Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

tomdale.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 458 posts

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#411

Post by geebee »

rayiner wrote: post #192
necubi wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty reductionist. San Francisco's housing policies are definitely responsible for some of the price difference between here and Tucson, but you can't ignore the geography. SF is a 7x7 mile square surrounded by water on three sides. Tucson is a sprawling mess that go on for dozens of miles. Dense, desirable, naturally bound cities are always going to be more expensive than endless exurbs. Look at housing pri…

San Francisco isn't all that dense. It's boundaries are just drawn so as to exclude the outer semi-urban areas most cities have. E.g. the sparsely-populated neighborhoods around Midway and O'Hare are part of Chicago proper, but SFO is well outside city limits. See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ak1exuXV7898dDR... . San Francisco is about 47 square miles of land area. The densest 47 square miles of Chic…

Is this a continuous 47 square miles, though? San Francisco is always a little difficult to compare to other cities that are much larger metro regions. If you were to replace the lower density parts of SF with the dense urban areas in Oakland and Berkeley, you might end up with something much higher than what you sectioned off from Chicago - and as a region, that comparison might be more accurate.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#412

Post by enraged_camel »

secabeen wrote: post #341
michaelochurch wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an asinine argument. You're more likely to run into terrible neighbors in an apartment setting, with the higher turnover in living spaces. Your argument is done in by basic research into the neighborhood. Disagree. A lot of neighborhoods have homeowners' associations, which are like New York co-op boards and basically an excuse for non-working house-spouses to get in peoples' way because they have literally n…

HOAs do exist, and can be intrusive, but OP's final line still applies: "Your argument is done in by basic research into the neighborhood." Anyone buying a home knows if the home their looking at has an HOA or is a condo. I know many people who would never consider buying a home covered by an HOA, and many other people who like knowing that their neighbor can't paint their house pink and do car repair in the front ya…

>>Finally, many of these risks are reduced by actually being a part of the community. Don't want a factory built 0.5 miles from your home? Go to the planning meetings, talk to your city planning staff/council members. Join the HOA board. Being a homeowner means that you have an incentive to invest in your community and make it the community you want it to be. If you just disconnect and let others make decisions for you, yes you can be screwed. However, if you participate, get to know your neighbors, and become a part of the community, you can make it everything you want it to be, and more.

I think you're grasping at straws here and it shows. All of the things you listed are incredible time-sucks. If you have ever been to an HOA meeting, you will know exactly what I'm talking about.

And did you just suggest going to city planning meetings to prevent the building of a nearby factory? I'm sorry, but do you even understand how these things work?

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#413

Post by hoov »

losvedir wrote: post #401
mwfunk wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing that there's nearly a 100% correlation between the people accusing prospective homeowners of having an "insane obsession" and people who live in apartments in SF. SF is one of my favorite cities in the world, but there are a LOT of downsides to it. I find that a lot of the people I know who live there adopt a borderline Stockholm Syndrome attitude about those downsides. If you live in SF, you have easy a…

> I'm guessing that there's nearly a 100% correlation between the people accusing prospective homeowners of having an "insane obsession" and people who live in apartments in SF. Ha! It seems that statement is based on... nothing? I'm pretty militant anti-home ownership. This is partly to combat the omnipresent, uniquely American, societally-negative idea that you really ought to dream of owning a home some day. It's…

> I'm pretty militant anti-home ownership. This is partly to combat the omnipresent, uniquely American, societally-negative idea that you really ought to dream of owning a home some day.

But, what if I really want to own a home? I'm a homebody. I want a place to call my own, and I want to make it comfortable for me. I enjoy entertaining guests, cooking for them, and making everybody comfortable -- when I move back to Boston, I'll invite you over. :)

> The only reason home ownership appears to be a better idea, is because people ALWAYS fail to look at it in the risk-adjusted sense.

It's not strictly an investment. What if I derive pleasure and comfort from living in a place that I can customize as I see fit? Every time I rent an apartment, there are things that I hate and drive me crazy: carpet, electric range, no outdoor space, awkward floor plan, etc.

