5 ms·

This whole meme is tired. The whole south, southwest and west 3/4 of the city are family friendly, less expensive and devoid of dot commers. And for the most pa

by pbreit 11y ago

This whole meme is tired. The whole south, southwest and west 3/4 of the city are family friendly, less expensive and devoid of dot commers. And for the most part, very livable.

raldi 11y ago
It's true; the more-affordable housing corresponds with the empty areas of this map: http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/105/2/4/San_Francisco_subway_map_by_qweqwe321.png http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/105/2/4/San_Francisco... I think techies just have a stronger desire to live near transit than the previous generation of San Franciscans did.
- boulos 11y ago
  Proximity to transit options raises prices, which when you need "at least two" bedrooms is a sizable increase. Like pbreit said above, there are much less expensive parts of the city, but people mostly decide to leave once they feel they "must" have a 3 bedroom place or a private yard.
  - raldi 11y ago
    I think it's more that they must have proximity to transit, and the ones who can't afford that figure that if they're going to be forced to live a car-centric lifestyle, they might as well move out to the suburbs where the prices are somewhat cheaper than SF's transit-poor neighborhoods.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      That's a good observation. For me it's an either/or thing: Either I'm going to live in an area with good public transit, or I'm going to live in an area where I can drive a car to work in less than half an hour with convenient, free parking on both ends. Transit-poor SF neighborhoods are the worst of both worlds.
- diego 11y ago
  Driving in the Bay Area is much, much worse than it was in 1998 when I moved here (and it was already pretty bad compared to the 80s, I imagine). I just spent seven months looking for a house within half a mile of a BART station because minimizing the need to drive is extremely important to me.
- dataker 11y ago
  True. Also, many parts of North Bay are fairly affordable, but commuting time may be as much as ~1h with no public transportation.
- amorphid 11y ago
  It's not just that techies yearn form public transportation. It's not practical to drive to downtown SF. San Francisco is certainly expensive, but much of that cost can be absorbed by not owning a car, not paying for parking downtown, and earning a higher wage. For anyone working downtown and living in a place that itself doesn't have parking, a car is mostly a liability.
jacobolus 11y ago
The whole south, southwest, and west 3/4 of the city are zoned to only allow low density residential, have poor access to transit, spend huge amounts of space on roads and parking, and basically require car ownership. If there were better mixed use zoning (think 3–6 story buildings and looser parking requirements) in those areas and others throughout the Bay Area, and better transit, the whole region could fit many more people and reduce the stress on overall housing supply. Plenty of folks who live in low density residential areas don’t necessarily want to drive everywhere or live a suburban lifestyle, but are stuck there by housing prices in more urban areas. There could even still be a large number of single-family houses once you get 3–4 blocks away from transit stops, and they would be cheaper than they are now, because there would be less demand on them. The whole city (and the whole Bay Area) has absurdly priced housing, and even in the southern/western areas of the city ($1500+/month per bedroom), rents suck up a huge proportion of people’s income and middle-class folks are priced out. Young people who aren’t in the tech industry can only afford to live in the city if they cram several roommates into a tiny single-family house or flat and spend 50% of their income on rent, and many service workers in SF are commuting in from far outside the city. The middle-income people I know in SF are mostly still there through rent control, wouldn’t be able to afford it if they were just moving in, and are stuck in their current house/apartment unless they want to completely leave the city. As someone who grew up in a suburb, my personal opinion is that suburbs may be friendly for “families” but they suck for people aged 9–25, 65+, anyone single, or anyone who can’t get around by car or doesn’t enjoy driving everywhere. Luckily the low density parts of San Francisco are still pretty navigable by bicycle, and have reasonable access to downtown, so they’re not as bad as many other suburbs.
- raldi 11y ago
  > The whole south, southwest, and west 3/4 of the city are zoned to only allow low density residential Correct, pretty much. Everything yellow in this map is zoned 40-X, a.k.a. buildings taller than 4 stories are not welcome: http://i.imgur.com/Tn7CSTX.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Tn7CSTX.jpg (You can make maps like this at http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/ http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/)
  - 11y ago
theothercorner 11y ago
"less expensive" http://imgur.com/I9KYO4Z http://imgur.com/I9KYO4Z If you can afford any of these homes, you're in the far right of the income distribution. And this is the 'less expensive' neighborhood that has lousy transit.
- SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
  Any engineer with a decent job in the Bay Area should be that far right on the income distribution. I could take a gig there at $300k+ if I chose to (a specific offer, which was recently re-extended to me), and most who work for large companies probably approach $200k in total compensation. I know some who are making ~$450k -- not famous developers, so you've probably never heard of them, but good ones. I left the Bay Area a decade ago because, in order to buy a four bedroom house (2 kids+home office) in a good school district, the cheapest, crappiest house would have set me back $1M. A nice house started at $1.2M or so. In the suburbs. And I just didn't want to be tied to one of those high-paying jobs. I wanted to be able to quit and do my own thing. So I left that market behind. For Bay Area prices in general, those are typical. Period. The fact that I see a few ~$700k prices on that map means to me that yes, there are some bargains to be had in that area. The only exception is if you have a high tolerance for run-down areas and/or poor schools; lots of cheaper houses in Oakland, for instance, even near Bart stations. THAT's where the people who can't afford San Francisco, but who work there, should be (and are!) looking. I did a San Francisco commute on Bart for nearly four years, and it's not bad. Or live in Alameda and commute on the ferry; that is an awesome commute. Did that for a year as well. But I have a house near Boulder/Denver, Colorado now. Cost: ~$360k. Coming from the Bay Area, I had enough equity to pay cash. Transit: Short walk to two busses that could take me to different parts of Boulder or Longmont (though traffic is low here and I typically drive my Volt, charged with the solar panels on my house). Neighborhood: Short walk to a library, grocery store, about ten restaurants, and two cafes (not counting the Starbucks embedded in the grocery store). Eighteen minute drive to Boulder or Longmont or the north part of Denver. All that and no mortgage. The recruiters who email me face an uphill battle trying to convince me that I want to live in the Bay Area again. I miss my Bay Area friends, for sure. But it would take something really compelling to make me want to return.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dang 11y ago
> This whole meme is tired But finding out that it goes as far back as a 1981 NYT article is interesting in the plus ça change department.
jarjoura 11y ago
The south and south-western parts of the city are fast becoming the most expensive spots to own. You'll see the same $1050 per sq ft applies, regardless of neighborhood. It's true they're more family friendly, but I've heard from many that SF public schools aren't exactly top-tier. There's Lowell for high-school, and some excellent elementary schools for dual-language families, but that's about it. The south-eastern side is still achievable for under a million, but anecdotally a friend put an offer down on a place in Bay View that was listed for $699k that had 20 competing offers and sold for $980k in cash. (a small 3 bedroom, 1 bath) I am not saying you're wrong that this city is family friendly, but I am saying that there doesn't seem to be an end in sight for it being priced out of reach of normal middle class families. Especially considering you'll probably send your kids to private schools increasing your expenses.
backtoyoujim 11y ago
"And for the most part, very livable." That is the definition of flyover country.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  If you can call that living.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    Not everyone wants to be cheek by jowl with strangers.
- pbreit 11y ago
  I meant by San Francisco standards.

