3 ms·

Livability also includes traffic, how much space you have, cleanliness, and safety of public transit. Is it really the city to start or raise a family in?

jacobolus 6y ago
Well... livability for who then? For someone who wants to have a large home workshop to build boats in, built on cheap land, yeah, it's not a great place. For someone who wants to live on a farm and grow all their own food, not so great. For a childless couple who needs a 5 bedroom house and professionally landscape-architected decorative garden to show their coworkers they have made it (I know several such people in the South Bay), not great. For a family of 7 who want each kid to have their own room, not so great. However it is great for anyone who doesn't like making every trip by car, or who wants to live somewhere where there are constantly new things to do. > Is it really the city to start or raise a family in? I have a 1.5 year old and a 4 year old, have been living in SF for about 8 years and intend to stay indefinitely. So for me, yes. But many middle class families have different criteria. e.g. there are many families who move out of SF because they feel they have run out of space in a small rent-controlled apartment and can't afford a bigger one; or they need childcare help from family who live elsewhere; or they don't want to send their children to public schools alongside working class children ('the average test scores are too low'), but can't afford expensive private schools. Etc. In my personal opinion, for anyone under the age of 20 it is a much more fun place than almost anywhere in the USA, with a much wider variety of resources available. Suburbia sucks for young people (speaking from personal experience after growing up in a "nice" suburb). YMMV.
- tolbish 6y ago
  There is certainly a wide spectrum of livable cities between SF and suburbia.
  - jacobolus 6y ago
    You need to state what your criteria are. "Livable" is relative, and poorly defined. Empirically, there is very high demand to live in SF, indicating that many people find it more "livable" by their own criteria than alternatives.
    - tolbish 6y ago
      The context is given by the article we are discussing. Sure you can find entertainment and enjoy nice things, but it won't really feel like a community.
      - jacobolus 6y ago
        In the pre-pandemic era I could walk all around the neighborhood with my then-2-year-old kid and make friendly smalltalk with all of the elderly dog walkers, retail/restaurant staffers, small business owners, city employees, other families from working class to super wealthy, high school students, retired musicians living in SROs, socially awkward genius engineer dudes, retired real estate moguls driving vintage cars around, cops and firefighters, skater kids, middle aged Mexicans playing cards, artists painting the scenery on portable easels, homeless veterans, people unironically dressed like wizards or cowboys, etc. etc., as well as chat with miscellaneous tourists from around the world and visitors from around the Bay Area. I found almost everyone to be pretty friendly and welcoming. But it's true that walking with a child (or a dog) generally makes people more open to conversation, so YMMV. I don't feel like I have a large tight-knit friend group, but the neighborhood feels plenty like a "community" to me, even though a substantial proportion of the people around are likely to only stay for a few yars. Maybe you have a different idea of what a community is. Obviously the pandemic has radically changed everything; few people spend lots of time chatting with neighbors in close proximity anymore. There are also a lot of small businesses which have turned over or are likely to in the next year or two, based substantially on the lack of Federal financial support during this pandemic. We'll see how the neighborhood looks once things have settled down in a few years.
  - wahern 6y ago
    > There is certainly a wide spectrum of livable cities between SF and suburbia. Not in the United States. And if you're someone "who doesn't like making every trip by car", the list of cities is rather short and can probably be counted on one hand. In fact, New York and San Francisco might be the only ones which can realistically offer something comparable to what can be found in other global cities in terms of daily walkability and household shopping. Washington, DC, Boston, and maybe Chicago come close, but it's not quite the same. Chain stores are killing some of the walkability in San Francisco, though. A CVS, Wholefoods, or City Target can put convenience stores, toy stores, hardware stores, bakers, vegetable markets, meat markets, etc out of business across multiple neighborhoods, the same way a Wal-Mart can destroy entire downtowns in suburban and rural towns. And because transit sucks in SF (cheap and ubiquitous, but s-l-o-w), people often end up using their car to get to these higher traffic stores. This is a rather new phenomenon, though, because until about a decade or two ago San Francisco had extremely high barriers to chain stores.

