> People don't live in downtown SF because they need to, they already live there because they want to.

Maybe downtown SF is just the lesser of two evils between SF and SV because of job location. Maybe they really want to be with their extended family in a suburb of Cleveland.

> Maybe they really want to be with their extended family in a suburb of Cleveland.

This especially made me laugh because the VP of Eng at one of my Silicon Valley startups was from Cleveland and would often joke "I escaped a prison sentence by leaving Cleveland" and "The place is so polluted the river caught on fire, TWICE!".

That fire was in 1969. This is kind of like moving to SF because it used to have hippies.

I've been to Cleveland and it's actually a pretty solid place to live. I would argue you could have a far better life there with a $50k house than slavishly working for the rest of your life for a multi-million dollar tiny home in a giant sprawled out suburb.

FWIW I never met a single person in the bay area that didn't want to live basically anywhere else, but couldn't because of work (and access to work). I'm sure they're there but I never met them. Networking is going to be terrible during COVID too, which is arguably the best thing about being down there for a startup anyways.

I just think people are going to be amazed at how much that place hollows out as more tech companies decide to permanently go remote. I loved the weather, but I also like not having to work as much to put a roof over my head. I'm sure that resonates with a lot of other people too, that don't think retiring early surrounded by friends and family is a prison sentence.

Even before the original dot-com boom and bust in 2001, San Francisco was seen as a desirable place to live for non-tech reasons. The tech boom drove out anyone and everyone that couldn't afford it, and even those that managed be in rent-controlled apartments found themselves priced out as neighborhoods gentrified and food prices increased far in excess of inflation.

I'm really hopeful that remote work becomes widely accepted so that everyone gets more of what they want. That those who don't want to live in a city are no longer forced to and for those that want to live in a city, it becomes more affordable.

The most recent tech boom finally managed to get some construction going on in SF, but in a city where living rooms were converted into bedrooms and wildly successful 20-somethings having roommates, it's going to have to fall a long way before the city is affordable again on minimum wage.

> FWIW I never met a single person in the bay area that didn't want to live basically anywhere else, ...

All this says is you live in a bubble. I know many people who would love to live here but can't afford to do so. I also live here and the only reason I'm considering leaving is the expense. I imagine most people who own a home here don't stay here because they hate it. They could sell their homes and probably retire early anywhere else. FWIW I'm not from here. The only people who want to live "anywhere else" aren't from here and are only here for the money. Those people will leave, sure. But then again, maybe not, when they see that employees here make more than they do in Cleveland.

> I'm sure that resonates with a lot of other people too, that don't think retiring early surrounded by friends and family is a prison sentence.

I think you're vastly underestimating the number of people that are from here that want to stay here. I've got many, many friends that have left the area simply because they can't afford it.

It's going to be decades before the bay "empties out", because as soon as that starts happening, those people living six adults to a three-bedroom home are going to start spreading out and the people that left against their will are going to come back. And there is still going to be an absurd amount of money here, even it gets spread around some.

And as much as companies may start to allow remote work (not at all a forgone conclusion in my mind, although the $$ seems right), there are still going to be competitive advantages to employees and founders who decide to live here.

After the 2008 housing recession, the price of homes in suburban Cleveland dropped to some of the lowest levels in the country. You'd likely pay more for a new car than buying an entire house, after incentives like the first-time homebuyer's credit. The locally famous Cleveland Tourism video[0] said that you could buy a house for the price of a VCR and it's not too far off.

[0] https://youtu.be/oZzgAjjuqZM

According to the 2010 Census Cleveland lost 17.1% of its population at that time.

Even today the city is a third of the population it was 60 years ago.

I do understand the attraction of parts of SF, Marin, the Santa Cruz mountains, etc. But not so much the Valley. And of course the places I just named are eye-wateringly expensive relative to other very attractive/relatively expensive places in the country that are also very attractive in terms of outdoor recreational activities and other such benefits.

