The problem can be attacked from two angles. Either ramp up housing development to take care of the population influx, or slow down the population influx to match the rate of housing development. Obviously, the people of the area have a vested interest in keeping the area attractive; but for the rest of us, I think it's important to remember there are other places to live and you can be just as happy or happier elsewhere. I'm someone who could have used that reminder a year ago.
There's a lot of justification that goes into paying $3000 per month to live in a one bedroom apartment. You have to recoup that value elsewhere. A lot of it has to do with the job opportunities available to tech workers. That's undeniable. But some of the other justifications I used were more or less lies I started telling myself about why I had to stay.
> Are you proposing that everyone in SF move to places like the Central Valley (driving up price)
It's already happening, so maybe we should embrace it as a valid option. The town I'm living in has become sort of a telecommuter town, precisely because of rents in SF.
> and start driving around cars (increasing traffic and pollution)?
I actually went about 8 months without a car in SF. I took Uber, bike, and muni as my get around. Between me and my wife, we were spending $700 per month on transportation, so we ended up buying a car to get around -- it was just more convenient. Out in the valley, we actually put fewer miles on it, because it's easier to bike out here, and things are actually closer to us than they were in the city (both in miles and minutes).
care to elaborate?
I don't know where you came up with this. The OP implied that by moving away from a heavily populated area and working remotely, he was able to afford more space and shorten his commute. You managed to turn no commute into increased pollution and moving to a less densely populated place as "driving up price"?
Besides this obvious thing, what exactly is your point?
Saying "it's crowded here, let's go move somewhere else and make that crowded" is not just kicking the can, it's making the problem worse because often those areas have even less mass transit.
Infrastructure is not something the average citizen seems to give a fig about.
I would bet >50% of the people working in the bay area who say they can't work remote are doing jobs that could very easily be done remote.
Do you work on a computer? You can do that remote.
Plenty of people work on, and require physical access to, computer systems that can’t practically be made available to remote workers.
I feel like this is a hidden motivation for many people. Maybe just me.
https://be.helpful.com/helpful-how-the-math-of-viral-growth-...
Transitive property of dating. You might not date your coworker but you might date their friend... or a bit less likely a friend of their friend. Etc...
Also known in social gaming as virality, a statistic you can measure.
Also applies to knowledge transfer which is a reason to live near a hub.
Traditionally, work has been a very common place to meet future spouses. I believe the rate has dropped in recent decades, but I would be surprised if it was so low as to be inconsequential, especially when considering something as important as many people view this.
Just the graph: https://cdn.technologyreview.com/i/images/internet-dating.pn...
>By meeting online, or meeting through the Internet, we mean that a couple’s relationship began with an online interaction and then developed into a personal and physical relationship. We coded couples as having met online only if the online interaction was crucial to their having met, regardless of how the couple communicated once they had met. … If the couple first met decades earlier, fell out of touch, and then rediscovered each other through Facebook, that would be “meeting online” for our purposes.
Based on my reading of their criteria, the relationship would be categorized as 'coworker' if they either knew the person at work prior to visiting the bar, they were introduced at the bar through a coworker, or a work event took place at a bar.
They are starting a high speed rail line there. It is 500,000 people and much more spread out than the coastal big cities, so it is not nearly as dense. The bus system is the best I have ever seen in the US, so you can live without a car there, even though it sprawls. I have lived without a car for years and Fresno was a big improvement over previous experiences.
I considered doing a website* as an ode to the city/to promote a walkable lifestyle there. It didn't get off the ground and now I have moved out of state. But, if you want to stay in California and want to get away from some of the insanity in places like SF, I will second "just move to the Central Valley if you can arrange it."
The politicians they elect throughout the Central Valley are also absolutely bonkers.
I don't get it. There are national forests there. Woodward Park is huge. There is an international airport. What kinds of activities are you into that you can't get your needs met in a city of 500,000 people, about the 36th largest city in the US IIRC, which means there are entire states that don't have a city that big in them.
I was a military wife. I have lived all over. I just find your statements genuinely baffling and I would like to understand where you are coming from.
There’s nothing wrong with Fresno. Plenty of lovely people live there, and I’m sure there are all sorts of things happening all the time. It just doesn’t (to me at least) seem comparable to the Bay Area. As one example, Fresno State is a fine school, but it can’t compete with Berkeley and Stanford.
The population density is also relatively low, and it doesn’t seem like a very easy place to live without frequently using a car. (I end up using a car about once a month.) I really appreciate being able to walk to 3 different grocery stores within a 3 block radius, walk to 10 coffee/tea shops, walk to 100 restaurants of every imaginable type, walk to the park, walk to 2 library branches, walk to several little art galleries, walk to bakeries and fish markets, walk to all sorts of little shops, walk to the subway, ...
No, it isn't comparable. That is kind of the point here: If you are sick of the downside in the Bay Area of insane commutes, insane house prices, large numbers of increasingly aggressive homeless junkies, etc, then leaving might make more sense for some people than staying and hoping to fix some of these problems.
But thank you for giving me a meaty reply.
Housing prices are definitely a problem, but we are lucky to own a condo, so the main effect on us is a gradually gentrifying neighborhood (which process we are part of), which will probably mean less interesting neighbors in another 10 or 20 years.
I am struggling to understand this discussion with you. Do you have some objection to the suggestion that people who are dissatisfied should consider the Central Valley as an alternative? It isn't like it is a gun to your head insisting people who are happy should leave.
I’m just saying I wouldn’t choose to. My original phrasing (“can’t imagine”) was probably a bit hyperbolic.
Probably best to drop it though.
Seemed like a natural exchange to me.
I grew up in Georgia. I'll take 110 in a dry place with low humidity over 101 in air thick enough to slice with a knife any day.
It's the main reason why I left there to move to the bay. I just couldn't handle their politics anymore.
San Francisco is the most expensive and over-priced shithole. I’ve lived here for 10 years and I’m completely over it. I can’t wait for some startup or tech company to use this as a disruptive opportunity. I only live here because my job is here. I’d move if my job would let me.
Huh? So why weren't you just walking in the first place? That's like a 45 minute brisk walk. That doesn't sound like any kind of hardship.
Was a great deal of that time spent walking? Because taking the N from Cole Valley to downtown normally takes 15 minutes.
That, plus people assaulting my wife on the street, plus $3000 rent for a 1 bedroom, and I had it with the city. I loved it, it was a great experience, but I just couldn't take it anymore. Now I work from home in the central valley, where I can afford to rent a 3000 sq. ft. home (not because I'm paid much, but because housing is so cheap), and my commute is 1 minute. I'm much happier out here, yet I find when I tell people from SF where I live, some (not all, most people ask "Where the heck is that?") wrinkle their noses. I say, if you're tired of the city, give it a shot -- you might be happier.