by pbreit 11y ago

This whole meme is tired. The whole south, southwest and west 3/4 of the city are family friendly, less expensive and devoid of dot commers. And for the most part, very livable.

raldi 11y ago

It's true; the more-affordable housing corresponds with the empty areas of this map: http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/105/2/4/San_Francisco_subway_map_by_qweqwe321.png http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/105/2/4/San_Francisco... I think techies just have a stronger desire to live near transit than the previous generation of San Franciscans did.

boulos 11y ago
Proximity to transit options raises prices, which when you need "at least two" bedrooms is a sizable increase. Like pbreit said above, there are much less expensive parts of the city, but people mostly decide to leave once they feel they "must" have a 3 bedroom place or a private yard.
- raldi 11y ago
  I think it's more that they must have proximity to transit, and the ones who can't afford that figure that if they're going to be forced to live a car-centric lifestyle, they might as well move out to the suburbs where the prices are somewhat cheaper than SF's transit-poor neighborhoods.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    That's a good observation. For me it's an either/or thing: Either I'm going to live in an area with good public transit, or I'm going to live in an area where I can drive a car to work in less than half an hour with convenient, free parking on both ends. Transit-poor SF neighborhoods are the worst of both worlds.
diego 11y ago
Driving in the Bay Area is much, much worse than it was in 1998 when I moved here (and it was already pretty bad compared to the 80s, I imagine). I just spent seven months looking for a house within half a mile of a BART station because minimizing the need to drive is extremely important to me.
dataker 11y ago
True. Also, many parts of North Bay are fairly affordable, but commuting time may be as much as ~1h with no public transportation.
amorphid 11y ago
It's not just that techies yearn form public transportation. It's not practical to drive to downtown SF. San Francisco is certainly expensive, but much of that cost can be absorbed by not owning a car, not paying for parking downtown, and earning a higher wage. For anyone working downtown and living in a place that itself doesn't have parking, a car is mostly a liability.

