5 ms·

SF is probably hit the hardest by WFH. If you lived and worked in the city you probably had a pretty good commute, so you're not getting the biggest benefit. An

SF is probably hit the hardest by WFH. If you lived and worked in the city you probably had a pretty good commute, so you're not getting the biggest benefit. And while I know it's a less common preference on HN, a lot of people enjoy going in to a lively office and occasionally grabbing drinks with your coworkers after work. It's a great way to make new friends. But with WFH there's a prisoners dilemma where no-one goes in because no-one goes in. Hard to justify living in one of the most expensive cities in the world at that point. As a side note, I've been reading a lot of comments like the one below describing SF as a "nightmarish hellscape" and I just want to caution people to not read into things too much. I've spent a lot of time in both SF and Seattle, and while there's specific streets you want to avoid, and you can (rarely) run into weird or disturbed people in other areas (like most major cities) overall they're lovely places if you can afford them.

acchow 4y ago
On the other hand, SF has a significant tech population that has been living in the city but taking shuttle buses for an hour to their offices down south. I imagine flexible WFH for 2-3 days/wk will enable a larger number of people in the future to live in SF
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  I'm in this boat and this is true. A hybrid wfh and partial in the office option really opens up options living in this area, it makes it much more doable.
  - acchow 4y ago
    I think flexible WFH will also be a boost to Apple, which traditionally was unable to hire some people who loved city life and refused to commute.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
It's the people paying $3000 for a bunk bed who bailed on the city.
- blululu 4y ago
  Probably not. Rents dropped (supply meets demands - even in San Francisco). Most people I know who were unhappy with their apartment moved across town and got better deals (myself included). If you left you probably left because you had no strong connection with the city and you wanted to leave. Anyone in tech who wanted to stay could fill the vacancies.
  - abofh 4y ago
    Did rents really shift that much outside of the widest margins? I feel like 3k for a nice one bedroom has held more or less constant for the last few years (even pre-pandemic), a little up, a little down, but largely been around there. You could definitely pay more, and you could find cheaper, but for a ~1000 sqft single, the needle really hasn't trended far.
- sushid 4y ago
  C'mon. Rent was/is expensive but never $3000 for a bunk bed. If you were really splitting a room I'm pretty sure you could have had one for <$800 pre pandemic (assuming you're splitting 1 bedroom in a 3 bedroom setup).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ghaff 4y ago
I think it's also the case that people whose main experience with SF is going to conferences at the Moscone get exposed to more than their fair share of the city's underbelly. When I was last in SF last December, I was actually led to expect things would be a lot worse than they were. To be honest, it seemed "normal" which is sort of a low bar in certain areas but, as you say, that's true of Seattle too.
ceeplusplus 4y ago
> like most major cities I have lived in or visited Boston, Chicago, North Carolina's RTP, and the Bay. Only in SF are there homeless camps with blatant drug abuse and public defecation being tolerated by authorities. Only in SF can you run into, with 100% probability, a mentally deranged person on your daily commute. When "specific streets" cover half the city (Financial district, Tenderloin, SoMA, Mission...) they aren't so specific anymore.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  The other cities listed are very cold at times and/or very humid/hot at times. It is much easier and pleasant to camp outside in western cities.
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    …which makes people less sympathetic to the homeless, and feel less compelled to take real action to get them off the street.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  Obviously NC is a completely different environment, so it doesn’t even make sense to compare. But I think the fair weather of the west coast absolutely hurts the homeless more. In Boston, they have a “right to shelter” law that will house people, even in hotel rooms. SF weather is so nice that people don’t feel bad about letting people stay on the street. Boston actually has more homeless people (with a similar total population) than SF - but almost all of them are “sheltered” and off the street. Boston has a 97% shelter rate, SF has 40%. NYC has a much bigger population (and more absolute homelessness), and a sheltered rate of 95% - due to similar “right to shelter” laws. Even Chicago has a meager 72% shelter rate. https://sfgov.org/scorecards/benchmarking/homelessness https://sfgov.org/scorecards/benchmarking/homelessness
- mancerayder 4y ago
  Why is this so prevalent in wealthy U.S. cities but so much less in cities like Paris and London. These are more expensive (relative to income), dense cities with housing shortages and smaller GDP's. Maybe there's something to be said for management of tax revenue and prioritization. Also petty theft is prosecuted in these cities.
lmeyerov 4y ago
I've lived in the same spot in the mission for 10+ years (and been around longer), and other folks in the building for 20+: the mission hasn't regressed to the gang wars era (we have stories there...), but between the break-ins, homeless tents, poop & drugs, crazy people shouting at 4am, and occasional shootings, the neighborhood has slid back 10-15 years. Luckily I've only witnessed 1 murder, so the crime is merely 'costly and disruptive' vs 'life threatening', but that doesn't mean it's acceptable. I lived in Seattle as well & visit frequently -- around when capital+pill hill gentrified again around MS downtown employees (games studios?): the current Amazon-era of the city is closer to SF 5-10 years ago vs today's slide back. It's not all good, to be clear: I'm guessing buying a place just got steadily harder as well, and families pushed further out.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  I think it's worth noting that while it was definitely statistically less safe in the gang wars era, it was also less obvious. You didn't have to step over someone shooting up on the sidewalk (or the turd they left behind). You wouldn't see a broad daylight theft. If it wasn't your car stereo that was stolen the problems felt a lot farther away.
