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

81–90 of 465 posts

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

#81

Post by iancmceachern »

acchow wrote: post #63
librish wrote: post #60

SF is probably hit the hardest by WFH. If you lived and worked in the city you probably had a pretty good commute, so you're not getting the biggest benefit. And while I know it's a less common preference on HN, a lot of people enjoy going in to a lively office and occasionally grabbing drinks with your coworkers after work. It's a great way to make new friends. But with WFH there's a prisoners dilemma where no-one g…

On the other hand, SF has a significant tech population that has been living in the city but taking shuttle buses for an hour to their offices down south. I imagine flexible WFH for 2-3 days/wk will enable a larger number of people in the future to live in SF

I'm in this boat and this is true. A hybrid wfh and partial in the office option really opens up options living in this area, it makes it much more doable.

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

#82

Post by ghaff »

librish wrote: post #60

SF is probably hit the hardest by WFH. If you lived and worked in the city you probably had a pretty good commute, so you're not getting the biggest benefit. And while I know it's a less common preference on HN, a lot of people enjoy going in to a lively office and occasionally grabbing drinks with your coworkers after work. It's a great way to make new friends. But with WFH there's a prisoners dilemma where no-one g…

I think it's also the case that people whose main experience with SF is going to conferences at the Moscone get exposed to more than their fair share of the city's underbelly. When I was last in SF last December, I was actually led to expect things would be a lot worse than they were. To be honest, it seemed "normal" which is sort of a low bar in certain areas but, as you say, that's true of Seattle too.

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

#83

Post by ceeplusplus »

librish wrote: post #60

SF is probably hit the hardest by WFH. If you lived and worked in the city you probably had a pretty good commute, so you're not getting the biggest benefit. And while I know it's a less common preference on HN, a lot of people enjoy going in to a lively office and occasionally grabbing drinks with your coworkers after work. It's a great way to make new friends. But with WFH there's a prisoners dilemma where no-one g…

> like most major cities

I have lived in or visited Boston, Chicago, North Carolina's RTP, and the Bay. Only in SF are there homeless camps with blatant drug abuse and public defecation being tolerated by authorities. Only in SF can you run into, with 100% probability, a mentally deranged person on your daily commute. When "specific streets" cover half the city (Financial district, Tenderloin, SoMA, Mission...) they aren't so specific anymore.

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

#84

Post by lmeyerov »

librish wrote: post #60

SF is probably hit the hardest by WFH. If you lived and worked in the city you probably had a pretty good commute, so you're not getting the biggest benefit. And while I know it's a less common preference on HN, a lot of people enjoy going in to a lively office and occasionally grabbing drinks with your coworkers after work. It's a great way to make new friends. But with WFH there's a prisoners dilemma where no-one g…

I've lived in the same spot in the mission for 10+ years (and been around longer), and other folks in the building for 20+: the mission hasn't regressed to the gang wars era (we have stories there...), but between the break-ins, homeless tents, poop & drugs, crazy people shouting at 4am, and occasional shootings, the neighborhood has slid back 10-15 years. Luckily I've only witnessed 1 murder, so the crime is merely 'costly and disruptive' vs 'life threatening', but that doesn't mean it's acceptable.

I lived in Seattle as well & visit frequently -- around when capital+pill hill gentrified again around MS downtown employees (games studios?): the current Amazon-era of the city is closer to SF 5-10 years ago vs today's slide back. It's not all good, to be clear: I'm guessing buying a place just got steadily harder as well, and families pushed further out.

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

#85

Post by floren »

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.

Even worse, the blob of suburbia is spread out in a ring around a giant body of water, and it's almost certain that the place you want to go is on the other side. So now it's 1+ hours on trains (assuming they even run near your destination) or dealing with the eternal traffic jams at the chokepoints across the bay.

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

#86

Post by Jackpillar »

gsibble wrote: post #75
ramesh31 wrote: post #4

Quoted post unavailable.

Completely agree. Lots of people are blind to it for some reason. It's worse than some 3rd world countries. Absolute shithole. Glad I left in 2018.

No post body was provided.

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

#87

Post by blululu »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #73
librish wrote: post #60

SF is probably hit the hardest by WFH. If you lived and worked in the city you probably had a pretty good commute, so you're not getting the biggest benefit. And while I know it's a less common preference on HN, a lot of people enjoy going in to a lively office and occasionally grabbing drinks with your coworkers after work. It's a great way to make new friends. But with WFH there's a prisoners dilemma where no-one g…

It's the people paying $3000 for a bunk bed who bailed on the city.

Probably not. Rents dropped (supply meets demands - even in San Francisco). Most people I know who were unhappy with their apartment moved across town and got better deals (myself included). If you left you probably left because you had no strong connection with the city and you wanted to leave. Anyone in tech who wanted to stay could fill the vacancies.

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

#88

Post by systemvoltage »

floren wrote: post #72
systemvoltage wrote: post #30

I went to SF over last weekend and thought of stopping by Walgreens (Pharmacy) to pick up eye drops. I had to call the associate to unlock the cabinet doors to pick them up. Took 5-10 mins to just get hold of someone with a key ring the size of a coconut. Every cabinet was locked from toothpaste to tampons. This is at the Walgreens near Union Square which is still better than other areas. People are leaving because o…

> I voted for Shellenberger for Governor of CA. Felt right. Same, but note that this was only the primary... it's entirely possible we'll end up with Newsom and some other random Democrat on the actual ballot.

Unfortunately, yes. People have stopped voting based on rationale and policy, but instead based on team colors.

For those who don't know Shellenberger, he is your classic liberal running as an independent. Pro nuclear alone gets a vote from me. But there are so many things he talks about that are just common sense in majority of large cities around the world.

If you're fed up with CA, please look him up.

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

#89

Post by iancmceachern »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #66
peckrob wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 actually know several people who used this as an opportunity to move into the Bay Area. The sudden drop in rents made it more attractive and they jumped. They both work in industries where face to face communication is a competitive advantage. It’s easy to forget that not every job is naturally compatible with remote work like it is for those of us who type on computers all day.

I'm in this boat. We moved apartments in SF during the pandemic and we now live in an amazing neighborhood, amazing building, for 40% less then we were paying for a below average apartment before.

It's not one or the other (moving in or out), it's about getting what you (the individual) wants, and being smart about timing and using world events to your advantage, not disadvantage.

Some people wanted to move away from SF, some wanted to move in. It was an opportunity for either.

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

#90

Post by thebean11 »

xvedejas wrote: post #36
jeromegv wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is when hybrid becomes 2, and then 3 days. That commutes starts becoming a nightmare.

The capitol corridor train is pleasant enough, even if not the most convenient of bay area transit options.

Isn't that like 2 hours each way..? That's like a quarter of your day, no thanks.
Post reply on HN