I'm from a small town in FL

I've lived in:

• Portsmouth, NH (2yrs)
• Boston (2 yrs)
• San Diego (4 yrs)
• Chicago (4 yrs)
• Tampa (5 yes)
• SF (currently)

I understand the value of the small towns/cities. You can find happiness and a niche virtually anywhere. Also, city livability is shaped by a wealth of subjective preferences.

I find that the majority of people I've interacted with that hate on a particular city, don't live in the city at all. They haven't immersed themselves in the neighborhoods, don't explore, and can't deal with a particular element (cost of living, crime, politics, race, traffic, etc.).

To say SF isn't that great because it's unaffordable is missing the plot. If you removed "affordability" from the equation, a majority of people would chose to live somewhere like San Francisco due to it's intrinsic value.

• Temperate weather
• Breathtaking topography
• Excellent public transit
• Proximity to Wine Country
• Diversity of culture (visitors from near/far)
• Successful major sports markets (not exactly intrinsic)
• Proximity to Ski/snowboarding (Tahoe)
• Watersports/Sailing/Golf/Hiking/Biking

Those "best/brightest" have the mobility (through scholarships, salary, or generational wealth) that allows them to move to a place that has more intrinsic (albiet subjective) value.

Those smaller markets like Cincinnati, that don't have those same intrinsic qualities that make a coastal city more valuable to the majority of people, compete with markers like SF with lower cost of living, less traffic, up and coming food scenes, etc.

Earlier in my 20's I wasn't able to afford to live in SF. Now that I am able, I have found that SF does not suck.