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

221–230 of 465 posts

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

#221

Post by dahdum »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #144
etempleton wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have visited almost every major US cities including a lot of experience living in and near some of the “worst crime” cities. Cities where there really are streets you do not dare go. In San Francisco I never felt unsafe anywhere, even in the “worst” parts of town. That said, the concentration of homeless people when I last visited was unlike anything I had ever seen in a US city.

I'm a city native living in SF, but grew up all over the SFBAY including much, much rougher neighborhoods than anything I've experienced in SF. Several of my family members and myself have been assaulted/robbed in broad daylight, had cars stolen, and some have been shot by stray bullets due to a local gang fight. When I was in grade school someone brought a gun to class and showed it off by pointing it at me (!!) — a…

> SF is nowhere near as bad as some of the roughest parts of the Bay. Not by a longshot.

You’re absolutely right, but compared to other global cities SF often looks comically bad, and certainly has the appearance of decline. No fundamental reason it can’t rise again though.

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

#222

Post by sethbannon »

Those that have "made it" are moving out of SF and the young and hungry are moving in. SF has seen a wave of Gen Z inbound recently. I'll take that trade anytime.

"the number of rental applications by people who fall into Gen Z (defined as those born between 1997 and 2012) have increased by 21% in the past year. Meanwhile, as we just discussed, rental applications from every single other generation have been lessening. Millennials, for instance, saw an 8% decrease in rental activity...

Between 2020 and 2021, people who fall into Generation Z were filling out 21% more leases nationwide, as compared with the year before. When that search is narrowed to San Francisco, Rentcafé says those 20-somethings had a 101% increase in rental applications. They now make up more than a fifth of all people looking to lease in SF."

https://sfist.com/2022/03/22/san-francisco-is-getting-younge...

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

#223

Post by pdx6 »

zumu wrote: post #56
ramesh31 wrote: post #4

Quoted post unavailable.

The city center can be gnarly for sure, but everywhere else is quite nice. Not sure how you could describe any neighborhood on the West side of the city as a "hellscape" for example.

I agree, the western side is hardly a hellscape. I guess don't let the tourists know!

San Francisco is really 2 different cities rather than 11 counties. West side (where I live) has some minor problems but otherwise offers the best mix of culture, places to eat, parks, and transit. Downtown is rife with problems and if someday it does get cleaned up, it will wonderful since the right density and transit is there.

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

#224

Post by inferiorhuman »

DragonStrength wrote: post #179
themitigating wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but most who leave SF will choose a smaller metro area, not a rural area. What I have found in my time in the Bay Area is a general ignorance of how many smaller metro areas have developed more vibrant urban centers over the past 10 years. The people from these cities who went home for the first time in a decade are finding surprisingly livable metros waiting for them, closer to aging family.

I've definitely thought about finally leaving the Bay Area, previously I'd written off a lot of places because I want to be close to the coast and I love the relatively mild weather. More recently I ended up talking with a park ranger about life out here (he's from Truckee). He was real attracted to the Oregon coast but aghast at the white supremacy issues that are still ripe up there. There's always a catch.

Now? Politics and infrastructure put me off of huge chunks of the country (especially Texas and Florida). I don't really care if Austin is a vibrant metro area when the state government is trying to ensure women have subhuman status at most even if they've got to gut our judicial system to do it. Small town Texas? Absolutely fucking not, doubly so if I actually wanted to raise a family. Then again the Bay Area is my home.

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

#225

Post by gwbushey »

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#226

Post by tshaddox »

sheepybloke wrote: post #213
iancmceachern wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Where have you been seeing the rent drop in SF? I'm in the south bay and have been interested in moving to SF now that I'm going remote, since I want a bit more active nightlife. Now that I'm remote, I don't have to stay in south bay.

I haven’t seen these supposed rent drops in SF or the Bay Area either. My lease in the peninsula is up next month and the rent is increasing about 8%, and that’s aligned with the prices I’m seeing elsewhere for comparable apartments.

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

#227

Post by webwielder2 »

Serious question: what's another place in the US with mild year-round weather, walkable neighborhoods (haven't driven a car in 12 years), and easy access to an international airport? That's what SF offers me. The "SF is an unlivable hellhole" drumbeat is so loud that I almost feel compelled to move (my own experience be damned), but I'm not sure where to.

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

#228

Post by gwbushey »

gamechangr wrote: post #44
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 second this My friends seem to be moving to Washington, Florida, and other parts of California (away from main cities)

No post body was provided.

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

#229

Post by antiverse »

sethbannon wrote: post #222

Those that have "made it" are moving out of SF and the young and hungry are moving in. SF has seen a wave of Gen Z inbound recently. I'll take that trade anytime. "the number of rental applications by people who fall into Gen Z (defined as those born between 1997 and 2012) have increased by 21% in the past year. Meanwhile, as we just discussed, rental applications from every single other generation have been lessenin…

Majestic take.

More than likely, the ones that "made it" are staying where they are, having bought whatever property they've been able to and are now renting it out to the Gen Z'ers to pay it off. The older generation, wisely, realizes there's no future there and have ended their rental terms to go elsewhere where they can actually afford to buy something, not having gained any real estate ownership of their own.

Calling Gen Z'es "hungry" in this instance is, God bless their hearts, insulting to common sense and rationality of things at play here.

Post reply on HN