> If someone gave advice to an unsophisticated median american to go out and buy tons of stock options, or short sell stock on margin, they'd be rightly chastized. It's unethical.

Agreed. I'm a fellow MIT alum who graduated in 2005. I know what I'm doing -- and what I want to do is own a home... and in the Boston area, to boot. I wouldn't advocate pushing the "dream" on other people, but I know what I'm doing; why chastise me?

You say that your "militant anti-home ownership" view is "partly to combat the omnipresent, uniquely American, societally-negative idea that you really ought to dream of owning a home some day". Do you find the fact that I want to own one repulsive?

I'll be back in Boston soon. I'll take you out for a beer (or tea, or any alternative beverage, if you don't drink), if you want to talk.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#414

Post by mwfunk »

pyoung wrote: post #399
mwfunk wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing that there's nearly a 100% correlation between the people accusing prospective homeowners of having an "insane obsession" and people who live in apartments in SF. SF is one of my favorite cities in the world, but there are a LOT of downsides to it. I find that a lot of the people I know who live there adopt a borderline Stockholm Syndrome attitude about those downsides. If you live in SF, you have easy a…

You have some good points, but some of them miss the mark. I entirely disagree with you sentiment that "you have to take the bus (or ride a bike)" is a downside. I consider this a major selling point to SF, you can get drinks with friends and not have to worry about driving under the influence. Almost every other city I have been to, you either need a DD, or you have to pony up a ton of money for a cab. Regarding the…

I actually agree with what you're saying, I was more responding to people I know (and/or people that I see post here from time to time) that put SF on a pedestal, and seem to have convinced themselves that the downsides to SF are actually upsides.

I always ride the public transport when I go to SF, it's a great convenience and much less of a pain than driving up there and around there. I wasn't saying that public transport in SF is a bad thing (quite the opposite), but rather that it's often the only choice.

Like, even when it would be way, way more convenient for any number of reasons to just drive to wherever it is that you're going, various factors (parking, traffic, whatever) make it just too much of a pain. Even just owning a car when living in the city can be too expensive and more trouble than it's worth. I do see this as a downside to living up there (or just visiting), even though I would still ride the public transport most of the time anyway.

I know lots of people that live in SF and don't have a car (or in some cases even a valid driver's license), and they will swear up and down that having a car is totally pointless and why would anybody ever do that and what the hell is wrong with you anyway, do you enjoy filling up your tank with evil every week? :) But they spend 100% of their free time wandering around SF. It's not as feasible for them to go on day trips or weekend trips up and down the coast, or get out in the wilderness (at least, out beyond the reach of the bus system), so they just don't. They just hang around SF all the time, which is a rather wonderful place to be stuck in, but they are stuck there nonetheless. I love going on long drives and exploring all the remote corners of the Bay Area and beyond, and I couldn't imagine life any other way.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#415

Post by munificent »

enraged_camel wrote: post #365
7Figures2Commas wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This logic is fundamentally flawed. In my experience it's rarely worth appealing to logic when discussing home ownership. It's just such an emotional subject that rational debate is often hard to come by. 1. Many home buyers make purchases with relatively little knowledge of their local real estate markets. For instance, in some areas heavily hit by the crash, you can find buyers who don't know that a considerable…

>>In my experience it's rarely worth appealing to logic when discussing home ownership. It's just such an emotional subject that rational debate is often hard to come by. This is probably the most intelligent thing I have read in this thread so far. You are absolutely right. Sometimes I forget that purchases - especially big purchases - are emotional decisions, and people jump through all sorts of crazy mental loops…

Funny, I always considered my emotions to be a feature, not a bug. Life would be pretty boring if nothing ever gave me joy, sadness, relief, anger, gratitude, anxiety, laughter, sorrow, or peace.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#416

Post by munificent »

enraged_camel wrote: post #164
api wrote: post #30

I've got a possibly great job offer on the table from SF/SV, but may turn it down. I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. The real estate market is certifiably, utterly bat-dookie insane. NYC is often considered more expensive, and Manhattan is certainly... well... Manhattan. But taken collectively…

>>I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. I've never understood this crazy, if not outright insane obsession with home ownership. Why does everyone want to tie significant amounts of their lifetime earnings into physical property that historically has had very low appreciation in value? It's like pe…

> Why does everyone want to tie significant amounts of their lifetime earnings into physical property that historically has had very low appreciation in value?

