5 ms·
I understand what you’re saying but I think you’re underestimating how many people like city life. I work in SF and most of the people here are here specifical
by burlesona 8y ago
I understand what you’re saying but I think you’re underestimating how many people like city life.
I work in SF and most of the people here are here specifically because they DONT want to live on ten acres in some rural place, they love that the city is walkable and dense and interesting.
For most folks the issue of living in condos or apartments it’s an issue at all until they reach a certain family size. At that point, most of the people in the city would be thrilled to live in a 3-4 bedroom townhome in the city — but THAT is where SF gets really difficult, because those cost $4 million or more these days.
Actually for many people they feel trapped because they’d like a LITTLE more space, ie. the Victorian townhome, but they specifically DO NOT want a car or a yard and do not want to leave the historic, walkable city. At that point you’re really screwed because outside of SF there is basically nothing else walkable west of the Mississippi. So there’s nowhere to go.
If somehow magically you could build a 1900s Victorian townhome city about 30’ away by train I think you’d find a couple million urban Californians wanted to move there.
But of course the sprawl all around the job centers, and the regulatory environment, both make that impossible.
Oh well.
- masonic 8y agooutside of SF there is basically nothing else walkable west of the Mississippi What a sad perception.
- crazygringo 8y agoSo where is it? Where can you live outside of SF that you don't need a car and can live a normal adult lifestyle?
- humanrebar 8y agoPlenty if you can cycle and get paid over $300k. If you had to, you could buy several walkable-to-work lots and join them into one big one in some cities. Or Uber literally everywhere.
- EpicEng 8y agoSo buy a bunch of property so you can walk a straight line or... don't walk. This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read here.
- humanrebar 8y agoHuh? I was saying a FAANG salary in Columbus Ohio (for exame) probably buys you a car free lifestyle with the style of home you want, especially if you have a working spouse.
- EpicEng 8y agoOh, I lost context and missed the Ohio bit. got whooshed by that one, sorry.
- pmiller2 8y agoSure, but I bet even FAANG don’t pay $300k in Columbus. Google has an office in Ann Arbor, IIRC (which is a reasonable proxy for Columbus in this scenario). What does a senior engineer make there?
- JBerlinsky 8y agoGoogle does indeed have an office in Ann Arbor. As far as I remember, it's quite light on engineers, though; I'd be surprised if any seniors are there.
- twblalock 8y agoMost Silicon Valley companies, including FAANGs, pay less to people outside the Bay Area. Some of them have an official HR policy of doing so and have standardized the salary adjustments for the other cities where they have offices. Even if you are already at a FAANG in Silicon Valley, you will likely get your salary adjusted down by the standard amount if you move somewhere else. You'd actually have more luck avoiding a pay cut at a startup because they almost always have less rigorous HR policies than FAANGs.
- masonic 8y agoFirst of all, SF doesn't really qualify. How many live in a neighborhood where their workplace, medical, grocery, and social needs are all walkable to/from? Car-ownership-hostile != "walkable". Using Lyft/Uber isn't "walking". Anyway, as to your question: parts of Sacramento, Auburn, Carson City, Eugene, Bend, and Boise all qualify, and that'slimiting to cities I know firsthand. Other cities that I hear this from others include Salem, SLC, ... Much depends on what you consider to be "normal adult lifestyle". If one's definition of that includes walking through waste and needles to the Folsom St. Fair, SF probably does have a monopoly there.
- joshuamorton 8y agoSF has decent public transit. Disliking public transit is fine, but ignoring it is something else entirely. Muni and Bart do make it possible to get around most of SF without walking or using uber/lyft. And, given where I live, my medical, grocery, and a significant chunk of my social needs are truly within walking distance. The only one that isn't is work, and that would be accessible via public transit if I was willing to compromise on commute times a bit (or if I changed employers/offices). Carson City has 4 bus routes serving 150 square miles, San Francisco has close to 100 serving less than 50. Those aren't remotely comparable.
- masonic 8y agoDisliking public transit is fine, ... and is something I didn't write, nor feel. The parent comment asserted walkability. If your environment is walkable, that means you don't need transit/carshare for everyday needs. Carson City has 4 bus routes Again, walkable means walkable without transit. My father lived there with daily needs within walking distance. SF is not only not the "only" walkable city, SF isn't generally walkable overall for all everyday destinations (especially hilly streets).
- joshuamorton 8y agoWalkability in the city-planning sense is defined by "lack of need for a car". Improved public transit improves walkability (see the walkability scores on pretty much any site ever), as does mixed use development. Carson City has a walk score of 34 (although apparently there's a 4 block area in downtown that gets up to the mid 70s). SF has an average of 86. My apartment scores 99. Like I said, there isn't a genuine comparison to be had.
- zachrose 8y agoMost of the Pacific Northwest (save for some suburbs) is walkable if you’re willing to gear up for 9 months of rain every year.
- burlesona 8y agoWell, go ahead and list your examples, then. There’s a big difference between places where you can walk (technically that’s almost anywhere) and a city that was built for walking (ie was large before cars). On the east coast these are much more common, for obvious reasons. Places like Charleston and Savannah have a very similar feel to San Francisco. Some of New Orleans. Most of the center cities in the northeast. A lot of Chicago. But the common thread here is age of the city and how well it has held on to its historic core. Out west there’s just not much old enough to qualify. Sure, there are some nice small towns here and there with historic main street areas. Portland, Seattle, and Boise have a neighborhood or two. But just ask the question “would you live here without a car?,” and then look at what percentage of the population does. Outside of those aforementioned bits of the country, not owning a car would make life extraordinarily difficult.
- xapata 8y ago> not owning a car would make life extraordinarily difficult. I find that if you live within a couple blocks from a nice grocery store, life without a car can be quite pleasant.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- xapata 8y ago> Actually for many people they feel trapped because they’d like a LITTLE more space, ie. the Victorian townhome, but they specifically DO NOT want a car or a yard and do not want to leave the historic, walkable city. At that point you’re really screwed because outside of SF there is basically nothing else walkable west of the Mississippi. So there’s nowhere to go. There are a few other big cities on the west coast, and many of them have towns or small cities nearby that have walkable centers.
- curuinor 8y agoLA is world-famous for being non-walkable (even as it simultaneously is getting much better for walkability, hilariously). Seattle just isn't walkable compared to SF.
- xapata 8y agoSurrounding towns of LA, like Pasadena, have nice walkable inner cores, though maybe you'll have to bike commute to work. Also, I found the LA transit system remarkably pleasant and useful, despite its reputation. Seattle is walkable enough for me. It's not a binary variable.
- pmiller2 8y agoI would love to buy something... anything better than a fixer upper, within a few minutes of a BART station that would allow me no more than a 60 minute commute into SF, but that doesn’t look realistic on less than a $400K household income. Owning pretty much anything would beat apartment living, even if it is in a rent-controlled $2200, 800 sq ft 2BR (my current situation).