and are losing their charm. SOMA, to me, is completely devoid of charm as an area to live. It is nice to go to restaurants or bars there, but to live there would be more akin to living in the downtown area of a Sunbelt city like Dallas or Atlanta, than in San Francisco. There's no real fabric of a neighborhood holding it together. Now, once the Transbay projects and SFMOMA finish up and bring more activity that props up dense, full-time residency and pedestrian-oriented attractions, that may change. That's 4-5 years off, though.

[18Montclair]

Thats all 'Northern end' imo.