4 ms·
Well, to be fair, the tops of the hills are where the wealthier people live (with a few small exceptions), so the residents there would likely notify the police
by duderific 9y ago
Well, to be fair, the tops of the hills are where the wealthier people live (with a few small exceptions), so the residents there would likely notify the police that homeless persons had penetrated their sanctums and should be removed, post haste.
- chrischen 9y agoYea in SF the bottom of the hill (Mission dostrict) is just as pricy if not more. Also SOMA is probably the lowest and flattest and most expensive area.
- kornish 9y agoSoMa is not the most expensive area of SF (for housing prices). In fact, it's one of the cheaper ones. https://www.trulia.com/home_prices/California/San_Francisco-heat_map/ https://www.trulia.com/home_prices/California/San_Francisco-...
- chrischen 9y agoSOMA is the most expensive if looking at rental pricing, and most likely if you look at price/sqft too. The overall housing prices are probably lower in SOMA because there are more condos and smaller units.
- kornish 9y agoAh, good to know. Great observation! I suppose that map does only show unit price, not $/sq ft.
- dntrkv 9y agoThat's not true. https://www.zumper.com/blog/2016/03/mapping-san-franciscos-rent-prices-march-2016/ https://www.zumper.com/blog/2016/03/mapping-san-franciscos-r... The only 2 hilly neighborhoods that support your theory are Pac Heights and Russian Hill, but that has less to do with the hills and more to do with the historical housing in those areas. If you look at Nob Hill, Potrero, Twin Peaks, Bernal Heights, and Telegraph Hill, they really aren't any more expensive than the surrounding areas. In a lot of cases (SoMa, Dog Patch) the flat parts of town are even more expensive.