3 ms·
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
by 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 agoCommunting 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 agoIt 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 agoOh, absolutely on "stressful and sucky". But far from theoretical. I'd not recommend it.
- foobarian 7y agoInteresting. 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 agoOf 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 agoNot 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 agoThere 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).