4 ms·

Or to LA, which has all the perks California has to offer (but with better weather and better affordability than SF, while being a world-class city with more to

Or to LA, which has all the perks California has to offer (but with better weather and better affordability than SF, while being a world-class city with more to offer than the Bay). In terms of quality of life SoCal is pretty hard to top.

Apocryphon 7y ago
Isn't traffic even worse than in SF?
- neonate 7y ago
  Much.
undefined3840 7y ago
I’ve done the math and not really sure how LA is more affordable than SF if you factor in time value of money (things spread apart = commuting) and cost of keeping a car. Also as a single person housing is flexible for most. If you rent a room in a house in SF (most apartments are houses) you’d most likely be spending less than if you rented a 1 bedroom in LA.
- asdf21 7y ago
  Commute from Burbank to Glendale is easy peezy. ;) And the houses are (slightly) cheaper, even in Burbank, than in the SF Bay Area.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  I think you might need a new calculator. I have a 2 bedroom place in a very nice part of Los Angeles for less than my brother pays for a 1 bedroom studio apartment in a okay part of Silicon Valley. My commute is the same distance as his, but mine only takes an hour (rail + walking) while his takes 1.5 hours or more each way (driving). I don't need a car in LA to get to most of the major destinations; he can't travel around the Bay Area without one.
  - undefined3840 7y ago
    I live in San Francisco, so I’m comparing my experience living and working in the city to LA, not Silicon Valley.
  - mercutio2 7y ago
    Silicon Valley and San Francisco are very different.
cgy1 7y ago
Still much easier to get around SF w/o a car than LA (obviously with the caveat of LA being much larger and building their metro system at a rapid pace).
- malvosenior 7y ago
  I’m surprised anyone can get around without a car in sf. It’s not a walkable city and the public transit options are terrible.
  - souprock 7y ago
    There is no place to park. The city works if you are able-bodied without kids. In that case, you walk as far as 11 miles but usually just a few miles. It also sort of works for the people with $2,000,000 single-family homes, because driving to a distant supermarket (with parking) becomes an option.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      I'm by no means lazy but I found the distances between things extremely far to walk, with many large hills in the way (usually). For reference, Manhattan is only 2 miles wide and stuff to do is extremely clustered and easy to access and there's a great subway and cab system. SF is pretty abysmal for many reasons and getting around is one of the main ones. Totally agreed that there's no place to park btw, yet another difficult thing about that city.
  - wolco 7y ago
    From someone who tried to make it walkable, it really isn't designed that way.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    I know a couple who live in SF without owning a car. But they do a lot of Ubering and short-term/daily rentals.
  - dunham 7y ago
    It probably depends on where you live in SF. I was on the border between Noe and Mission. I lived there for a decade and found it very walkable. I owned a car but drove maybe once a month. I had good produce at corner stores (both Asian and Mexican), a butcher and seafood store in walking distance. Nice restaurants and parks in walking distance. I took BART downtown to work. Sometimes went to the ferry building. There was a summer farmers marker a block from work and dozens of restaurants in a one block radius. (We moved for more space and better schools.)
sershe 7y ago
We've considered relocating to LA and the universal advice of everyone who's lived there was "it's a great place as long as you don't ever go anywhere". According to multiple people, if you stay home/very close (e.g. someone went to college there and rarely left its general vicinity), it's fine; as soon as you need to go anywhere it's hell because every mode of transportation is abysmal. And that is often the 3rd largest part of one's life after office time and sleep. For me personally, even SFBA was too much in that regard so we quickly dropped SoCal from consideration :)
genu1 7y ago
There's women in LA. I go on dates.

Apocryphon 7y ago

Isn't traffic even worse than in SF?

neonate 7y ago
Much.

undefined3840 7y ago

I’ve done the math and not really sure how LA is more affordable than SF if you factor in time value of money (things spread apart = commuting) and cost of keeping a car. Also as a single person housing is flexible for most. If you rent a room in a house in SF (most apartments are houses) you’d most likely be spending less than if you rented a 1 bedroom in LA.

asdf21 7y ago
Commute from Burbank to Glendale is easy peezy. ;) And the houses are (slightly) cheaper, even in Burbank, than in the SF Bay Area.
gamblor956 7y ago
I think you might need a new calculator. I have a 2 bedroom place in a very nice part of Los Angeles for less than my brother pays for a 1 bedroom studio apartment in a okay part of Silicon Valley. My commute is the same distance as his, but mine only takes an hour (rail + walking) while his takes 1.5 hours or more each way (driving). I don't need a car in LA to get to most of the major destinations; he can't travel around the Bay Area without one.
- undefined3840 7y ago
  I live in San Francisco, so I’m comparing my experience living and working in the city to LA, not Silicon Valley.
- mercutio2 7y ago
  Silicon Valley and San Francisco are very different.

cgy1 7y ago

Still much easier to get around SF w/o a car than LA (obviously with the caveat of LA being much larger and building their metro system at a rapid pace).

malvosenior 7y ago
I’m surprised anyone can get around without a car in sf. It’s not a walkable city and the public transit options are terrible.
- souprock 7y ago
  There is no place to park. The city works if you are able-bodied without kids. In that case, you walk as far as 11 miles but usually just a few miles. It also sort of works for the people with $2,000,000 single-family homes, because driving to a distant supermarket (with parking) becomes an option.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    I'm by no means lazy but I found the distances between things extremely far to walk, with many large hills in the way (usually). For reference, Manhattan is only 2 miles wide and stuff to do is extremely clustered and easy to access and there's a great subway and cab system. SF is pretty abysmal for many reasons and getting around is one of the main ones. Totally agreed that there's no place to park btw, yet another difficult thing about that city.
- wolco 7y ago
  From someone who tried to make it walkable, it really isn't designed that way.
- ghaff 7y ago
  I know a couple who live in SF without owning a car. But they do a lot of Ubering and short-term/daily rentals.
- dunham 7y ago
  It probably depends on where you live in SF. I was on the border between Noe and Mission. I lived there for a decade and found it very walkable. I owned a car but drove maybe once a month. I had good produce at corner stores (both Asian and Mexican), a butcher and seafood store in walking distance. Nice restaurants and parks in walking distance. I took BART downtown to work. Sometimes went to the ferry building. There was a summer farmers marker a block from work and dozens of restaurants in a one block radius. (We moved for more space and better schools.)

sershe 7y ago

We've considered relocating to LA and the universal advice of everyone who's lived there was "it's a great place as long as you don't ever go anywhere". According to multiple people, if you stay home/very close (e.g. someone went to college there and rarely left its general vicinity), it's fine; as soon as you need to go anywhere it's hell because every mode of transportation is abysmal. And that is often the 3rd largest part of one's life after office time and sleep. For me personally, even SFBA was too much in that regard so we quickly dropped SoCal from consideration :)

genu1 7y ago

There's women in LA. I go on dates.