Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

London vs San Francisco – back and forth

jh47.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 132 posts

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#111

Post by joecasson »

I'm currently in the middle of a 7 month stint working in London, and I have lived in SF for 2.5 years prior. Funny coincidence.

I don't think Henson is necessarily wrong about anything he says. Hell, I actually like London a bit more than SF for some of the reasons he lists. But it came across to me like he was more homesick than anything.

I'm curious what industry he worked in, and who he spent his time with. I'm guessing tech based on the blog and the section devoted to it, but in any case, that alone greatly determines how you'll fare.

Here in London, people are polite and always love chatting up the American, but it is a little hard to make friends outside of work/housemates. The focus on pub culture - while awesome - is a large reason for this, in my opinion.

I've been debating writing more about my experience. Maybe I'll do it to give a voice from the opposite perspective.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#112

Post by cylinder »

kinnth wrote: post #38

I currently live in London and have never lived in SF but have travelled every year for GDC (games developer conf) for 1 week a year. I tend to agree with the author. The place is lovely, it's almost like a heaven on earth with almost all ameneties, temperatures and people within a 3h driving time from SF, but for some reason London with it's grey grimey and dirty history has more appeal. Perhaps it's the fact that y…

What's the fascination with bars? I'd much rather be atop a hill with a view of the ocean and clear sunny skies over me than sitting in a dark room filled with drunks that looks like all the other dark rooms filled with drunks around the city.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#113

Post by T2_t2 »

mattlondon wrote: post #47

I visit SF and Silicon Valley fairly regularly from London (where I live so potentially biased). I am always, always, always shocked by the homelessness (and the mental state of those poor souls) in SF. People call London a dirty, unfriendly city but I've NEVER gotten any trouble from any of the homeless people in London apart form the usual begging, yet in SF its pretty much guaranteed you're going to get hassled/sh…

Because they care. In the USA, (non-resident) I find that almost every bad thing usually has a really nice, positive flipside.

SF spends so much on the homeless that, ironically, it attracts them. In fact, Las Vegas has sent homeless there: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/11/2602391/san-franc...

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record... shows that $241 million was spent - that's so very much for a metro area of 8 million people.

In a country of 300 million, you only need a very slight incentive and things get weird, and the SF attitude to homeless, the food they give out, the shelters, the climate, all encourage homeless to move there or, worse, get sent there by less scrupulous states.

I am never sure if this is a really nice or a really bad thing for SF. I'm kinda thinking both.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#114

Post by lgieron »

nakedrobot2 wrote: post #100
lgieron wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Live somewhere else. There is a catch though - for programmers, London is by far the best paying city in Europe (except maybe Swiss cities).

Oh God Please - in terms of cost of living and quality of life, your mileage may vary, but for many people, you can't do any worse.

In my last job, my whole team was, with the exception of one Englishman, literally people who moved from all over the world (Europe, the Americas, Asia and Africa) to London. They were all quite happy with it, too.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#115

Post by generic_user »

david-given wrote: post #23
generic_user wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The housing situation has been in the same state with the same dynamics for over 20 years even before the first bubble started in 2000. The vast majority will simply never be able to afford a house there. The only way that could possibly be attempted would be to build massive condos everywhere like you see in some Asian cities. That would kill the character of SF. No one wants to have a huge condominium plunked down…

Come to Switzerland. Four to five story apartment blocks everywhere; quiet, green, safe, underground parking everywhere, gorgeous and huge flats at reasonable prices, and despite having a pretty high population density it feels way less crowded than my old terrace in the UK.

Four to five story apartment blocks is what a large portion of SF is already. The peninsula is just very tiny and everyone wants to live there. The only large scale development that developers want to do is massive condos. Its a goldmine compared to anything more reasonable. Keep in mind this is in the USA the property developers here could give 2 craps about keeping the city an interesting and livable city.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#116

Post by generic_user »

gedy wrote: post #77
generic_user wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The housing situation has been in the same state with the same dynamics for over 20 years even before the first bubble started in 2000. The vast majority will simply never be able to afford a house there. The only way that could possibly be attempted would be to build massive condos everywhere like you see in some Asian cities. That would kill the character of SF. No one wants to have a huge condominium plunked down…

> The only way that could possibly be attempted would be to build massive condos everywhere But that's exactly what they've done in the past, look at the rows and rows of houses that people live in now and are part of "the character" of SF

Row houses and small apartments are quite livable and make neighbourhoods that have green spaces and character. You have to factor in that property developers do not want to build that sort of housing unless they are restricted from building massive condos. So property developers would rather build small apartments and houses on virgin land in the suburbs where the land is cheap and they can cut corners. There is nothing stopping Developers from building modern apartments in SF. They are just to greedy to do so.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#117

Post by lmm »

neximo4 wrote: post #76
lmm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The City of London is a weird ancient administrative division. It's not the whole of the city centre by any means, and not at all comparable to San Francisco.

There aren't too may startups in the Square Mile as it's defined. Just a couple of fintech ones in Canada square. My point is still the same, not many people live in SF or in London but most of the people there during the day there, commute there.

Canada Square is a long way away from the City of London (aka "Square Mile"). The City of London (that is, the small area to which the particular election protocol applies) has a tiny resident population; its resident:commuter ratio is not remotely comparable to that of London or SF.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#118

Post by ghaff »

generic_user wrote: post #115
david-given wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come to Switzerland. Four to five story apartment blocks everywhere; quiet, green, safe, underground parking everywhere, gorgeous and huge flats at reasonable prices, and despite having a pretty high population density it feels way less crowded than my old terrace in the UK.

Four to five story apartment blocks is what a large portion of SF is already. The peninsula is just very tiny and everyone wants to live there. The only large scale development that developers want to do is massive condos. Its a goldmine compared to anything more reasonable. Keep in mind this is in the USA the property developers here could give 2 craps about keeping the city an interesting and livable city.

Which is why you have zoning which is what people complain about. In addition, it's a lot easier in general to find a relatively undeveloped area and build high-rise condos there than increase the height of multiple blocks of an existing neighborhood by a few stories.

There are probably areas in the Bay where you could build some sort of tech worker arcology if you really wanted to do so and spend enough money. But I doubt people would really want to live there.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#119

Post by hollerith »

s3nnyy wrote: post #52

A tech job in Europe does not mean Berlin or London. Zurich has the ETH university and the biggest Google office outside the US. It is a great place to live and is the only place where net-salaries are on par with the Bay Area. Salaries are in the range of 7000 - 10.000 CHF / month after taxes and apartments can be way cheaper than in San Francisco. Zurich is expensive but als tiny. Almost everyone lives "in the subu…

Can an American citizen without a college degree and without a million dollars in savings gain the right to live in Switzerland permanently ("permanent residency") if he can get a job there?

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#120

Post by patforna »

I don't think there's an objectively best place to live. Some people like bars while others like mountains. Some like crowds while others like solitude, etc. And that's totally cool, because we're all different. I've lived 1 year in CA, 2 years in Sydney, 9 years in London and just moved back to Switzerland (where I'm from) a few days ago. All the places I've lived in had their nice and not so nice sides. Guess that, at the end of the day, it's about figuring out what's right for you and accepting the tradeoffs. I, for one, am very grateful that I'm able to choose where to live because not all of us can.
Post reply on HN