| ▲ | nradov 4 hours ago |
| Unless you fit a certain very narrow demographic and career profile, SF is a shitty place to actually live. I understand that some people have an emotional or family attachment to it but honestly most of them would be way better off in the long run if they just moved. We can debate all sorts of hypothetical government policy changes that would make the city more livable and affordable, but come on, realistically most of those aren't ever going to happen. At some point you have to accept reality. |
|
| ▲ | freediddy 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It used to not be like this. As a tech worker, i can say objectively that tech workers ruined SF. Rent was more expensive than South Bay but only by a couple of hundred dollars per month. In 2005 I paid $1700/month for a rent-controlled 700 sqft 1 bedroom in near Noe Valley. I later moved into another rent-controlled 500 sq ft studio on Twin Peaks with a view of the Bay for $1200/month in 2008. I had friends who were artists and graphic designers that lived in a 2-floor 4 bedroom apartment in Noe Valley with incredible views of the Bay. They were paying $3200/month combined, so $800/month each. That time was probably one of the best in my life. There was always something to do in SF, we would go out every weekend, go to bars, clubs. Golden Gate park for sports, free outdoor concerts like Hardly Strictly Bluegrass, I saw Robin Williams perform comedy one year for free and most importantly it wasn't crowded. People didn't think that their social media life depended on them going to an event or a restaurant and posting about it. It started getting worse because of the 7x7 list and lines grew longer because people wanted to follow that list like sheep. Then more and more tech workers drove up the prices until all my friends that I used to hang out with moved out of SF to other parts of the country. DC, LA, Denver. All their apartments got replaced by tech workers. SF is now a mono-culture and pretty destroyed if you ask me. Everything is overcrowded, unaffordable and overhyped. It's a real disappointment to see one of the most beautiful cities in the world rot from the inside. |
|
| ▲ | gavinray 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I would agree with you, until I asked someone who lived there how it is that people working normal jobs like Bartenders can afford to live anywhere in SF. I was told that there are rent-subsidy programs that allow people making relatively low wages to pay e.g. $300-800/mo for a 1-bedroom apartment My thought after hearing that is that, unless you're making north of $300-400k, it's probably better to make around $50-60k and collect subsidies + benefits. The middle income group gets shafted. |
| |
| ▲ | jmathai 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why live somewhere and be dependent on subsidies if you can move and be independent? I lived in the Bay Area for 17 years. Enjoyed the time but it’s “for a season”. It’s common for folks in the Bay Area to look at other locations as “lesser”. In reality, it’s about tradeoffs. | | |
| ▲ | IncreasePosts an hour ago | parent [-] | | For those low wage earners, you're not going to get a large deal of independence by doing the job in Des Moines compared to San Francisco. You'll still be scraping by, possibly saving a little bit but not much. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mint5 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Where’s those other highly walkable cities (by American standards) with great running weather, plentiful amazing views, and diverse restaurants and activities? I’ve apparently been overlooking all of them! |
| |
| ▲ | gavinray 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Do you mind being slightly drizzled on? If not, Seattle/Bellevue are a great option. Or Portland even. | | |
| ▲ | titanomachy an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > highly walkable, diverse activities I don't think Bellevue fits the bill here, but certain Seattle neighborhoods do. | |
| ▲ | mint5 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Seattle as in Amazonville? Explored there a bit last summer, pass. All cited items are worse. Portland I’ll admit haven’t explored well, so not going to give a judgement. | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | If you think Seattle is Amazonville and worse in all ways than SF, it sounds like you visited South Lake Union and no other part of the city. Amazon's footprint is pretty limited outside of SLU, which is one of the least interesting neighborhoods in the city. Downtown just south of it also sucks. Ballard, Capitol Hill, Alki, University, Sunset Hill... The list goes on. Every single one of those neighborhoods has a completely different vibe (many of them used to be different cities). Incredible restaurants if you put in the slightest amount of effort to finding them. Tons of fun and interesting activities. The city is on a hill above the ocean (JUST like SF), the views are hard to avoid. Year round running weather. It may be that you just like SF more, and that's fine. | | |
