3 ms·

Can you give some comparison baselines to an uninformed East coaster? I thought SJ is part of the Bay Area and part of the skyrocketing housing cost crisis. I

Can you give some comparison baselines to an uninformed East coaster? I thought SJ is part of the Bay Area and part of the skyrocketing housing cost crisis. Is that not true? If not what is an East coast analogy - e.g. Boston is to NYC what SF is to SJ? I knew a number of people who moved to the SV area, got FAANG type jobs way down in the Valley, and yet still chose to live in SF enduring hellish commutes. I never could quite understand why.

JimboOmega 7y ago
It's something very roughly and geographically like if SF is DC, then SJ is Baltimore. You could theoretically commute between them, but it's quite impractical. SJ is part of the Bay Area and absolutely has skyrocketing costs; it usually tops the lists of cities with the fastest growing housing prices. When I got a job in Redwood City (in between the two), I thought about moving there from SF, but found the costs to be about the same to live there versus SF. So I stayed in SF; it's definitely the anchor of culture of the Bay Area. For everything outside of work it's a much better place to be (for me, a single queer person, especially). I since got a job in SF and have no intention to move or work south again. In fact, the general trend has been for companies to move towards SF away from the peninsula, but mostly because it's where workers want to be. It's much more easier to get by without a car in the city than in the peninsula, it has much better clubs/nightlife, etc. For a young person, the city (meaning SF) is often much more appealing, though of course different people have different preferences.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Communting SJ-SF is, unfortunately, doable and done. It's an hour drive off-peak on 280, or about the same time (though crowded and being pinned dead on a rail timetable) by CalTrain express. Off-peak rail runs 90 minutes, and you've still got terminal-to-endpoint to deal with, which is problematic in both SF (improved with the Transbay Terminal), and SJ (residential regions sprawl for miles from the principle train stations).
  - JimboOmega 7y ago
    It is also done to commute from Baltimore to DC; for me it's just way too much. Redwood City was my limit and I really hated it, even with my motorcycle. I know there's a Google Bus from very near to me all the way to Sunnyvale, but I considered that still unacceptable. Of course, late at night I once did SF-SJ in 45 minutes. Having tried every solution at all times of day (e.g., biking to the caltrain, carpooling, etc) the "big bike" always wins; truly off peak the car is just as fast, in theory (and, hey, safer and more comfortable... but less fun). But, let's be honest all the solutions are stressful and sucky. You can trade time for stress to a certain extent, but you're spending a lot of both no matter what.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Oh, absolutely on "stressful and sucky". But far from theoretical. I'd not recommend it.
- foobarian 7y ago
  Interesting. So if SJ does not seem to have the NIMBY cohort putting on the brakes for development, and has plenty of high-rises and other housing, and the prices are still sky-high - does that indicate that maybe more housing in SF is not going to help things as much as people usually think at first?
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    Of course. Density begets density. Housing is just like highways, add more, and demand will catch up. NYC is way more dense than the Bay Area. It’s not exactly a cheap place to live.
    - muzz 7y ago
      Not sure who downvoted you, but yes. More housing requires more businesses in the area to due to spending of the residents, which in turn creates jobs, which in turn creates housing demand.
  - twblalock 7y ago
    There are plenty of NIMBYs in the San Jose area and there is not a lot of high-rise housing. Both San Jose and San Francisco have median house prices over a million dollars, but you get more house for your money in San Jose and apartment rents are a lot cheaper (and the apartments generally come with parking, which you'll need because public transit is a joke).
xvedejas 7y ago
I think the issue might be that plenty of people live in SJ relative to the amount of housing available, and so it's expensive just like SF, but it's far less developed / more sprawling, so there's less slack in the system for office space for small companies and fewer apartments for young workers.
Gibbon1 7y ago
> yet still chose to live in SF enduring hellish commutes. I never could quite understand why. I grew up in the South Bay. I can answer that question. The South Bay is eye bleedingly BORING by design. It's an absolutely terrible place for a teenager or young adult. Most of the fun stuff in the city is illegal in the south bay.
- beamatronic 7y ago
  It’s illegal in San Francisco too, just more widely tolerated.
twblalock 7y ago
San Francisco (and Oakland) are the only real dense urban areas. The rest of the Bay Area is a suburb. San Jose is mostly houses and shopping centers. Most of the young people I know who work in tech want to live in or near San Francisco -- it has nightlife, restaurants, cultural events, etc. This is especially the case for people who are not from the Bay Area originally. When they start looking into buying property or having children a lot of them leave San Francisco and move closer to the suburbs.
stephencanon 7y ago
Oakland is the Bronx. SF is Queens. There is no Manhattan or Brooklyn. San Jose is central New Jersey. (This comparison is unfair to both Queens and the Bronx, mind you.)
laurencerowe 7y ago
San Francisco is the best you can do if you want a walkable lifestyle on the evenings/weekends and work in Silicon Valley. (Oakland/Berkeley are more interesting and more affordable but/because the commute is unendurable.) The SF to SV commute is mostly against the flow, so getting to Page Mill Road takes about the same time from Mountain View (next suburb over) as from southern parts of SF.

