5 ms·

This is what people tell themselves in order to make their suffering tolerable. But the best places to live even just in California are amazingly underpopulated

This is what people tell themselves in order to make their suffering tolerable. But the best places to live even just in California are amazingly underpopulated.

WalterSear 9y ago
They aren't good places to live, because they are too far from the jobs that can pay for them.
lisper 9y ago
The best places to live are the best in no small measure because they are underpopulated. The SF peninsula is one of the most desirable (and expensive) areas in the greater bay area in no small measure because very few people live there, so we have less traffic, hiking trails, horse properties, peace and quiet.
- taysic 9y ago
  I don’t disagree with you. I wonder at which point is it unethical to build more office space if the Bay Area has determined it prefers peace and quiet. Jobs can then relocate to places that want growth.
  - lisper 9y ago
    If you want to advocate for a state law that requires all new commercial development be accompanied by corresponding residential development close enough that workers can commute by transit or bicycle, I would totally support that. I think it would be a hard sell, but might be doable.
- davidw 9y ago
  > The best places to live are the best in no small measure because they are underpopulated. I don't really get that. Where I lived in Italy had about 300,000 people in roughly the same size area as Bend (less than 100K), and I thought it was a pretty nice place in a lot of ways. We didn't have a yard for the kids, so we went down to the local park with them, where they saw their friends and we'd get to chat with parents. Because most people live in towns, they're able to protect some natural areas close to the town that I could ride my bike to. I get that some people really want the 'country' experience, but then you shouldn't live in the middle of millions of people (the bay area). There are shit-tons of small towns with lots of cheap-ish land outside them that are nice in their own way. By letting cities be cities, we get to protect more land, which I think many of us support.
- linkregister 9y ago
  Looking at Redfin, I see similarly-prices places in Presidio Heights, Marina, and near Dolores Park in Mission, all with much smaller lot sizes. Sure, Peninsula is expensive, but its proximity to jobs is the major driver of its housing costs. You can have all that and more in Salinas or San Luis Obispo, but you’ll find that the lack of jobs makes property values far lower. You don’t have to tear down parkland or pave the horse trails to allow a few more large apartment complexes next to the already noise-polluting Caltrain line.
  - nradov 9y ago
    Salinas has a serious gang problem. Thus most people who can afford it don't want to move there due to safety concerns.

This is what people tell themselves in order to make their suffering tolerable. But the best places to live even just in California are amazingly underpopulated.

WalterSear 9y ago

They aren't good places to live, because they are too far from the jobs that can pay for them.

lisper 9y ago

The best places to live are the best in no small measure because they are underpopulated. The SF peninsula is one of the most desirable (and expensive) areas in the greater bay area in no small measure because very few people live there, so we have less traffic, hiking trails, horse properties, peace and quiet.

taysic 9y ago
I don’t disagree with you. I wonder at which point is it unethical to build more office space if the Bay Area has determined it prefers peace and quiet. Jobs can then relocate to places that want growth.
- lisper 9y ago
  If you want to advocate for a state law that requires all new commercial development be accompanied by corresponding residential development close enough that workers can commute by transit or bicycle, I would totally support that. I think it would be a hard sell, but might be doable.
davidw 9y ago
> The best places to live are the best in no small measure because they are underpopulated. I don't really get that. Where I lived in Italy had about 300,000 people in roughly the same size area as Bend (less than 100K), and I thought it was a pretty nice place in a lot of ways. We didn't have a yard for the kids, so we went down to the local park with them, where they saw their friends and we'd get to chat with parents. Because most people live in towns, they're able to protect some natural areas close to the town that I could ride my bike to. I get that some people really want the 'country' experience, but then you shouldn't live in the middle of millions of people (the bay area). There are shit-tons of small towns with lots of cheap-ish land outside them that are nice in their own way. By letting cities be cities, we get to protect more land, which I think many of us support.
linkregister 9y ago
Looking at Redfin, I see similarly-prices places in Presidio Heights, Marina, and near Dolores Park in Mission, all with much smaller lot sizes. Sure, Peninsula is expensive, but its proximity to jobs is the major driver of its housing costs. You can have all that and more in Salinas or San Luis Obispo, but you’ll find that the lack of jobs makes property values far lower. You don’t have to tear down parkland or pave the horse trails to allow a few more large apartment complexes next to the already noise-polluting Caltrain line.
- nradov 9y ago
  Salinas has a serious gang problem. Thus most people who can afford it don't want to move there due to safety concerns.