Remote work is reshaping San Francisco, as tech workers flee and rents fall

Post by mattcaldwell » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:28 PM UTC

hpkuarg wrote: post #832

josephmosby wrote: post #824

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#1 suggestion: Washington, DC. Museums (the Smithsonian museums), bars, restaurants (one of the Michelin cities), proximity to nature (there's a national park that cuts through the middle of the city, there's the National Arboretum, and you're about an hour drive from numerous state parks in Virginia and Maryland) #2 suggestion: Chicago, IL. Museums (check), bars (check), restaurants (also a Michelin city), nature (L…

> a national park that cuts through the middle of the city Come now, you aren't suggesting that the National Mall counts as "proximity to nature" ;-) I've spent some time in all three cities and live in one; none of them really offer the same ease of access to nature as does San Francisco, if you count nature as necessarily including some level of remoteness from the built-up environment.

Post by john4534243 » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:36 PM UTC

shadowtree wrote: post #884

Unpopular opinion - if you can simply move or work while traveling as an IC - you are not an essential worker for your company. The big productivity culling is coming, overhiring was so easy, all seemed justified. Careful of marking yourself as replaceable with remote labor. You might not like just how remote management will go :)

Post by Nursie » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #917

Nursie wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it can be a multi-decade cycle. Also I've seen a few creative people that are admitting defeat on (say) Detroit.

One of my friends finally got unpacked after moving to Detroit and is working on his latest album, in his basement studio space that would be unaffordable after paying rent in Oakland.

Post by reaperducer » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

chrisdhoover wrote: post #587

reaperducer wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these quality of life issues, and how have other cities avoided them? They haven't. But other cities have handled some quality of life issues differently, or better, or in some cases worse. It's all cyclical. New York was a great place to be in the 60's, largely due to quality of life. New York in the 70's was a hellhole, largely due to quality of life. These things ebb and flow in every city. It's just SFO'…

Did I miss something at the airport? I haven’t flown in over a year, is it a hellhole now? Was it ride sharing that fostered the downturn?

Post by fulafel » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #848

gfxgirl wrote: post #822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I came from maybe Flagstaff Arizona I'd think SF has "museums, bars, restaurants, proximity to nature" but having lived in plenty of other places with more museums, bars, restaurants and proximity to nature SF was a let down.

San Francisco is a very small city, but it is a city nonetheless which puts it on the list of places in the US where you can live (and I mean truly live ) without a car, even before the age of Uber/Lyft. (Unsurprisingly, the other places on that list are also cities.) Due to tech money and location, it occupies a weird place in the various lists of world's cities. It is just tiny a small city compared to other cities…