The weather is nice year round, lots a hiking nearby, beach is 40 min drive and easier commute to work while still being able to visit the city at night or weekends when you want. Good public schools if you live in the right areas. My personal favorite is the lack of mosquitos. I've lived in the midwest, south, new england and in Europe and never even considered there could be a place with such pleasant weather and no mosquitos. It does get chilly in the evenings though.

Having spent quite a bit of time in the Santa Cruz mountains, Big Basin SP, Pescadero/Butano SP, and Portola Redwoods SP areas, the no mosquitoes thing is a bit optimistic.

Sure it's not as bad as say, northern Minnesota, but once you get away from the ocean and desert areas, if there's standing freshwater around there can be plenty of mosquitoes. The last time I camped in Big Basin everyone was running through clouds of them to/from the restrooms.

But yeah, in the cities like SF and LA, there aren't very many. The city would spray for mosquitoes at night when I lived in San Mateo, which surprised me coming from the midwest and not expecting Californians to be ok with such chemicals sprayed throughout their neighborhoods while they slept.

In my part of Marin County, they use a bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis, to control the mosquitoes. There are enough mosquitoes so that you'll get bit if sit in one spot long enough, but I don't recall ever getting bit while walking.

That is a ridiculously out of touch thing to say (reminds me of something Mitt Romney might have blurted out). Cleveland is a fine place to live.

Wouldn’t the lesser of two evils in that case be somewhere around San Mateo? You’re roughly equidistant, IIRC, from SV and downtown SF there, the only geographical disadvantage being that you’re effectively cut off from the East Bay. But, for some, that’s not much of a disadvantage at all.

I lived in San Mateo for a few years, right off 92 between 101 and 280 on the top of the hill.

It was an ideal spot for 92/280 access. But while it was equidistant from everything of interest on a map, traffic was often so impossibly bad that everything was equally prohibitively inconvenient to reach. And forget about parking in SF after you've managed to get there, not on any busy night everyone else is out on too.

If you want to access the SF night life regularly, San Mateo isn't really a convenient place for it. Maybe via Caltrain+BART@Millbrae? That wasn't easy from my place, our location was very car-optimized.

I did prefer the San Mateo weather to SF or Berkeley though, even up on the hill we got way less cold damp crap weather ruining our nights out on the deck.

> Maybe via Caltrain+BART@Millbrae? That wasn't easy from my place, our location was very car-optimized.

Why isn’t the train a more attractive option? You’re in one of the very few areas in the US with even one train line, and you still don’t sound like you’re very keen on it.

Surely the train is a fine option from San Mateo right into central SF? What’s stopping you?

The Caltrain only goes to the very eastern edge of SF. BART has more coverage, but it's full of drug addicts and none of the stations in the city have working bathrooms.

Too many reasons to write here, I already said our location was very car-optimized which alone is enough for me.

Caltrain summary:

- no wifi

- relatively expensive for a return trip

- 4th and King terminal is nowhere. You still have to get to FiDi or somewhere

- runs hourly after a certain time, ending at midnite (pre-corona.)

- if you forget/can't prove you paid, $200+fine and interrogation

There is garage parking downtown after 6 pm, but that's $20+.

> - if you forget/can't prove you paid, $200+fine and interrogation

This happened to me the first time I took BART to Millbrae from the Glen Park station. I did some transfer that I mistakenly thought was covered by my ticket but apparently wasn't. Was treated like a scumbag criminal by a BART cop on a power trip getting in my face and shoving me around, ended up with a stiff fine to boot.

I mentioned it because it's a big deal if you're an engineer, give the "wrong" answer, and events escalate.

I've had nothing but problems with Clipper cards and tagging on and off the Caltrain.

Considering how many techies put up with 2-3 hours of commuting per day, just to live in SF, I don’t think many will be leaving.

Single techies live in SF because they want to get laid, and that won't happen on the peninsula.

Brutal commute, though.

Get laid?! Wasn't the Bay area the worst place for dating for straight males?

It's pretty bad, but SF vs. Man Jose there's no contest.