here's my perspective, having moved here after architecture school, but please keep in mind that everyone's situation is unique as are their values and interests in picking a new place to live:

i was already familiar with sf from visits and had friends here and knew that it was smaller than other cities i'd lived in prior to coming here (ny, paris, la) but i did not know how i would react and feel about "living" and working here. if you are coming from a smaller city, it's probably a good transition city, but in my case, this is the smallest and most provincial place i've lived in as an adult, and it feels stifling and at times backwards and hicksville-ish. but it is just as or more expensive than the aforementioned places.

architecturally, while there are some small offices doing interesting work, most are incredibly mediocre and not exciting at all. the deyoung seems to be the one exception to the bland architecture in the city. but what's most frustrating here is that so many people who work in the design profession here also have that same restrictive and narrow-minded view of architecture that's reflected in the city itself. yes, there are pockets of interesting spaces and peope, but you can find that anywhere. the biggest disappointment about being here is that sf is not a city of the future, or even the present, and there's a sense that i arrived here too late and missed it's glory moment.

but if you enjoy other aspects of life here, it's quite nice, but don't come here thinking you'll find some mythic view of sf, a la the Beat poets years or even the dot-com years... and while some neighborhoods are nice, i haven't found the genuine neighborhood feel that i had in ny or paris or in places like silverlake or venice beach.

benny, isn't it a bit of an unfair comparison: SF (pop.700,000) to LA/NY/Paris (more like pop 7 mil.)? Of course its provincial compared to them. A more fair comparison would be to a city like Boston (also provincial and somewhat conservative when it comes to aesthetic matters). The DeYoung is not THE ONE exception to the bland architecture in the city-- there area few other exceptions that you should know. There is some decent design work in the city to be seen/found. And if you think it's closed-minded now, you should've seen it before the dot-com days. Lastly, having lived in LA, I don't see how Silverlake or Venice have any more of a "genuine" neighborhood feel (whatever that means) than the Mission, Hayes Valley, the Haight or Potrero Hill...so lighten up a bit, or, if you find it that bad then leave...

Small town feel in the neighborhoods? In terms of urbanism, SF has 4-6 story neighborhood density just like many larger cities. In spite of the smaller population, it's density, along with topography, is it's greatest assset. If you're looking for larger town attributes such as blocks filled with 10-20 story density then perhaps Manhattan or Tokyo are better suited for you. However, what fills that density is what's most important, and SF boasts tons of restaurants, galleries, bars and clubs. I promise you won't feel like a hick. Also, many people here don't own cars. That should tell you something about how genuine the neighborhoods are.

Architecturally, I agree that SF is provincial. Don't expect to define any new theories of architecture here, and don't expect to build your own deYoung, Jewish Museum, Prada or SFMOMA either. You need to be internationally proven (a Pritzker helps) before it's safe enough to to touch the precious. Even then its not a slam dunk (Prada). However, bothands is right. The smaller scaled work can sometimes sneak its way through the syle police down at planning. Finally, remember that you can practice here but your projects don't have to fall within the city limits. Often the smaller hickvilles are more accepting of new architectural ideas than the big sophisticated cities.