5 ms·
For all intents and purposes the Bay has two parts. The places tourists visit and news org talk about (almost exclusively downtown SF and SOMA), and the places
by tmp_anon_22 5y ago
For all intents and purposes the Bay has two parts. The places tourists visit and news org talk about (almost exclusively downtown SF and SOMA), and the places people actually live - like the sunset, mission, san jose, east bay, and the peninsula.
Most analysis does not go beyond the first part.
I'm not saying the second part is a utopia by any means, but you can carve out a more affordable and generally normal and happy life in the latter part pretty easily.
All said the traffic sucks (like all large metros), its still very expensive (particularly for families who can't live with roomates), childcare costs are high, etc.
- aroman 5y agoI understand what you're trying to say, but I find it disturbing to suggest that "people don't actually live in downtown SF and SOMA". Many people, especially many lower income folks, do actually live there. The compartmentalization mentality is real, and highly problematic. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume you were just relaying this widespread sentiment, and not yourself supporting it.)
- tmp_anon_22 5y agoThats an important distinction and you're right that my goal was not to marginalize those regions in any way. My framing was in giving context to housed individuals considering moving into the Bay Area, and to highlight that the Bay Area is incredibly diverse and that there is room if you look outside the more "mainstream" areas.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]