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

151–160 of 465 posts

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

#151

Post by [deleted] »

99_00 wrote: post #122
_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 desirab…

[deleted]

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

#152

Post by ilamont »

_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,…

There's another data point that supports this view of remote work: retirement

Many people, when given the chance to not work at all, leave their residence or make a decision to split their time between their old home and a new home in a location with a better lifestyle, friends, family, whatever.

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

#153

Post by 8note »

floren wrote: post #85
alaricus wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are there no water taxis?

In Vancouver you just hop on a small boat and get a quick trip across, I think with your bus pass

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

#154

Post by themitigating »

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.

For cities in general there's much more to do compared to low density areas. Restaurants, entertainment, other people. All of this within a decent traveling distance.

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

#155

Post by alaricus »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #47
alaricus wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> it's the same awful suburban sprawl as most North American cities

That's why I don't live there anymore. The Earth is bigger than North America.

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

#156

Post by BurningFrog »

_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…

Also, when you pick a place to move to in this huge country, "it's not that bad" isn't going to be chosen, even if true.

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

#157

Post by themitigating »

vikingerik wrote: post #97
_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 I don't have to live here, do I want to keep living here" I answered the exact same no to that question, moving out of NYC when my job went permanently remote since the pandemic. I moved to semi-rural Virginia where my family is, and bought a house with far more space and a pool than I could have dreamed of within commuting distance of NYC.

For some house size is less important than have more to do outside the home if city entertainment is to your liking

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

#158

Post by eins1234 »

As someone who still enjoys SF and wants to keep living here, I read this as great news since I expected rents to decrease by a similar amount.

But I just checked my apartment's website and it seems like if anything the rents have slightly increased compared to the price I renewed at last year!? Obviously this is a sample size of 1 and doesn't reflect the overall market.

Curious if anyone else has real data on rent price trends. Is it just my apartment or is this a case of the market staying irrational for longer than I'd have hoped?

EDIT: data was provided in another thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31533492

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

#159

Post by rustybelt »

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 spent a decade in St. Louis, MO, famously rated "Most Dangerous City in America" multiple years running and witnessed 0 murders. How many murders would you need to witness before you start to worry about your own safety?

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

#160

Post by themitigating »

nineplay wrote: post #134
deltaonefour wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of reasons why people hate SF. The homeless problems, the petty crime. The smell, the dirtiness, the shitty weather, the actual danger of stepping on human feces, the drug use. To each their own, but I think it's important for people to get out of their headspace and see things from a more general perspective as well. There are very good reasons why people don't like SF and unless people who love the city acknow…

There are good reasons why people don't like SF but why should people who do like SF care or try to convince them otherwise? I don't like Dallas but I don't think people who do like Dallas need to get out of their headspace and change things for my benefit. Obviously SF has problems and no one loves SF who doesn't want to improve the homeless issue. It doesn't make them wrong to love the city.

Do you know the excitement that surrounds stories like this on foxnews? They want liberal Democrat cities to fail so they can blame leadership as an example
Post reply on HN