JimboOmega 7y ago

It's something very roughly and geographically like if SF is DC, then SJ is Baltimore. You could theoretically commute between them, but it's quite impractical. SJ is part of the Bay Area and absolutely has skyrocketing costs; it usually tops the lists of cities with the fastest growing housing prices. When I got a job in Redwood City (in between the two), I thought about moving there from SF, but found the costs to be about the same to live there versus SF. So I stayed in SF; it's definitely the anchor of culture of the Bay Area. For everything outside of work it's a much better place to be (for me, a single queer person, especially). I since got a job in SF and have no intention to move or work south again. In fact, the general trend has been for companies to move towards SF away from the peninsula, but mostly because it's where workers want to be. It's much more easier to get by without a car in the city than in the peninsula, it has much better clubs/nightlife, etc. For a young person, the city (meaning SF) is often much more appealing, though of course different people have different preferences.

dredmorbius 7y ago
Communting SJ-SF is, unfortunately, doable and done. It's an hour drive off-peak on 280, or about the same time (though crowded and being pinned dead on a rail timetable) by CalTrain express. Off-peak rail runs 90 minutes, and you've still got terminal-to-endpoint to deal with, which is problematic in both SF (improved with the Transbay Terminal), and SJ (residential regions sprawl for miles from the principle train stations).
- JimboOmega 7y ago
  It is also done to commute from Baltimore to DC; for me it's just way too much. Redwood City was my limit and I really hated it, even with my motorcycle. I know there's a Google Bus from very near to me all the way to Sunnyvale, but I considered that still unacceptable. Of course, late at night I once did SF-SJ in 45 minutes. Having tried every solution at all times of day (e.g., biking to the caltrain, carpooling, etc) the "big bike" always wins; truly off peak the car is just as fast, in theory (and, hey, safer and more comfortable... but less fun). But, let's be honest all the solutions are stressful and sucky. You can trade time for stress to a certain extent, but you're spending a lot of both no matter what.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Oh, absolutely on "stressful and sucky". But far from theoretical. I'd not recommend it.
foobarian 7y ago
Interesting. So if SJ does not seem to have the NIMBY cohort putting on the brakes for development, and has plenty of high-rises and other housing, and the prices are still sky-high - does that indicate that maybe more housing in SF is not going to help things as much as people usually think at first?
- Spooky23 7y ago
  Of course. Density begets density. Housing is just like highways, add more, and demand will catch up. NYC is way more dense than the Bay Area. It’s not exactly a cheap place to live.
  - muzz 7y ago
    Not sure who downvoted you, but yes. More housing requires more businesses in the area to due to spending of the residents, which in turn creates jobs, which in turn creates housing demand.
- twblalock 7y ago
  There are plenty of NIMBYs in the San Jose area and there is not a lot of high-rise housing. Both San Jose and San Francisco have median house prices over a million dollars, but you get more house for your money in San Jose and apartment rents are a lot cheaper (and the apartments generally come with parking, which you'll need because public transit is a joke).

xvedejas 7y ago

I think the issue might be that plenty of people live in SJ relative to the amount of housing available, and so it's expensive just like SF, but it's far less developed / more sprawling, so there's less slack in the system for office space for small companies and fewer apartments for young workers.

Gibbon1 7y ago

> yet still chose to live in SF enduring hellish commutes. I never could quite understand why. I grew up in the South Bay. I can answer that question. The South Bay is eye bleedingly BORING by design. It's an absolutely terrible place for a teenager or young adult. Most of the fun stuff in the city is illegal in the south bay.

beamatronic 7y ago
It’s illegal in San Francisco too, just more widely tolerated.

twblalock 7y ago

San Francisco (and Oakland) are the only real dense urban areas. The rest of the Bay Area is a suburb. San Jose is mostly houses and shopping centers. Most of the young people I know who work in tech want to live in or near San Francisco -- it has nightlife, restaurants, cultural events, etc. This is especially the case for people who are not from the Bay Area originally. When they start looking into buying property or having children a lot of them leave San Francisco and move closer to the suburbs.

stephencanon 7y ago

Oakland is the Bronx. SF is Queens. There is no Manhattan or Brooklyn. San Jose is central New Jersey. (This comparison is unfair to both Queens and the Bronx, mind you.)

laurencerowe 7y ago

San Francisco is the best you can do if you want a walkable lifestyle on the evenings/weekends and work in Silicon Valley. (Oakland/Berkeley are more interesting and more affordable but/because the commute is unendurable.) The SF to SV commute is mostly against the flow, so getting to Page Mill Road takes about the same time from Mountain View (next suburb over) as from southern parts of SF.