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

91–100 of 132 posts

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#91

Post by Symbiote »

neximo4 wrote: post #76
lmm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The City of London is a weird ancient administrative division. It's not the whole of the city centre by any means, and not at all comparable to San Francisco.

There aren't too may startups in the Square Mile as it's defined. Just a couple of fintech ones in Canada square. My point is still the same, not many people live in SF or in London but most of the people there during the day there, commute there.

I'm not sure you're aware of what's being discussed.

The Square Mile is an area of offices, mostly banks and company headquarters. It's the area of the ancient City of London, the bit the Romans walled off. There are now very few residential buildings. There aren't even any national government buildings, the area was controlled by merchants and guildsmen. Most people commute to work there, but you can say something similar about any 1mi² area in the most central bits of central London — few people live and work in Soho, for example.

Canada Square is in London's second financial district — Canary Wharf.

Most people working in London do live in London. The population of London (meaning the people who pay tax towards the public transport, vote for the mayor etc) is over 8 million.

Many startup companies are not far from the City of London / Square Mile — 5-10 minutes walk.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#92

Post by orthoganol »

ninjaroar wrote: post #51

Can anyone comment on the dating scene for heterosexual males in SF vs London? I've been considering moving to SF, but the male-female ratio makes me think dating will be hard and I do want to find someone to settle down with at some point...

London wins, it's 10 x population. SF has a lot of very impressive, well credentialed guys you're competing with, in a relatively small pool. If you're also "impressive" you might do well, but if you're just another programmer or finance guy, or wannapreneur good luck. I know a lot of girls who have told me how impressive the dating pool is in SF. Throwing PC to the wind: You'll find someone but you'll probably take a downgrade in attractiveness and will have less options overall. That said, there's a ton of really cool people here, probably in greater concentration than any world city.

If you like Asian girls, you are in the right city. From where I'm coming from, NYC is the ultimate city for dating in the US for heterosexual men. Ignore the self-proclaimed PUA guy. They exaggerate because their identities are so tied to it, and they sink an exorbitant amount of time and mindshare, unless they are exceptionally charming/ good looking/ have really good jobs, in which case they shouldn't apply their standards or expectations to others so casually.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#93

Post by lgieron »

onion2k wrote: post #64
lgieron wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

A lot of devs in London are here to amass as much money as they can, so that they can retire early or at least move to a cheaper location later in life. While doing so, they are fine with living in substandard conditions (such as flatsharing in their thirties).

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#94

Post by AJ007 »

scarmig wrote: post #73
mattlondon wrote: post #47

I visit SF and Silicon Valley fairly regularly from London (where I live so potentially biased). I am always, always, always shocked by the homelessness (and the mental state of those poor souls) in SF. People call London a dirty, unfriendly city but I've NEVER gotten any trouble from any of the homeless people in London apart form the usual begging, yet in SF its pretty much guaranteed you're going to get hassled/sh…

We do manage to spend a quarter billion dollars a year on homelessness in San Francisco, amounting to tens of thousands per homeless person. And that doesn't even count costs that hospitals and medical centers have to spend on ODs, various stabbings, etc. So finances aren't the issue. If I had to identify the issue, it's that there's a lot of status quo players who comfortably exist in the current state of things (af…

Is homeless the right word to use here?

This word is used to describe a very wide range of people, some of who are not homeless. Americans are very tolerant. Many have no problem handing a heroin addict cash and actually feel really good about themselves after doing it.

I've walked Manhattan alone at all hours, I've been in the worst neighborhoods of Chicago, bad neighborhoods in Brooklyn, major cities in the developing world alone on foot at night with no other caucasian in sight, all over Mexico, along with many other places and the one place where I am very aware of my surroundings and concerned is SF. I do not live there and never have, so that is as much opinion I can give.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#95

Post by laurencerowe »

dboreham wrote: post #67
roymurdock wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Blame Boris for cancelling the extension of the congestion charge to west London. Through central London they're not too bad anymore, at least that was my impression living in London a few years back.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#96

Post by 100timesthis »

lmm wrote: post #39
stickydink wrote: post #21

I moved here with my wife from the UK on a H1-B a few years ago now. Three weeks ago we drove (less than 1hr) to Stinson Beach, spent all day hiking the hills, spectacular views of the Bay, the City and the Farallon Islands in the distance. Two weeks ago we drove to Monterey, took a Whale Watching boat ride for a few quid. We spent an hour watching a group of Orca hunt Sea Lion a couple hundred feet away. Last weeken…

I'm not sure I follow? There are plenty of fascinating things to see or do within an hour's drive of London - it's not like cars go faster in the US, and if anything there's more variety in a small area in dense England.

I think they are talking about beautiful natural places where you can spend sometimes alone. It's my biased interpretation, living in London I don't care about musicals, museums (just because they are always full of people) or anything with concrete in it or crowded, I just want a beautiful place where I can spend some time alone.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#97

Post by laurencerowe »

lmm wrote: post #39
stickydink wrote: post #21

I moved here with my wife from the UK on a H1-B a few years ago now. Three weeks ago we drove (less than 1hr) to Stinson Beach, spent all day hiking the hills, spectacular views of the Bay, the City and the Farallon Islands in the distance. Two weeks ago we drove to Monterey, took a Whale Watching boat ride for a few quid. We spent an hour watching a group of Orca hunt Sea Lion a couple hundred feet away. Last weeken…

I'm not sure I follow? There are plenty of fascinating things to see or do within an hour's drive of London - it's not like cars go faster in the US, and if anything there's more variety in a small area in dense England.

Getting out of London into proper countryside does take some time. One of the things I missed when I moved to London from Manchester was being able to take a train to the edge of town and walk out into the Peak District. Now that I live in San Francisco I can easily drive out somewhere nice, but still miss being able to take the train and enjoy a couple of pints at the end of my hike!

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#98

Post by oesmith »

DrNuke wrote: post #65

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?

I'm looking forward to Google opening an office in Bristol. Until then, I'm stuck on a daily commute from Bath to London.

The commute sucks, but I couldn't stand living in London (nor SF or the bay for that matter).

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#99

Post by 100timesthis »

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…

for me one of the best things in London is the weather, as it never gets too hot, It's sunny but not too much, and it doesn't rain as much as you would expect. But I have to say that I really hate too much sun and heat.

Re: London vs San Francisco – back and forth

#100

Post by nakedrobot2 »

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).

Oh God Please - in terms of cost of living and quality of life, your mileage may vary, but for many people, you can't do any worse.
Post reply on HN