SF is indeed a nice city and better than many in terms of parks and outdoor amenities. However, the space at home, when you WFH, is pretty rough.
If you take what a typical couple pays for SF rent you can buy two houses in most of the US. So... if you're going to be spending a lot of time at home, for many people it makes sense to move out to a cheaper and more spacious locale, at least for now.
agreed -- portland is right there with very similar recreational activities and literally 25% the rent. why rent a 1b1b in SF when you can rent a mansion right on washington park for the same price?
That's a fair question, and the answer will depend on what people emphasize in life. I'll venture a firm answer for SF:
Though SF is no New York, it is notably more urban than Portland. San Francisco is physically more strikingly beautiful than Portland, with magnificent views of the bay and ocean from the hills. Portland is surrounded by beautiful forests and parks, but so is SF - you can get from downtown SF into the middle of a quiet redwood forest in about 25 minutes, and the coast, north and south, is far more accessible than it is in Portland[1]. While SF has a severe problem with street addiction and mental illness, so does Portland, and SF does still have extensive walkable urban and semi-urban neighborhoods. Golden Gate Park, the Presidio, and Crissy field are just a few of the outdoor options within the city. There are also plenty of options to live in lower density, SFH neighborhoods with small backyards. Culturally, San Francisco is much more diverse than Portland - SF actually ranks first among US cities in the number of languages spoken by 1000+ households. Portland is overwhelmingly white and has a historical hostility toward ethnics and immigrants (some believe that the anti-Californian sentiment has roots in hostility toward Catholic and darker skinned immigrants) - and, ironically on the other side of the political spectrum, a lot of immigrant or first generation communities are actually uncomfortable with predominantly white, left wing progressive politics. Immigrants may be more likely to find a community in SF than Portland.
[1] I surf, which makes Portland a hard pass for me, though that's a bit too niche for a general comparison.
You make excellent points -- the point related to culture is the most common I've heard from people outside Portland (particularly non-white people).
I think the only things you omitted are the differences in weather and the size of the cities.
- Portland is a fairly small city (especially inner portland) with a long history of anti-growth sentiment. The result is very rural agricultural areas _just_ outside of Portland.
- The weather patterns bring different wildlife and kinds of beauty. While the forests outside SF are quite pretty, they are also very different than the wet douglas fir forests up north. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder -- Portland also extends into the hills and provides famous views of Mt. Hood from the SW hills. The portland zoo for instance, is like going from a city into a rain forest.
The oregon coast is cold and rainy 95% of the year, not the most fun place to visit.
Portland is really nice, I've enjoyed my trips up there. I was positing an answer to the somewhat open question of why someone wouldn't leave SF for Portland. I think there are compelling reasons why someone would prefer to stay in SF, but nobody would need to explain to me why they prefer Portland! I can see all kinds of reasons someone would prefer it.
Portland is right by Hood River if you kitesurf (which, despite 17 years of regular surfing and only 2 months of kiting, I've decided is objectively better)
If you take what a typical couple pays for SF rent you can buy two houses in most of the US. So... if you're going to be spending a lot of time at home, for many people it makes sense to move out to a cheaper and more spacious locale, at least for now.