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

S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 465 posts

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#41

Post by cmrdporcupine »

scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #20
ramesh31 wrote: post #4

Quoted post unavailable.

20-30 years ago San Francisco was considered... a nightmarish hellscape. Until the first dotcom boom the city was in decline, or at least that's how the story goes. My understanding is that at that time it also had a booming art scene and was going through an awesome counter culture phase that birthed Burning Man. Maybe that's what's ahead now that everyone is leaving? Videos showing the drug problem are terrifying t…

I first visited SF at the start of the .com boom in 1996 when I had friends living there. Rent controlled apartment, 3 bedroom for something like $1100 USD. Beautiful city, a bit grungy, with just a lot of neat stuff going on. Went to a few cool underground parties, ate well, saw a lot of good art, went to some good bookstores and other shops, and met some really neat people. I wanted to move there.

Within a few years almost all my friends who weren't tech industry people -- or married to one -- couldn't afford to live there anymore and almost all left.

The next time I got into to SF was about 20 years later and, yeah. Wow. Not the same city. So completely different. Many of the physical trappings were the same, but the atmosphere was entirely different.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#42

Post by dilyevsky »

vondur wrote: post #14
jyounker wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's the opposite. The city has a few bad spots, but overall it's quite nice. The big problem is the lack of housing, which is arguably driven by the way that Prop 13 warps economic incentives.

I wonder how much residential property is still under Prop 13? My guess is that it's declined quite a bit in the last 20 years or so.

You’re probably thinking of rent control? Prop 13 applies to every property including commercial. You can also transfer reduced tax to your heirs or to another property of yours

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#43

Post by gedy »

scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #20
ramesh31 wrote: post #4

Quoted post unavailable.

20-30 years ago San Francisco was considered... a nightmarish hellscape. Until the first dotcom boom the city was in decline, or at least that's how the story goes. My understanding is that at that time it also had a booming art scene and was going through an awesome counter culture phase that birthed Burning Man. Maybe that's what's ahead now that everyone is leaving? Videos showing the drug problem are terrifying t…

SF had less street crime and open drug use 20-30 ago. Definitely was more visitable for tourists at least.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#44

Post by gamechangr »

peckrob wrote: post #19
_fat_santa wrote: post #5

I think remote work is often understated in reasons people move away. When you go into the office every day, it's pretty obvious that you have to live in whatever city you live in. But with remote work, the question becomes "if I don't have to live here, do I want to keep living here". For many (including myself), the answer was a definitive NO. Sure many headlines and news segments make it seem that it's the crime,…

I don't know why it isn't being mentioned. I am not in the Bay Area myself, but about half of my friends there have relocated in the last couple years. A bunch to Washington or Oregon, some to Texas, one to Nashville, and a few others to places mostly in the northeast. All of them cited cost of living as the primary reason ... but all also mentioned full time remote work is what finally made it possible to move. When…

I second this

My friends seem to be moving to Washington, Florida, and other parts of California (away from main cities)

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#45

Post by anm89 »

anm89 wrote: post #15
_fat_santa wrote: post #5

I think remote work is often understated in reasons people move away. When you go into the office every day, it's pretty obvious that you have to live in whatever city you live in. But with remote work, the question becomes "if I don't have to live here, do I want to keep living here". For many (including myself), the answer was a definitive NO. Sure many headlines and news segments make it seem that it's the crime,…

I agree but I think this also understates the importance of just how messed up SF has become. I don't want to come into contact with human feces as part of my daily commute. I'm going to leave no matter what once that is the case. Especially when the equity in my two bedroom apartement is enough to buy the nicest house ever built in some other smaller city.

Just pointing this out. This post was quickly up +4 and then instantly went down to -1. Someone seems to be brigading here.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#46

Post by mkr-hn »

scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #20
ramesh31 wrote: post #4

Quoted post unavailable.

20-30 years ago San Francisco was considered... a nightmarish hellscape. Until the first dotcom boom the city was in decline, or at least that's how the story goes. My understanding is that at that time it also had a booming art scene and was going through an awesome counter culture phase that birthed Burning Man. Maybe that's what's ahead now that everyone is leaving? Videos showing the drug problem are terrifying t…

I wonder how many of the homeless residents tech people complain about were part of that art scene and counterculture but got gentrified out of their homes with nowhere else to go.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#47

Post by cmrdporcupine »

alaricus wrote: post #12
ramesh31 wrote: post #4

Quoted post unavailable.

Non-American here: I lived in the Bay Area for a few years and hated it. There are no cities, just one big blob of suburbia.

I agree, but... I mean, it's the same awful suburban sprawl as most North American cities just with better weather (and higher property values.)

To me it seems like a place whose best years have passed many years ago now. I suspect we'll look back at 2019-2020 as being "peak Silicon Valley" and the time after as the years in which it began to lose its status as the centre of gravity for our industry.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#50

Post by _fat_santa »

anm89 wrote: post #15
_fat_santa wrote: post #5

I think remote work is often understated in reasons people move away. When you go into the office every day, it's pretty obvious that you have to live in whatever city you live in. But with remote work, the question becomes "if I don't have to live here, do I want to keep living here". For many (including myself), the answer was a definitive NO. Sure many headlines and news segments make it seem that it's the crime,…

I agree but I think this also understates the importance of just how messed up SF has become. I don't want to come into contact with human feces as part of my daily commute. I'm going to leave no matter what once that is the case. Especially when the equity in my two bedroom apartement is enough to buy the nicest house ever built in some other smaller city.

I didn't mention this in my comment as it was more about the broad trends in every city rather than SF/NYC specifically.

Typically for a group that got tired of a city and moved out, there would be a new group that is ready to fill their place. Thing is no one wants to move to SF given the situation (crime, COL, homeless, etc). Now for all the folks that will say "it's not that bad" I say that it doesn't really matter. If you're moving to a city, your opinion and view of the city is largely dictated by what you see/hear from friends, relatives, on the news, etc. Even if SF wasn't "that bad", it still doesn't matter, because the perception is more important for gaining residents than the actual situation IMO.

Post reply on HN