jacobolus 11y ago

The whole south, southwest, and west 3/4 of the city are zoned to only allow low density residential, have poor access to transit, spend huge amounts of space on roads and parking, and basically require car ownership. If there were better mixed use zoning (think 3–6 story buildings and looser parking requirements) in those areas and others throughout the Bay Area, and better transit, the whole region could fit many more people and reduce the stress on overall housing supply. Plenty of folks who live in low density residential areas don’t necessarily want to drive everywhere or live a suburban lifestyle, but are stuck there by housing prices in more urban areas. There could even still be a large number of single-family houses once you get 3–4 blocks away from transit stops, and they would be cheaper than they are now, because there would be less demand on them. The whole city (and the whole Bay Area) has absurdly priced housing, and even in the southern/western areas of the city ($1500+/month per bedroom), rents suck up a huge proportion of people’s income and middle-class folks are priced out. Young people who aren’t in the tech industry can only afford to live in the city if they cram several roommates into a tiny single-family house or flat and spend 50% of their income on rent, and many service workers in SF are commuting in from far outside the city. The middle-income people I know in SF are mostly still there through rent control, wouldn’t be able to afford it if they were just moving in, and are stuck in their current house/apartment unless they want to completely leave the city. As someone who grew up in a suburb, my personal opinion is that suburbs may be friendly for “families” but they suck for people aged 9–25, 65+, anyone single, or anyone who can’t get around by car or doesn’t enjoy driving everywhere. Luckily the low density parts of San Francisco are still pretty navigable by bicycle, and have reasonable access to downtown, so they’re not as bad as many other suburbs.

raldi 11y ago
> The whole south, southwest, and west 3/4 of the city are zoned to only allow low density residential Correct, pretty much. Everything yellow in this map is zoned 40-X, a.k.a. buildings taller than 4 stories are not welcome: http://i.imgur.com/Tn7CSTX.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Tn7CSTX.jpg (You can make maps like this at http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/ http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/)
- 11y ago

theothercorner 11y ago

"less expensive" http://imgur.com/I9KYO4Z http://imgur.com/I9KYO4Z If you can afford any of these homes, you're in the far right of the income distribution. And this is the 'less expensive' neighborhood that has lousy transit.

SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
Any engineer with a decent job in the Bay Area should be that far right on the income distribution. I could take a gig there at $300k+ if I chose to (a specific offer, which was recently re-extended to me), and most who work for large companies probably approach $200k in total compensation. I know some who are making ~$450k -- not famous developers, so you've probably never heard of them, but good ones. I left the Bay Area a decade ago because, in order to buy a four bedroom house (2 kids+home office) in a good school district, the cheapest, crappiest house would have set me back $1M. A nice house started at $1.2M or so. In the suburbs. And I just didn't want to be tied to one of those high-paying jobs. I wanted to be able to quit and do my own thing. So I left that market behind. For Bay Area prices in general, those are typical. Period. The fact that I see a few ~$700k prices on that map means to me that yes, there are some bargains to be had in that area. The only exception is if you have a high tolerance for run-down areas and/or poor schools; lots of cheaper houses in Oakland, for instance, even near Bart stations. THAT's where the people who can't afford San Francisco, but who work there, should be (and are!) looking. I did a San Francisco commute on Bart for nearly four years, and it's not bad. Or live in Alameda and commute on the ferry; that is an awesome commute. Did that for a year as well. But I have a house near Boulder/Denver, Colorado now. Cost: ~$360k. Coming from the Bay Area, I had enough equity to pay cash. Transit: Short walk to two busses that could take me to different parts of Boulder or Longmont (though traffic is low here and I typically drive my Volt, charged with the solar panels on my house). Neighborhood: Short walk to a library, grocery store, about ten restaurants, and two cafes (not counting the Starbucks embedded in the grocery store). Eighteen minute drive to Boulder or Longmont or the north part of Denver. All that and no mortgage. The recruiters who email me face an uphill battle trying to convince me that I want to live in the Bay Area again. I miss my Bay Area friends, for sure. But it would take something really compelling to make me want to return.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dang 11y ago

> This whole meme is tired But finding out that it goes as far back as a 1981 NYT article is interesting in the plus ça change department.

jarjoura 11y ago

The south and south-western parts of the city are fast becoming the most expensive spots to own. You'll see the same $1050 per sq ft applies, regardless of neighborhood. It's true they're more family friendly, but I've heard from many that SF public schools aren't exactly top-tier. There's Lowell for high-school, and some excellent elementary schools for dual-language families, but that's about it. The south-eastern side is still achievable for under a million, but anecdotally a friend put an offer down on a place in Bay View that was listed for $699k that had 20 competing offers and sold for $980k in cash. (a small 3 bedroom, 1 bath) I am not saying you're wrong that this city is family friendly, but I am saying that there doesn't seem to be an end in sight for it being priced out of reach of normal middle class families. Especially considering you'll probably send your kids to private schools increasing your expenses.

backtoyoujim 11y ago

"And for the most part, very livable." That is the definition of flyover country.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
If you can call that living.
- tsotha 11y ago
  Not everyone wants to be cheek by jowl with strangers.
pbreit 11y ago
I meant by San Francisco standards.