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

London vs San Francisco – back and forth

jh47.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 132 posts

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#61

Post by Ntrails »

wozniacki wrote: post #44
kinnth wrote: post #38

I currently live in London and have never lived in SF but have travelled every year for GDC (games developer conf) for 1 week a year. I tend to agree with the author. The place is lovely, it's almost like a heaven on earth with almost all ameneties, temperatures and people within a 3h driving time from SF, but for some reason London with it's grey grimey and dirty history has more appeal. Perhaps it's the fact that y…

People generally agree that it rains between 140 and 160 days a year on average, in London. Do you ever get acclimated to the constant soggyness / dampness, the mugginess & the lack of steady bright sunlight even if you were born & raised there ? Especially when you have to live in such small quarters without ample backyards, which are puny even by SF standards. I don't know if Seattle gets such frequent rainfall alt…

I mean, I wasn't born and raised in London but in England. I honestly don't know what any other weather would be like. Anything short of downpour is just wetness, a little drizzle is completely fine.

Also. As if people in London have back yards...

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#62

Post by cjslep »

jernfrost wrote: post #53

I've only been briefly in San Fransisco. As a non American I think there is a certain exhilaration with these American cities. All sorts of people talk to you, while at the same time American cities to me often seem quite scary and dangerous, but often in a kind of exciting way. I remember my first day in San Fransisco in the tenderloin district. It felt like I was walking in a real world grand theft auto with danger…

I've been to SF and Oslo for business. The homelessness in Oslo seemed only near the Nationaltheatret, whereas it was much more widespread in SF. Granted, I was there in the summer and have no idea where they would go come the hard winter.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#63

Post by cgy1 »

oldmanjay wrote: post #20
sehr wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not saying Africa isn't diverse, they're saying if SF is diverse, then Oakland is REALLY diverse (aka Africa)

It all depends on what you mean by "diverse" really. In some circles, it seems to be a code word for "not white people" as if white people are all the same.

Also usually means Asians don't count as being diverse.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#64

Post by onion2k »

lgieron wrote: post #57
nakedrobot2 wrote: post #27

This is like Stalin vs. Hitler London: gloomy, tremendously overcrowded, stressed people everywhere, binge drinking until 11pm and then you're out of luck, spineless european investors, and a cost of doing business so high due to high rents and expenses, that the Startup scene is really a non-starter. SF: The frat boys have won, the nerds are a long-gone memory, the city is eating itself with brogrammers while americ…

> Live somewhere else. There is a catch though - for programmers, London is by far the best paying city in Europe (except maybe Swiss cities).

In terms of gross salary, absolutely. In terms of net earnings after paying for the cost of living in London, probably not. I'm quite sure I could double or even triple my salary by moving to London, but my quality of life would very likely go down. For a start, where I live I can afford to buy a house. On a multiple of my income in London I don't think I could do that.

I see no value in earning more just to pass the money directly to my landlord.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#65

Post by DrNuke »

London? Manchester is equally viable for business, Bristol has better quality of life and Edinburgh is top for arts. Each for 1/3 - 1/2 of the cost. Even cheaper is Birmingham, and strategically located in the West Midlands. Who needs the rat race in London if you work with computers?

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#66

Post by mattlondon »

wozniacki wrote: post #44
kinnth wrote: post #38

I currently live in London and have never lived in SF but have travelled every year for GDC (games developer conf) for 1 week a year. I tend to agree with the author. The place is lovely, it's almost like a heaven on earth with almost all ameneties, temperatures and people within a 3h driving time from SF, but for some reason London with it's grey grimey and dirty history has more appeal. Perhaps it's the fact that y…

People generally agree that it rains between 140 and 160 days a year on average, in London. Do you ever get acclimated to the constant soggyness / dampness, the mugginess & the lack of steady bright sunlight even if you were born & raised there ? Especially when you have to live in such small quarters without ample backyards, which are puny even by SF standards. I don't know if Seattle gets such frequent rainfall alt…

Summers can be very hot and dry (not guaranteed!) - 30-35c is not unheard of - with crisp blue skies, 15-16 hours of sunlight etc. There are a lot parks and green spaces in London so its easy to find space - there is a LOT of green/coast/sea etc near London as well so very easy to get out. The jet stream means although we're fairly north we get mild weather considering.

The statistics are probably misleading - it is not raining every other day (although sometimes it is). Its not constantly soggy, but certainly damper than California. Winters can get dark really early though which is a bit annoying.

The main problem is that people don't have air conditioning, so although it sometimes gets hotter than Egypt etc in the summer, you cant cool down apart form sit in your car or go and hang out in the supermarket in the chiller sections!

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#67

Post by dboreham »

roymurdock wrote: post #34
drcongo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in London, three weeks ago I drove (more than 1hr) 4 miles into the town centre.

Thank you for this well-placed gem of British humour. Although it begets the question - with the excellent bus and tube system, why drive?

London buses are really not something you want to try to use. I spent a couple of years working in Chelsea, which was deliberately omitted from the tube system (the rich inhabitants did not want the great unwashed to have an easy way to get there, I suspect). So walking or bus, or if you had more money than I had at the time, taxi was the only option. Walking was far faster than any bus.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#68

Post by hibikir »

wozniacki wrote: post #44
kinnth wrote: post #38

I currently live in London and have never lived in SF but have travelled every year for GDC (games developer conf) for 1 week a year. I tend to agree with the author. The place is lovely, it's almost like a heaven on earth with almost all ameneties, temperatures and people within a 3h driving time from SF, but for some reason London with it's grey grimey and dirty history has more appeal. Perhaps it's the fact that y…

People generally agree that it rains between 140 and 160 days a year on average, in London. Do you ever get acclimated to the constant soggyness / dampness, the mugginess & the lack of steady bright sunlight even if you were born & raised there ? Especially when you have to live in such small quarters without ample backyards, which are puny even by SF standards. I don't know if Seattle gets such frequent rainfall alt…

The soggyness and lack of sunlight is common in Europe, even as far South as Northern Spain: My hometown averages 130+ days of rain, and everyone lives in a condo: Backyards just don't exist. I currently live in the middle of the US, and have done so for almost two decades. I have over half an acre of yard, a house that would be considered a small palace in Spain, and average precipitation days is under 100, and a good 10 of those are snow.

And yet, if the job market was even remotely close, I'd move to northern Spain in a millisecond, because quality of living is more about low stress and making what you want to do convenient, rather than about rain and backyards.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#69

Post by henson »

sulam wrote: post #25

So, I moved to SF in 1994 in my early 20's, which means my bona fides are longer than the OP, but still not native. However, from the greater baseline I can say a few things that won't be easily available to someone having lived in SF for a year: 1) public transit has sucked since well before the tech boom. When I moved to SF Oracle was probably the northernmost tech company of note (not counting Autodesk in San Rafa…

Author here. This is fascinating to read! I (naively) assumed that things were better across the board prior to any of the tech booms. I lived in SF and commuted to San Mateo which was a non-trivial trip (coming from the tiny UK) and the BART/Caltrain combination was horrendous for different reasons (Caltrain was unreliable, BART was dirty). I did notice that a lot of the Caltrains were old Japanese trains from the 80s. Also, my rent here in London isn't that much different to my rent in SF, but I'm told I got very, very lucky there. Thanks for reading!
Post reply on HN