San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by homosaur » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 10:19 PM UTC

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?"

Because for most, it's not an investment, it's a hedge. Your demand for housing will not be going down as you get older, but it will become increasingly harder to manage.

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

#302

Post by mesh » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 10:19 PM UTC

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 live in Burlingame which is in San Mateo county, and about 5 minutes north of San Mateo city (I work in SF and from home). We absolutely love it. We moved down here from San Francisco about 6 years ago when we had kids.

San Mateo is very convenient to San Francisco on both US 101 and Caltrane (there are stops in both Burlingame and San Mateo) and is about 5 minutes from the airport. Burlingame and San Mateo both have central downtown districts that are both very pedestrian friendly, with a ton of great restaurants. Burlingame restaurants are a tad more upscale family oriented, and San Mateo has more affordable ethnic food (especially Japanese, as there is a large Japanese community in the area).

Burlingame public schools are considered very good (I don't know about San Mateo).

Feel free to ping me directly if you have any questions.

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

#303

Post by jamesaguilar » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 10:20 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #289

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.

Not necessarily right in downtown Palo Alto (it has a cute little downtown area), but in the surrounding areas definitely. When I was a summer intern in my employer's Menlo Park office, I had a lunch budget which means I had to figure out how to take advantage of several free lunches a week. I probably hit up a dozen (nice) places, and all were either in strip malls or in isolated buildings surrounded by a big parkin…

OK, I concede. The prices are very high for an unwalkable suburb, although I think most people think Palo Alto is at least prettier than your average. Our downtowns are better too. Still not as nice as living in a city, but not quite as bad as living in a Houston exurb either.

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

#304

Post by Dewie » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 10:24 PM UTC

necubi wrote: post #9

jseliger wrote: post #2

Even I, who makes a decent salary, have seen the great American dream of home ownership recede into the distance. That's a policy choice. I lived in Tucson for for years, and nice houses there could be bought for $200,000. Sometimes less. SF has made a choice about not allowing people to live there: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... , and in this respect it's like many other major cities…

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…

I can see the point from a supply-and-demand perspective. But on the other hand, isn't more densely populated areas more efficient, leading to less costs and less prices in the long run? Is there simply not enough initiative for more dense developments, leading to the relatively few dense areas going up in price. Are the property costs the critical factor? I'm talking in general here, not about any specific city.

Vancouver seems to have had a successful high-density residential zoning, but I've also heard that it's become very expensive... maybe because the greater Vancouver metro area is big (I don't know how it compares to the norm though).

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

#305

Post by nickv » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 10:24 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #144

rdl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think even sans the tech industry, SF would still be a desirable enough place for people to live that it wouldn't have much of a problem. Even clearer if tech just remained in Silicon Valley; plenty of people would live in SF and commute. Even just finance is probably strong enough to support SF. Or, like Vancouver, lots of people from Asia. The tolerant/hippie/gay/etc. angle might be enough as well.

SF in '89, before tech started hitting, was not a pretty place. The Dirty Harry movies of the 70s, I think, were inspired to some extent by the decaying city. Technology breathed life into the Bay Area (San Jose was not much better back then either).

You have to understand that nearly all cities were shitholes in 1989 until the Urban Revitalization of the late 90s. This wasn't an SF specific thing. NYC, for example, had over 1200 murders in 1992 (!!!) compared to last year's 414.

SF's revitalization has more to do with that than with "tech" jobs. I know in the Hacker News echo-chamber its hard to think there's anything but Internet Tech in SF but it's got ALOT more business than that -- It's the largest banking center on the west coast, got a massive bio-tech footprint, has some major apparel companies (Levi and Gap and a bunch of smaller ones), etc, etc. It's pretty diversified.

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

#306

Post by rayiner » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 10:24 PM UTC

jamesaguilar wrote: post #303

rayiner wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily right in downtown Palo Alto (it has a cute little downtown area), but in the surrounding areas definitely. When I was a summer intern in my employer's Menlo Park office, I had a lunch budget which means I had to figure out how to take advantage of several free lunches a week. I probably hit up a dozen (nice) places, and all were either in strip malls or in isolated buildings surrounded by a big parkin…

OK, I concede. The prices are very high for an unwalkable suburb, although I think most people think Palo Alto is at least prettier than your average. Our downtowns are better too. Still not as nice as living in a city, but not quite as bad as living in a Houston exurb either.

To be fair, downtown Palo Alto, if you can afford it, is pretty nice, if somewhat sterile. Reminds me a lot of Greenwich, actually. I can't say the same for the rest of the valley, though...

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

#307

Post by tn13 » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 10:25 PM UTC

I moved to SFBay area from India and despite an above american average salary find it hard to get a decent apartment to live in with say 30% of my income. This is ridiculous. I was much better off in India. I paid only 1/10th of my salary to get a twice bigger apartment.

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

#308

Post by tn13 » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 10:27 PM UTC

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…

There are number of reasons why I would prefer a home over rented property most important reason being almost infinite scope to personalize my living space.

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

#309

Post by crusso » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 10:30 PM UTC

king_jester wrote: post #206

crusso wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gentrification complaint always seems hollow to me. There's nothing cooler than seeing some run-down urban area transformed into a place that's more successful and vibrant through renovation and revitalization. Some people may find that the environment outpaces their income or lifestyle... okay. Record companies found that technology outpaced their business model. The changes are good regardless what the curmudge…

> There's nothing cooler than seeing some run-down urban area transformed into a place that's more successful and vibrant through renovation and revitalization. This change almost always coincides with a displacement of people, esp. existing communities of those with lower incomes or communities inhabited mostly by people of color. What exactly is cool about the destruction of a standing community that is caused by i…

You use words like "destruction" inappropriately, I think.

Ironically, things like wage controls, rent controls, and welfare have locked these very people into a cycle of poverty out of which they have trouble escaping. Continuing communities that are perpetually in blight is not the an obvious good. Allowing the system to change naturally with healthy commerce would seem to be an improvement.

One would hope that government masterminds who were responsible for creating the blighted areas in the first place would just get out of the way and allow the system to heal itself through growth and change.

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

#310

Post by ceol » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 10:35 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #196

potatolicious wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's referring to high crime rates. Parts of Oakland does have extremely high crime rates, much higher than even SF's notably elevated violent crime rates. Many Oaklanders would point out that not all of the city suffers from extreme violent crime, but it would also seem that the areas convenient to a SF commute generally tend to be worse, and the good areas aren't that cheap.

It's not just the violent crime rate, either -- it's that the police, as a matter of policy, don't give a crap about anything that doesn't involve blood in the street. If you call the police after your home or car are burglarized, they will basically tell you to stop wasting their time. If you're not a thug, all evidence (or at least many anecdotes) suggests that Oakland doesn't want you.

I would assume it's the violent crime rate that causes the police to shrug off lesser crimes. I doubt the police do it because they only want gang members in the city — which seems like an extremely silly thing to think.