every city has a song

as you may know, i spent this past weekend in san francisco for a little mid-winter break. i won't bother with the play by play--needless to say there were the sights, the steep hills (the hills!), and the eating--as i would prefer to discuss my overall impressions of the city. it was my goal to experience it from a more cultural standpoint, as opposed to my previous trips in which i swooped in and out on family touristy ventures.

the initial impression of san francisco is one of signature architecture, clean streets, and sweeping vistas. it's a beautiful city that manages to blend an urban mentality with the natural magnificence of northern california's pacific coastline.

delving into the interior, i found myself making inevitable comparisons between SF and NY. while los angeles is the west coast city most often equated to new york, for its breadth and pace and influence, SF is much more akin to an aesthetic and lifestyle comparison. unlike LA, the relatively tall buildings, pedestrian friendly sidewalks, and eco-friendly public transportation system invite san franciscans to leave their cars in the garage in favor of exercise and fresh air. (and the air really is cleaner. you can feel it when you breathe).

like new york, the city is divided into several unique neighborhoods with distinguishing characteristics. the golden gate is the empire state, castro is chelsea, haight ashbury is the village, the wharf is times square, union square is fifth avenue, nob hill is park avenue, the marina is central park, alcatraz is the statue of the liberty, and chinatown...is chinatown.

but unlike new york, i found the city to be a bit sterile. the bit of grit, or edge, that helps drive new york is noticeably absent. the population is laid back--rarely a sense of urgency or impatience. maybe it's a good thing? or maybe, it's just a little bit boring...

i think partly to blame is the lack--or recreation--of history. SF (quake city) was apparently all-but-leveled in 1906, followed by additional earthquakes over the last century, which resulted in a great deal of building and rebuilding. thus, many of the buildings are gleaming, modern, and in some cases, almost a little too perfect.

besides the earthquakes, and sourdough bread, i had difficulty uncovering the city's cultural identity. without a hollywood, broadway or wall street to help invoke a sense of place, i found myself wondering where the "full house" house was located, or where "mrs. doubtfire" was filmed. likewise, the blatantly touristy areas, such as the wharf and the bridge, have been so disney-fied (perfect landscapes, cartoony buildings, food stations), that i have a difficult time believing a native san franciscan would go anywhere near them, which i can equate only to south street seaport in new york. times square, fifth avenue, and central park, while tremendous tourist attractions, are still functioning and vital components of manhattan for natives and tourists alike.

to be fair, i must point out that three of the four days were part of a holiday weekend, and thus, it was more difficult to get a sense of what the city may look like on a normal business day. it may also be difficult to generate an accurate impression of the city's population when you're holed up in the ritz-carlton with the likes of dave chappelle, but that's neither here nor there.

in conclusion, i found san francisco to be a lovely city to visit. all of the elements of an international destination are there, and i certainly wouldn't hate to occupy one of the gorgeous homes that line many of the city's streets. i know that i need the pace of ny/la at this point in my life, but who knows what the future could bring...

frank sinatra may have left his heart in san francisco, but for now, mine is where it's always been.