jacobolus 6y ago

Well... livability for who then? For someone who wants to have a large home workshop to build boats in, built on cheap land, yeah, it's not a great place. For someone who wants to live on a farm and grow all their own food, not so great. For a childless couple who needs a 5 bedroom house and professionally landscape-architected decorative garden to show their coworkers they have made it (I know several such people in the South Bay), not great. For a family of 7 who want each kid to have their own room, not so great. However it is great for anyone who doesn't like making every trip by car, or who wants to live somewhere where there are constantly new things to do. > Is it really the city to start or raise a family in? I have a 1.5 year old and a 4 year old, have been living in SF for about 8 years and intend to stay indefinitely. So for me, yes. But many middle class families have different criteria. e.g. there are many families who move out of SF because they feel they have run out of space in a small rent-controlled apartment and can't afford a bigger one; or they need childcare help from family who live elsewhere; or they don't want to send their children to public schools alongside working class children ('the average test scores are too low'), but can't afford expensive private schools. Etc. In my personal opinion, for anyone under the age of 20 it is a much more fun place than almost anywhere in the USA, with a much wider variety of resources available. Suburbia sucks for young people (speaking from personal experience after growing up in a "nice" suburb). YMMV.

tolbish 6y ago
There is certainly a wide spectrum of livable cities between SF and suburbia.
- jacobolus 6y ago
  You need to state what your criteria are. "Livable" is relative, and poorly defined. Empirically, there is very high demand to live in SF, indicating that many people find it more "livable" by their own criteria than alternatives.
  - tolbish 6y ago
    The context is given by the article we are discussing. Sure you can find entertainment and enjoy nice things, but it won't really feel like a community.
    - jacobolus 6y ago
      In the pre-pandemic era I could walk all around the neighborhood with my then-2-year-old kid and make friendly smalltalk with all of the elderly dog walkers, retail/restaurant staffers, small business owners, city employees, other families from working class to super wealthy, high school students, retired musicians living in SROs, socially awkward genius engineer dudes, retired real estate moguls driving vintage cars around, cops and firefighters, skater kids, middle aged Mexicans playing cards, artists painting the scenery on portable easels, homeless veterans, people unironically dressed like wizards or cowboys, etc. etc., as well as chat with miscellaneous tourists from around the world and visitors from around the Bay Area. I found almost everyone to be pretty friendly and welcoming. But it's true that walking with a child (or a dog) generally makes people more open to conversation, so YMMV. I don't feel like I have a large tight-knit friend group, but the neighborhood feels plenty like a "community" to me, even though a substantial proportion of the people around are likely to only stay for a few yars. Maybe you have a different idea of what a community is. Obviously the pandemic has radically changed everything; few people spend lots of time chatting with neighbors in close proximity anymore. There are also a lot of small businesses which have turned over or are likely to in the next year or two, based substantially on the lack of Federal financial support during this pandemic. We'll see how the neighborhood looks once things have settled down in a few years.
- wahern 6y ago
  > There is certainly a wide spectrum of livable cities between SF and suburbia. Not in the United States. And if you're someone "who doesn't like making every trip by car", the list of cities is rather short and can probably be counted on one hand. In fact, New York and San Francisco might be the only ones which can realistically offer something comparable to what can be found in other global cities in terms of daily walkability and household shopping. Washington, DC, Boston, and maybe Chicago come close, but it's not quite the same. Chain stores are killing some of the walkability in San Francisco, though. A CVS, Wholefoods, or City Target can put convenience stores, toy stores, hardware stores, bakers, vegetable markets, meat markets, etc out of business across multiple neighborhoods, the same way a Wal-Mart can destroy entire downtowns in suburban and rural towns. And because transit sucks in SF (cheap and ubiquitous, but s-l-o-w), people often end up using their car to get to these higher traffic stores. This is a rather new phenomenon, though, because until about a decade or two ago San Francisco had extremely high barriers to chain stores.