The more I think about SF the more I shudder. There's an interesting video "How to Fix San Francisco" what a guy uses Google Maps to showcase the structure of the town. It was eye opening. SF is jammed packed with people. From the skyview it looks grey with streets and buildings. No nature, no parks, nothing.

But why (serious question)? Other than A) Growing up there and B) Silicon Valley bragging rights the city does not seem to have much going for it. Yet, people still live there and pay a hefty price to do-so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObkdErzqXy4

The city has excellent food, art, music, and other culture. In the suburbs I can't go see a world class gallery of modern art. Or go see a musical. Or go see live jazz. Or go to a bar that specializes in modern cocktails. It is also a capital of activism and support for the LGBT community.

Cities aren't for everybody. Some people really want green spaces and SF doesn't really offer much there but to think that there are no benefits is just wrong.

"The city has excellent food, art, music, and other culture. In the suburbs I can't go see a world class gallery of modern art. Or go see a musical. Or go see live jazz. Or go to a bar that specializes in modern cocktails. It is also a capital of activism and support for the LGBT community."

Not for much longer, the way things are going.

You can get to SF in a short time from many suburbs. Almost everyone I know wants to be able to do these things at the drop of a hat, but rarely does these things as a percentage of time.

Time mostly goes to sleep, work, family, etc.

And the homeless epidemic there :-(

A lot of long time and native Bay Area residents have favorable housing situations, either by owning a family home from before the latest bubble, or by living in a rent controlled apartment or an apartment with a landlord who prefers tenant stability over chasing market rents.

Same situation in NYC, but there are many more people like this. The great majority of police, teachers, and other city workers in NYC are natives with homes bought in more affordable times, because nobody else could afford to live here on with such a low paid job.

The house I share was bought for $30,000 in the early 1980s, paid for by a single uneducated emigrient worker.

Owning the property before the boom, living with parents that own the property or write software, dating software engineers, or commuting really. far

Roughly 70% of SF is rent controlled, right? It's still hard, but possible.

It's possible, just probably not a great idea

East Palo Alto?

Maybe 7 years ago. Even EPA is pretty expensive these days.