S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010 • Hacker News Board

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

#311

Post by ihumanable » Fri, May 27, 2022, 10:47 PM UTC

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 think one thing that keeps me in the Bay Area is economic opportunity, although it remains to be seen how larger macro-economic forces will effect this.

For the last decade though, if you write code in the Bay Area, there is just this massive backstop of companies looking to hire. I've lived here since 2011 and worked for all of 3 startups that entire time, so this isn't so much about job hopping. Instead, because of all the competition for talent in the area you get to enjoy a degree of job security, high pay, and benefits that are pretty nice. It is also a major relief to know that if your company does have to let you go for whatever reason or you just get sick of the work you are doing and want to quit, there are a ton of other places hiring.

With remote work I imagine being physically close to the Bay Area is less of a requirement, but it seems like there is some amount of drive to get people back into offices, so we will see how long that remains viable.

This is really the main reason I stay in the Bay Area, I moved out to the Greater East Bay a few years back and was able to find a nice house in a nice enough area for a reasonable price.

Having easy access to so many employers provides a peace of mind and an implicit pile of leverage that's pretty great.

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

#312

Post by rattray » Fri, May 27, 2022, 10:49 PM UTC

According to the article, Manhattan lost 6.6% (that is, even more) in the same timeframe.

Manhattan is a much closer comparable to SF than all of NYC, the lines just happen to be drawn differently.

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

#313

Post by acchow » Fri, May 27, 2022, 10:52 PM UTC

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.

Largely SOMA and parts of the Mission and the Van Ness corridor. It's mainly areas which generally feel less like a neighborhood and more like a bustling city - mainly areas where renters are more OK with living in than homeowners would be willing to purchase in. A great example is the new Chorus building which opened in 2021 on Van Ness and Mission. It remained mostly empty throughout 2021 despite offering 10 weeks "free rent" with a 1 year lease. Stunningly gorgeous building, incredible amenities, but a subpar location - a condo here would be sold at a heavy discount because of the location, thus this is a luxury rental apartment instead. Across the street is the new Fifteen Fifty building, also with heavy "free 2 months rent" discount for a 1 year lease.

But even in the most desirable neighborhoods, rents are still down about 10-15% compared to pre-COVID

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

#314

Post by acchow » Fri, May 27, 2022, 10:54 PM UTC

iancmceachern wrote: post #81

acchow wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, SF has a significant tech population that has been living in the city but taking shuttle buses for an hour to their offices down south. I imagine flexible WFH for 2-3 days/wk will enable a larger number of people in the future to live in SF

I'm in this boat and this is true. A hybrid wfh and partial in the office option really opens up options living in this area, it makes it much more doable.

I think flexible WFH will also be a boost to Apple, which traditionally was unable to hire some people who loved city life and refused to commute.

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

#315

Post by wankerrific » Fri, May 27, 2022, 10:58 PM UTC

sammalloy wrote: post #187

scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20-30 years ago San Francisco was considered... a nightmarish hellscape. Until the first dotcom boom the city was in decline, or at least that's how the story goes. My understanding is that at that time it also had a booming art scene and was going through an awesome counter culture phase that birthed Burning Man. Maybe that's what's ahead now that everyone is leaving? Videos showing the drug problem are terrifying t…

> 20-30 years ago San Francisco was considered... a nightmarish hellscape. Not true in the slightest. There was little crime, you could walk everywhere safely, day or night, and the food was still incredible, and cheap. Major parts of the city were on a roadmap towards revitalization before dotcom was ever a thing. Yerba Buena Gardens was competed in 1993, for example. No disruption required. > Until the first dotcom…

I agree about the major first dotcom bringing people who didn’t care for the values and culture of the city but disagree about the roughness. The mission and the part of soma near the old trans bay terminal were pretty rough. People got mugged in broad daylight kinda rough

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

#316

Post by ihumanable » Fri, May 27, 2022, 11:00 PM UTC

anm89 wrote: post #15

_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 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 see this argument constantly, that the streets run brown with human feces. I worked in SOMA for a decade, I would commute every day on BART and would walk from Montgomery Street Station or Embarcadero or Civic Center or 16th Street to wherever my office was at the time (different companies, different offices).

SOMA was always pretty clean, Civic Center a bit more hit or miss, 16th Street was generally a bit dirtier and rougher.

The number of times I encountered human feces though was very low, like not even a monthly occurrence. Now I'm sure there's parts of San Francisco that are worse than others, and the walk from 16th Street BART to Potrero Hill would take me past plenty of homeless people camped out on the sidewalks, but I rarely if ever encountered human feces.

But every. single. time. San Francisco comes up, it's the same tired line, "Oh I couldn't deal with the absolute deluge of human feces" which like cool, neither could I and it was fine because what the heck is everyone talking about. I'm not going to claim that every sidewalk and roadway is completely free of poo, but as someone that managed a team of people and would frequently go for walking meetings all around San Francisco, it was never my experience.

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

#317

Post by naniwaduni » Fri, May 27, 2022, 11:03 PM UTC

geoalchimista wrote: post #296

jeffbee wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both the decennial census and the census ACS are estimates. All population counts are estimates.

All statistical inferences are estimates, and carry standard errors with them. What is your point?

All measurements are estimates, but sometimes the errors look like "we have a machine that spits out 4 all the time" and other times they look like "I saw two people, but I can't rule out the possibility that I spontaneously hallucinated them."

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

#318

Post by ghaff » Fri, May 27, 2022, 11:03 PM UTC

legerdemain wrote: post #281

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.

Like it or not, SF has the most vibrant tech community than anywhere else. I live an hour away, and I make the painful, tedious drive up in rush-hour traffic at least once a week to meet up with some group or another in person. The alternative is the dreary, sleep-inducing vendor teleconferences that double as "meetups" on the Peninsula. I'm strongly considering ditching the Peninsula and moving to SF for better netw…

This is both the good and bad of living in area like the Bay. I'd find the idea of going in an evening a week with a tedious drive to do work-related stuff tedious at best.

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

#319

Post by bamboozled » Fri, May 27, 2022, 11:05 PM UTC

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…

Funny thing is, I recently went back to a few cities which have started to recover and the vibe was so fun I thought how much fun it would be live in one again. So much energy, good shops restaurants and amenities ! People didn’t throw cities away, they threw away cities in lockdown. I think a lot of people will rediscover city life and ultimately end up back there for some reason or another.

Cities grew organically for different reasons, we kept them because they serve a purpose. Before the pandemic it wast like we all hated living in cities.

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

#320

Post by reducesuffering » Fri, May 27, 2022, 11:06 PM UTC

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #304

reducesuffering wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ya it pales in comparison to Oakland (low bar). But it's still #37 of 100 in violent crime, and is #4 highest property crime.[0]

And with Oakland, it's all happening in the West and East Oakland hoods, separate from the places most people here and visitors would frequent. But with SF, it's all over the main areas of the city (obviously still somewhat concentrated in a radius around Tenderloin) where people are going about their day to work and tourists are passing by.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...