Live data from Hacker News

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

sfchronicle.com

101–110 of 465 posts

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

#101
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If SF was attractive, then people would want to remotely work from SF. But it isn't. So, they're leaving. On the other hand San Diego seems to be blowing up.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Consider that the reason many people were in SF in the first place was because their job required them to be there and they didn't have a choice; now that they have a choice, perhaps many of them find SF attractive and stay, while a minority don't and leave.

Around 2010 and before SF was very attractive. The southbay were where most jobs were located but everyone wanted to live in the city. That's what caused a huge amount of companies and startups to move to SF.

The influx of techies, however, changed the city. And SF soon became what it is today.

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

#103
post #19

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…

I live in the south Bay Area. The local public school district has been steadily losing enrollment due to the high cost of living. The district administrator I talked with said that based on student records transfer requests, some families have moved further east and south into the sprawling exurbs, and many others moved to Texas.

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

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I second this My friends seem to be moving to Washington, Florida, and other parts of California (away from main cities)

I see far more California vehicle tags in Central Florida than I would've expected.

That is probably more a function of population. I regularly see Florida plates in Washington.

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

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny, I moved to SF and landed a tech job, in that order. I moved to the Bay Area for certain things above a job. I know there are others like me, perhaps not a majority of the HN crowd, but I quite like it here and it would take a lot for me to change my mind about the place.

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…

Except the weather lol I lived in Bernal for years and never experienced any of that...

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

#107
post #96

I think in the two scenarios you can focus on either the positives or the negatives. When population goes up: positive - the area is vibrant economically; negative - rent is spiraling upwards out of control When population goes down: positive - rent is finally affordable; negative - the area is falling apart existentially I think the media in general has found the negative spin sells better.

> When population goes up: positive - the area is vibrant economically; negative - rent is spiraling upwards out of control What's endlessly infuriating is population going up in a city should be an almost unmitigated positive. It's just our unwillingness to allow building new housing turning it into a zero sum game that makes it a mixed bag.

But does the transportation capacity also scale linearly with size?

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

#108

I went to SF over last weekend and thought of stopping by Walgreens (Pharmacy) to pick up eye drops. I had to call the associate to unlock the cabinet doors to pick them up. Took 5-10 mins to just get hold of someone with a key ring the size of a coconut. Every cabinet was locked from toothpaste to tampons. This is at the Walgreens near Union Square which is still better than other areas. People are leaving because o…

[deleted]

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

#109

I think in the two scenarios you can focus on either the positives or the negatives. When population goes up: positive - the area is vibrant economically; negative - rent is spiraling upwards out of control When population goes down: positive - rent is finally affordable; negative - the area is falling apart existentially I think the media in general has found the negative spin sells better.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN