* Most of my friends are members of one museum (or have season tickets to SHN/SFJazz/etc)
* Most of my friends go hiking in Marin or Big Basin or whenever at least once a month, and spend a weekend somewhere like Big Sur or Yosemite a couple times a year. Bay Area nature is unparalleled.
SF may be in a tough place for a while, but don’t underestimate why it’s special.
Puget Sound and Denver metros might disagree
The only reason I live in the Bay Area is because my net worth goes up WAY more here per year than it does elsewhere.. If that changes, I'm out
1.) Family/spouse
2.) Where they can get the best-paying job
If you offer most people 50% more money, and they aren't tied down by family obligations, they'll skip town for that new job in a heartbeat.
If you've gotta drive 4 hours to get there, it isn't 'Bay Area nature'... There are very few places in this vast and beautiful country that aren't 3-4 hours away from jaw-dropping scenery - in fact I doubt you could find a single one.
I have to assume that there's a place in Kansas/Nebraska somewhere in the Great Plains that you have to drive 4 hours to see anything other than fields.
Friday's weather was an exception and I'm glad you were able to enjoy it!
So if it's a 10 or 20 year "major" blip does that make it longer than "temporary"?
Locals tend to go to museums once or never, lots of places have good bars and restaurants and the idea of SF having a proximity to real nature is a joke. I guess time will tell if you, I or someone else is ultimately correct, but the pull of SF was the jobs above all else; if that's gone then I'd argue there are much better places to live for the amenities. NYC is in a similar boat - you move there for the people and what they bring when packing too many people in too small a physical space. This doesn't seem what most are looking for now or in the near/mid term.