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

301–310 of 465 posts

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

#301

Post by toomanyrichies »

anm89 wrote: post #45
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.

Just pointing this out. This post was quickly up +4 and then instantly went down to -1. Someone seems to be brigading here.

Consider the possibility that you're being downvoted for breaking the Hacker News guidelines:

"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#302

Post by deltaonefour »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #268
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…

> 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. What makes you think those of us who enjoy living in the area haven't made the conscious choice? There are good reasons I chose to live in the urban parts of the SFBA, just like I presume there are good reasons several of my friends are happily running a household in Seattle…

Many haven't... I've literally met people who claim they haven't seen any human feces in San Francisco or drug users and homeless people everywhere.

Then there's people like you who prefer the fair and balanced look. Like San Francisco is a city that has some problems just like any other city.

Are there really, truly any factually bad places to live in the world? Or is everything just a matter of opinion? Nothing is bad or good it's what each individual makes of it.

When is it that enough people believe in something that it's no longer an opinion but a fact? Some people may enjoy being punched in the face but enough people hate being punched in the face that this situation is considered to be factually just a shitty situation to be in, completely independent of opinion.

I'm saying enough people are talking shit about SF that SF is pretty much in the zone of being factually categorized as a shitty place to live. If it's not there yet, it's close enough where people need to acknowledge some big problems here that no other 1st world city has.

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

#304

Post by ProfessorLayton »

reducesuffering wrote: post #283
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Generally, I feel like the Mercury News homicide map is a good representation of the roughness of the area, and it doesn't look like SF is as different from those areas as you propose. From the looks of it, it's one step up from dead last, Oakland. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/04/bay-area-homicides-20...

This map is proving my point. Even if SF is one step up from dead last, if we look at a complete year (2021) there's a HUGE difference between SF and Oakland. By comparison SF looks relatively safe, and having lived in both cities I can attest to that.

The rough parts of SF are a cakewalk compared to Oakland's. Not only that, but at least in SF the roughest parts tend to be pretty concentrated to a small area.

I didn't want to point out Oakland by name because I still think it's a pretty awesome city and visit it often. Seeing SF being singled out by the (social)media as a hellscape makes it pretty clear they're really unfamiliar with much of the SFBAY.

The truth is that most culturally significant cities have both good and bad parts to them.

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

#305

Post by [deleted] »

diogenescynic wrote: post #249

San Francisco has become a really hostile place to live even if you make $300,000+. My wife and I lived in Glen Park and it was still a shit hole. We had a meth head constantly breaking in and living in the parking garage of our building. Cops and landlord didn't care. I regularly saw people shooting heroin and smoking meth/crack on BART during rush hour. I was sick of seeing needles on the street and smelling urine.…

[deleted]

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

#306

Post by seanmcdirmid »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #300
jethro_tell wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's another more bleak option. Just like in 2008 when corporations bought up huge swaths of the housing market for cash while no one could get a loan. (which is part of the current issue with not enough homes to buy) They aren't betting the market will come roaring back, they are betting that they can corner the market and housing will be a subscription just like everything else they sell. Rent seekers aren't goin…

As usual, the “speculators” and “out of towners” and others are convenient scapegoats, lest we have to face the underlying supply and demand and barriers to development. You want to have a monopoly on housing in a major city? I’d be hard pressed to point out an industry where that would be harder . You have literally millions of competitors.

San Francisco is already the second most densely populated city in the USA (the first being NYC). SF is actually already slightly more densely populated than Tokyo, which many like to tout as a mecha for de-regulated zoning.

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

#307

Post by seanmcdirmid »

dominotw wrote: post #121
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The loss of population is directly caused by property prices, so if they were reduced, the loss would reduce or reverse and we simply would't be talking about population loss anymore (seriously).

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

#308

Post by selimthegrim »

asdff wrote: post #198
mancerayder wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought NYC was the dirtiest place I've ever seen, sounds like there's competition!

Neither are as dirty as New Orleans. There's trash, there's excrement, then there is rotting catfish and shellfish on top of the trash and excrement and it just sits stewing in stagnant, humid, swampy and hot air.

I live in the Lower Ninth Ward and based on what I saw of SF last fall I’d still give that award to SF (unless comparing the few weeks after Ida)

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

#309

Post by selimthegrim »

the_only_law wrote: post #199
asdff wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither are as dirty as New Orleans. There's trash, there's excrement, then there is rotting catfish and shellfish on top of the trash and excrement and it just sits stewing in stagnant, humid, swampy and hot air.

I was actually going to go there last year for a show, until nature decided to try and destroy it again (though I hear the hurricane wasn’t too bad)

The few weeks afterwards when the trash wasn’t getting picked up made me hightail it to Mobile for the duration.

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

#310

Post by nineplay »

webwielder2 wrote: post #227

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.

Do you also want a city that borders the ocean and is also a 5 hour drive to one of the most beautiful national parks in the country? I think you might be out of luck.
Post reply on HN