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

111–120 of 465 posts

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

#111

Post by lotsofpulp »

ceeplusplus wrote: post #83
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…

The other cities listed are very cold at times and/or very humid/hot at times. It is much easier and pleasant to camp outside in western cities.

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

#112

Post by deltaonefour »

mr90210 wrote: post #38
somethoughts wrote: post #10

I think in the two scenarios you can focus on either the positives or the negatives. When population goes up: positive - the area is vibrant economically; negative - rent is spiraling upwards out of control When population goes down: positive - rent is finally affordable; negative - the area is falling apart existentially I think the media in general has found the negative spin sells better.

As a non-US citizen, sometimes I ask myself how did California end up like the country where I am from, which is located in the so called third world.

This is an exaggeration. I grew up in the southbay and you basically never see the shit you see in SF in the southbay. SJ has a bigger population then SF.

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

#113

Post by [deleted] »

jmyeet wrote: post #64

SF is expensive and horrible. The only reason people in tech live there is because of employers in the area and it beats living elsewhere in the Bay Area which is expensive and dull. There's really no other reason people would put up with an hour (or more) commute each way every day.

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#115

Post by cheeseblubber »

If you compare rent trends of SF vs NYC or LA

https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/san-francisco-ca

https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/new-york-ny

https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/los-angeles-ca

You'll notice a huge difference between in SF and the other cities. Rent prices still hasn't gone back to pre pandemic level.

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

#117

Post by throwaway0a5e »

The most regrettable thing is that it's those who bear the most responsibility for the city being less desirable (in a multitude of unrelated but compounding ways) are the ones with the most ability to just move elsewhere. I wish these people had to sleep in the bed they made.

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

#118

Post by throwaway0a5e »

lmeyerov wrote: post #84
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…

I think it's worth noting that while it was definitely statistically less safe in the gang wars era, it was also less obvious. You didn't have to step over someone shooting up on the sidewalk (or the turd they left behind). You wouldn't see a broad daylight theft. If it wasn't your car stereo that was stolen the problems felt a lot farther away.

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

#119

Post by xvedejas »

ghaff wrote: post #39
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…

Even if you like San Francisco on balance, it's hard not to ask yourself if you like it so much that you're OK with paying for some of the most expensive housing in the country when you don't have a reason you have to be there.

This is not a strategy for everyone, but I definitely pay less in SF than I would in most cities because I know people willing to live with me long-term (and split rent) here. Generally it's easier in SF to find a roommate who is high-earning and willing to split an apartment or house compared to other cities, where similar people would just pay a little more to get their own place.

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

#120

Post by nineplay »

olivermarks wrote: post #93
nineplay wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love SF and I'm happy the population is going down. These articles are posted once a week and trumpeted as some sort of victory and I can't imagine who they think is shedding tears over this. Sometime people wave their hands towards sad homeowners who are ( maybe ) seeing their home prices go down but I own a pricy home in a pricy neighborhood and as far as I'm concerned it's funny money. Whatever profit I'd make f…

People who own properties in SF are in a v different situation to those who are renting, couch surfing, flying in and out to HQ etc etc. I love SF too. We moved north over the bridge 8 years ago (working from home) but are in the city all the time. It was spectacularly deteriorating pre pandemic (when we left the Castro area the local library had just employed an armed guard to keep the transients out for example) an…

SF has its problems to be sure. California has its problems too though whether or not those problems are better or worse than problems in any other place is unclear - the media treats SF and California as though they are one and the same.

( I'm old enough to remember when the media treated LA and California as one and the same and the SFers would snottily gripe that they're not 'that' California )

Still I don't know of any SF problems that will be made worse by the population going down. Seems to me that the couch surfers, renters, etc. benefit from the lower population.

Post reply on HN