| ▲ | mint5 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I ran every day I was there in different directions including a 16 mile loop to the tip of discovery park, it’s not a great running city, and its views aren’t particularly great. Sure it’s okay, not as nice for running as SF or Vancouver but yeah far better than Phoenix and SoCal cities. Maybe I went to the wrong areas, but it sounds like I was supposed to get to the sprawling suburbs? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nradov 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In the real world you'll have to compromise on some of your priorities. | | |
| ▲ | mint5 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Okay. Why compromise when I get all those in SF? No compromise needed on those points, the compromise is living in a smaller apartment, but it’s okay since now my backyard is Golden Gate Park. | | |
| ▲ | jmathai 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I was in the Bay Area for almost 2 decades. I’m familiar with this mindset. There are so many compromises you make living in the Bay Area … like any other location. More traffic, fewer families, faster pace of life, etc. The Bay Area has its pros and cons. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | thebigspacefuck 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Where though? |
| |
| ▲ | petsfed 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In terms of effective income, there are loads of places. Like, yes, I took a paycut moving from SF to the Seattle Metro, but I was able to buy the kind of house I'd need to live in Tracy to afford, within the same (time) commute that I had from Oakland to the South City. I have a peculiar affinity for Seattle that I don't have for, say, Portland, so it was an easy choice. I actually really appreciated SF as a city, but I also moved there just before the COVID lockdowns hit, and the Bay Area is a profoundly unpleasant place when lockdowns force it into endless-suburbia mode. Denver is very much the same as Seattle (although I'd argue its got less going on culturally than Seattle). There are a number of cities where yes, you'll make less objectively, but the cost of living is low enough that that's a wash. You'll have less prestige and maybe work on less important projects. But if that's important to you, why are you pinning your cards to someone else's mast instead of striking out on your own? | | | |
| ▲ | nradov 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A you looking for a list or something? It's a big country. There are a zillion places to live that are better than SF in most ways, depending on your priorities. Whenever someone suggests a specific alternative city here we always get a lot of lame complaints that the proposed alternative is unacceptable due to weather / jobs / transportation / politics / food / family ties / blah blah blah. I think a lot of people just prefer to complain instead of taking action to improve their situation. But anyway if you want a specific location then try Cleveland. It's a nice place to live. | |
| ▲ | ramesh31 13 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >"Where though?" NYC is an infinitely larger, more varied, interesting, and multi-cultural city than SF. Better transit and more affordable too, while reaching similar salaries. Anyone who's not drinking the tech-bro kool-aid but still wants to be part of the industry at the highest levels should be there. | |
| ▲ | 15 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | threethirtytwo 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The way you said “face reality” implies a lot of delusion. There’s a lot of nostalgia. Both for what the city used to be and what I potentially can (but most likely won’t) become. The delusion is so rampant that it’s really what causes people to vote you (and me) down. Like objectively speaking sf is a terrible city and many people agree. At best you can like the city but you cannot ignore the fact that there are some pretty horrible downsides for living here and that many many people hate the city. I will say if you work in tech or are a liberal extremist or you’re gay then it may be worth it to live here but I wouldn’t call it wonderful. You can’t make the city better if you don’t admit the faults. |
| |
| ▲ | mint5 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | TIL I’m a “liberal extremist” for liking the weather, the walkability, views, and plentiful activities that comes with so many people in a small area. | |
| ▲ | mbgerring 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | San Francisco is one of three cities in America where you can walk to things. A lot of people don’t value that, and that’s fine, those people should all leave | | |
| ▲ | mh2266 an hour ago | parent [-] | | The second (or rather, first) is obviously New York, but the third is… Boston, Cambridge (if counted separately), Philly, DC, Chicago, Seattle…? There are more than three cities where “you can walk to things”. |
|
|