I've tied a significant amount of my lifetime earnings into dining out and purchasing music and I can assure you that neither of those has much of a resale value, especially the former.

I've never understood this crazy, if not outright insane obsession with maximizing appreciation value. It's like people have forgotten that we make money so that we can spend it making ourselves happy.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#417

Post by dllthomas »

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #402
dllthomas wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, these individuals might be able to sell their homes at substantial profit, but they'll still have to move once they sell. They have to move if they were renting, too, and would be have less money (if they didn't leave the very instant rent rose at all) instead of more. Of course, that's just saying that it's better to be long an asset when its price jumps. Also, if your work doesn't tie you to a region and you…

> Also, if your work doesn't tie you to a region and you've purchased a house, and rents are high, you can always rent out your house instead of selling it. That's a couple of big ifs, but even so, unless you have purchased a house as an investment with the intention of renting it out, this is another one of the rationalizations that prospective home buyers use to convince themselves that they're making a smart decis…

I would absolutely not state, free of context, "you can always rent out your house instead of selling it." The context was being priced out of the market, in addition to the the mobile employment caveat (which I agree is a big if, but if your job is tied to the region and you can't afford to live there you're boned regardless).

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#418

Post by wooster »

tptacek wrote: post #292
jamesaguilar wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What nice Palo Alto restaurants are in strip malls? Most stuff is near University or California Ave. The only thing in Palo Alto I really think of as anything _like_ a strip mall is the Stanford shopping center, but that's more of a mall-mall, and the "nice" restaurants there are the big chain restaurants. Maybe the Fry's too, I guess, but there are no restaurants in that one.

His wording was hyperbolic but his point wasn't far off the mark if you compare the restaurant scene in SF (or NYC or Chicago) to that of South Bay.

By that standard, one of the best restaurants in NYC is above a Whole Foods and adjacent to a food court.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#419

Post by 727374 »

liveinoakland wrote: post #149
greghinch wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean this to play into stereotypes etc, but just as a matter of experience, every single person I know who's lived in Oakland for any significant amount of time (say 1 year or more), over the past 5 years, has been robbed at gunpoint at least once, usually while walking within a few blocks of their home. It's not a huge sample, I probably know half a dozen people/couples who live/have lived there. But the fac…

where did they live? probably some sketchy part of west oakland where out-of-towners like to move because it's so grungy. you won't get robbed in piedmont, rockridge, montclair, temescal, grand lake usually, or JLS ever. but please keep upvoting this to the top! our rents are already going up because of SF spillover, feel free to avoid it and those of us in the know will keep enjoying our lives in the east bay with n…

People get robbed in all of those places, especially walking home from BART. All the time. Also, have you not seen home prices in Rockridge and Piedmont? No deals to be had.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#420

Post by miker64 »

frankcaron wrote: post #126

This is a sobering read as I prepare to move down to the Valley for work after years of talking about, and to a lesser extent dreaming about, it. One would hope that the experience for those of us who haven't had our stint there yet would still be worth it. What say you, veterans? And what of San Mateo? That's where my new work is, and I wonder if I'd be better off living there than San Fran proper.

I loved living in San Mateo. I've lived all over the Bay Area, and that still rates as my favorite. It's a reasonable drive to both SF and the South Bay (and not painful to get to the ocean in Santa Cruz either), the downtown is walkable, and moderately interesting. There's not lots of options for things, but the options are generally decent.

There is zero reason to live in San Francisco, I don't really understand why people are so hung up on it. Live nearby, but not in. You reap all the benefits of the City, without the negatives. Nobody is shitting on your doorstep in San Mateo...

Post reply on HN