3 ms·
> SF has always been a far worse place to live and work unless you are young and like nightlife and restaurants and lots of socializing outside of the office.
by imilk 5y ago
> SF has always been a far worse place to live and work unless you are young and like nightlife and restaurants and lots of socializing outside of the office.
You can replace "SF" with any developed city and you make the same point. It sounds like you're more against urban living in general than SF specifically.
- ghaff 5y agoThe details and tradeoffs vary by city but I think I generally agree. You tend to have at least many of the same tradeoffs in many major cities and the tradeoffs are such that cons tend to become weightier with age and the pros less compelling.
- imilk 5y agoOn the contrary, I find older people who live in cities to be much more engaged in life (and interesting as a result) than older folk who moved out to a suburb or rural area. When you're older in the city, you can walk or take public transport to interesting cultural events, have more frequent conversations with neighbors, and continue to have unique daily stimulus in your life. And as you get older, not being dependent on a car is a huge deal. Without unique events taking place, people more often than not settle into a set routine that causes them to recede mentally at a much faster rate.
- ghaff 5y agoIt really depends on what sorts of activities you like. I know a lot of non-urban older folks who are extremely active with hiking, paddling, etc. And "dependent on car" varies. If you can easily walk distances and take public transit, not being dependent on a car can be a plus. But if you can safely drive but aren't very mobile otherwise, using a car can be more liberating.
- imilk 5y agoVery true - I think the common ground here though is as people get older, they need to stay engaged in something on a regular basis outside of their home.