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

121–130 of 465 posts

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

#121

Post by dominotw »

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.

> sudden drop in rents

Curious, Why aren't properly prices droping to reflect the loss in population.

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

#122

Post by 99_00 »

_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,…

Your reasoning contradicts its self.

I agree that remote work allows more workers to live where they want.

You claim that workers left SF not because of any attribute of the city, but because they wanted a change.

You imply that SF is desirable place to live, however it's population declined only because of a desire for change.

However, there are more remote workers outside of SF than in it. If SF was in-fact desirable, and remote workers simply want 'change', then SF's population would increase. Because a greater number of remote workers would move to desirable SF for their change, than would leave it.

Reality is this: Remote work allows workers choose desirable places to live regardless of office location.

Without the advantage of office location, SF stops being desirable. It stops being desirable because the benefits it supplies (culture, etc) are less than the costs it demands (crime, rent, etc).

One might argue that MANY cities are going to experience similar declines and that SF isn't unique. So this can't be seen as people voting with their feet against SF.

That's fine. Then people are voting with their feet against MANY cities and cities are simply not desirable.

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

#123

Post by lovehashbrowns »

gsibble wrote: post #100
lovehashbrowns wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF is the closest thing to a dystopia for me. Unabashed wealth juxtaposed with poverty, insane cost of living, shit and used needles everywhere, the nation's mental health failure on full display, etc. Nothing has made me as depressed as living in SF.

Leave. It's so much better elsewhere. I'm so happy in Boston.

Oh leave I did! I left after 11 months or so. Went out to Portland but it's not much better there nowadays. Still a fun city, at least. Might try Chicago now. I hadn't realized how relatively cheap some of the areas are. Boston might be fun, too!

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

#124

Post by MikeTheRocker »

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…

Curious why you continue to live there if you feel it's gotten so much more dangerous? Perhaps rent control? There are so many nice and safer parts of SF.

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

#125

Post by xvedejas »

thebean11 wrote: post #90
xvedejas wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, 2 hours from Sac. Quite rough to do every day, but I'd think pleasant to do twice a week; there's WiFi and a café on board, for what it's worth. That said, if you just want cheaper housing, Fairfield is only an hour away in the same direction, so there are plenty of intermediate options.

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

#126

Post by DragonStrength »

_fat_santa wrote: post #50
anm89 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 matte…

Exactly. And the problem is even if I want to stay, once my entire social group has left during the pandemic since none of us were old enough to have mortgages or kids, well, this all kind of sucks right now. All the people I work with have kids and mortgages and have enjoyed flitting up to Tahoe for the past two years, but I'm not from the state but was required to work within it for the past year anyway. Well, my life here is pretty shitty right now, and as soon as I could really start doing things, it was time to start a hybrid model designed with people with kids and mortgages in mind. Traditionally, these folks have a lot of leverage over their younger counterparts, which we're finding is not holding.

The issue is that Gen X is small, so they don't have a lot of leverage if the only other two generations in the market just leave town. Unless it's their opinion that Californians are just better, but of course, now we're back to the shrinking schools problem. It's difficult for me to imagine how California rebounds without losing a lot more ground first. Probably the best thing that could happen for people from the part of the country I grew up in, if we're actually concerned with equity though.

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

#127

Post by andbberger »

givemeethekeys wrote: post #25
_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,…

If SF was attractive, then people would want to remotely work from SF. But it isn't. So, they're leaving. On the other hand San Diego seems to be blowing up.

SF is attractive it's just stupidly expensive

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

#128

Post by onetokeoverthe »

deltaonefour wrote: post #101
whakim wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Consider that the reason many people were in SF in the first place was because their job required them to be there and they didn't have a choice; now that they have a choice, perhaps many of them find SF attractive and stay, while a minority don't and leave.

Around 2010 and before SF was very attractive. The southbay were where most jobs were located but everyone wanted to live in the city. That's what caused a huge amount of companies and startups to move to SF. The influx of techies, however, changed the city. And SF soon became what it is today.

The ahistorical techies destroyed sf by 2000.

Sf became techietown in 2000.

Instead of primarily being an alt culture capital.

It became "a place to work".

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

#129

Post by pcurve »

hyperpl wrote: post #67

Anyone know stats on NYC? I'm having trouble understanding the current true state wrt to apartment rental pricing: many people left during Covid but I'm not quite sure if many of those in fact returned. Furthermore, it would seem as though rental inventory is quite low or at least demand is through the roof (typically one needs to be ready to sign on the spot) with little to no room to shop-around. Prices are also qu…

price is above pre pandemic

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

#130

Post by elif »

xvedejas wrote: post #119
ghaff wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

in our city, my partner and I bought a house entirely for 5.5 years of what we were paying in rent. Now just 2 of our rent payments cover annual tax and insurance.

any locally optimized strategy within the overall context of renting is still a failing proposition imo.

Post reply on HN