Counterargument: in SF I'm always surprised by the number of people who choose to live in areas they dislike (ex: the Tenderloin), paying astronomical rent, and never being near green space, just for the sake of their commute.

I pay the price of a 1-hour commute each way every day, but I live in the Sunset right by Golden Gate Park (imo one of the best urban parks in the country), and every night when I get home I have the peace of the trees, while still technically being in the city and having plenty of walkable restaurants, groceries, and services. I also get 850 square feet for the same price that many in worse areas of the city pay for 350, and on the weekends I'm already right by the park and the beach. Additionally my wife and I both feel safe walking around at night and frequently go for walks after dinner, and when we lived closer to downtown we couldn't really do that.

In my experience people (myself included) tend to mostly deal with what's near them when thinking about spending their free time. That means for folks living _in_ the city they rarely end up experiencing the parks and never get away from the crowds that create such a feeling of anonymity. I didn't even know what I was missing out on until I made the move, and despite my frustrations with my commute I wouldn't trade it back and neither would my wife.

I wonder how much your comment applies outside of SF?

I live in Cambridge MA, walking distance to the biotech capital of the world, and I can't relate to any of your listed downsides of city living except the astronomical rent.

Boston (and metro) is better about green space than SF IMO. I lived there years ago in the West End where Thoreau Path was. There's also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Necklace

Rent was indeed astronomical, but I could walk to work in the financial district in 15 minutes.

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I genuinely enjoy my commute to work. It's the sole reason I turn up.

With my new place of work I pass through rolling hills, farms, vineyards, rivers, and by the time I get to the office I am delightfully refreshed and my heart is pumping.

When I was in London I would traverse the same distance, but loved weaving through the narrow traffic, sprinting up the small hills, passing over the river and then racing through central, fighting through the markets, and feeling absolutely elated by the time I got into the office.

For this reason alone I always place myself at least 15km from my work place. Its a nice transition between working mode and home mode, and its a good way to separate the two.

Plus it's easier to justify home office to the boss on those super treacherous days.

Right, it's not like you could make your own path of walking, riding a train, a bus or your own car wherever you want, on your own terms by not having to commute every single day.

But hey, good thing you have a beautiful scenery on the way to the office. It's rarely the case for most commuters.

"With my new place of work I pass through rolling hills, farms, vineyards, rivers, and by the time I get to the office I am delightfully refreshed and my heart is pumping."

Wow, that's incredibly fortunate! I go up a bunch of urban hills in my old vehicle, people drive sub-optimally/selfishly often, and there's not ample parking so I park in a shady neighborhood to walk 3 minutes in to my office.

Or they are not willing to accept the loss of income stability from living in a place with lower commute times, which also end up having fewer opportunities to earn income. Plus once a spouse also needs to work, both people's income streams and future stability of the income streams have to be managed.

Due to increased volatility and concentration of places with sufficient income earning (and increasing) possibilities, this manifests itself as cities with lengthy commutes for all except the luckiest.

Edit: Also compounding this is that school quality is roughly a measurement of the income earning abilities or wealth of the children's parents. It's known to everyone that sending your child to a school with children who have lower income parents results in lower chances of success for your child. If you want to mitigate this, then your options are to send the child to a private school, which are very expensive in cities, or move sufficiently far away so that you are geographically too far from the children with lower income parents and so the public schools' children end up having parents that have similar earning potentials.

> I'm always surprised seeing so many people accepting to commute.

I'm more surprised by the surprise itself. For most, the better place to raise a family and the better place to work aren't near each other. Surely it is clear why the commute is an acceptable trade-off to optimize those other things.

It's important to think about why others do what they do instead of assuming it's irrational.

And let’s not forget that not everyone is single. If we moved close to my office, we’d be further from my wife’s office.

The trick to commuting is making the best of it. Then it's not a sunk cost or lost time. It's also not an environmental waste if you consider the alternative mode of transports.

I have the luxury of taking a 1.5 hour ferry ride in the morning and evening. I sometimes alternate and use the train for a 50 minute commute. Regardless I always get a seat and read a book or work on my laptop. In fact most of my productive work gets done on the ferry. Work is for socialising.

Wouldn't trade the commute for a shorter walk to work.

>The trick to commuting is making the best of it. Then it's not a sunk cost or lost time.

Assuming one wants to spend time with family/friends/exercise, and wants to sleep 6 to 8 hours, I don't see anyway to make a long commute not be lost time. I consider commutes part of my work time, as I'm not free to do what I want. I'm paying with my commute time + work time to buy free time.

If you commute by car you have to payon to the road and can’t do anything else. If you use public transportation it is probably too crowded and inconvenient to read a book or watch a podcast. Situations as described by you are exception, not the rule. Of course self-driving cars would solve this.

I think the issue is that a lot of people already live in Major metros where commute time is inversely proportional to rent and just accept it as a fact of life. This is why I refuse to move to LA, SF, NYC, Seattle, etc.

I currently live 15 min away from my job in Miami and pay less than $1k in rent. It is amazing being able to wake up at 8:30, dress and pack lunch and still get to work before 9am.

Most people here who have longer commutes are because they own homes and don't have the luxury of moving around like me, but then again, the own homes which is pretty hard in the cities I mentioned.

Honestly my first filter when job hunting is commute times and the price of rent within a 10 mile radius of the office.

Having had a 90 min commute at one point I realized that it just wasn't worth it unless you could have flexible hours to avoid rush hour and even then it's almost 900 minutes a week lost to "just" driving.

It isn't always a simple choice.

I hate commuting, but if my spouse's job preferences are in city A and mine are in city B, 50 miles from city A, commuting is the best possible option (vs taking inferior jobs or separating).