- MikeTheRocker 4y ago
  Curious why you continue to live there if you feel it's gotten so much more dangerous? Perhaps rent control? There are so many nice and safer parts of SF.
- rustybelt 4y ago
  I spent a decade in St. Louis, MO, famously rated "Most Dangerous City in America" multiple years running and witnessed 0 murders. How many murders would you need to witness before you start to worry about your own safety?
  - lmeyerov 4y ago
    Yep :) Unfortunately, guns is a US problem, not a SF one. Within that, most violence is between people who know each other, so that's a funny one to work through. We moved our Oakland office to SF not long after watching a drive-by shooting of a downtown subway bus stop during a product strategy meeting: avoiding being the collateral damage is the tricky calculation here. I am indeed moving out, but due to the city failing at its homeless programs + the historic property crime levels. (Parking a car shouldn't be a game of chance where you factor in the chance of theft & broken windows into the meter cost!) Simply going outside is annoying at this point, while there are amazing areas all around the bay area where that's still a joy.
etempleton 4y ago
I have visited almost every major US cities including a lot of experience living in and near some of the “worst crime” cities. Cities where there really are streets you do not dare go. In San Francisco I never felt unsafe anywhere, even in the “worst” parts of town. That said, the concentration of homeless people when I last visited was unlike anything I had ever seen in a US city.
- ProfessorLayton 4y ago
  I'm a city native living in SF, but grew up all over the SFBAY including much, much rougher neighborhoods than anything I've experienced in SF. Several of my family members and myself have been assaulted/robbed in broad daylight, had cars stolen, and some have been shot by stray bullets due to a local gang fight. When I was in grade school someone brought a gun to class and showed it off by pointing it at me (!!) — all outside of SF. SF feels incredibly safe compared to my lived experience in the rest of the Bay. I'm not saying there aren't any issues here, but SF is nowhere near as bad as some of the roughest parts of the Bay. Not by a longshot.
  - dahdum 4y ago
    > SF is nowhere near as bad as some of the roughest parts of the Bay. Not by a longshot. You’re absolutely right, but compared to other global cities SF often looks comically bad, and certainly has the appearance of decline. No fundamental reason it can’t rise again though.
    - diogenescynic 4y ago
      And especially given its income and tax levels... there's no excuse for SF to be so chaotic and disheveled. It's like having the income and taxes of Switzerland but living conditions of a third world country.
      - ProfessorLayton 4y ago
        1: Cities don’t have the authority to levy income taxes. 2: SF has a lower sales tax rate than surrounding counties. 3: Crime data shows SF is no more chaotic than its much larger and more populated neighbor across the bay (Alameda County)
dahdum 4y ago
It’s pretty easy for the highly paid and wealthy to insulate themselves from the problems of any city and live in a bubble of comfort. SF is becoming more challenging to do so in, but far from impossible. It’s the lower and middle classes that suffer most from SF’s problems, they can’t afford the rose colored glasses. Until the wealthy are truly inconvenienced they’ll continue with the feel-good ineffective measures. That’s not specific to SF of course, it’s just becoming more prevalent. I definitely enjoy spending time there, but I’m lucky enough to afford to.
- mancerayder 4y ago
  In places like NYC the feel-good measures (like not prosecuting low level crimes, like shoplifting and petty theft) cost the city tax revenue due to businesses leaving and tourists becoming more reluctant to come. Headlines have effects. Ironically, that tax revenue can be used to reduce these very issues, a secondary effect not brought up often.
newbie2020 4y ago
Where are the good areas? I work from SF occasionally (SoMa), but many of my post-work exploration (of restaurants and bars) lead me to walk through or near places that are aptly described by the “hellscape” comparisons. I get skeeved out to the max. Are there better places to hang out for rich people/people in the know? Random walks are rarely fruitful for me here in SF compared to other large cities I’ve been to. Also, for what it’s worth, I’m not sure people who live in the city have noticed the decline from its prepandemic “peak”. As someone who visits a few times a year, the changes are far more dramatic.

acchow 4y ago

On the other hand, SF has a significant tech population that has been living in the city but taking shuttle buses for an hour to their offices down south. I imagine flexible WFH for 2-3 days/wk will enable a larger number of people in the future to live in SF

iancmceachern 4y ago
I'm in this boat and this is true. A hybrid wfh and partial in the office option really opens up options living in this area, it makes it much more doable.
- acchow 4y ago
  I think flexible WFH will also be a boost to Apple, which traditionally was unable to hire some people who loved city life and refused to commute.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

It's the people paying $3000 for a bunk bed who bailed on the city.

blululu 4y ago
Probably not. Rents dropped (supply meets demands - even in San Francisco). Most people I know who were unhappy with their apartment moved across town and got better deals (myself included). If you left you probably left because you had no strong connection with the city and you wanted to leave. Anyone in tech who wanted to stay could fill the vacancies.
- abofh 4y ago
  Did rents really shift that much outside of the widest margins? I feel like 3k for a nice one bedroom has held more or less constant for the last few years (even pre-pandemic), a little up, a little down, but largely been around there. You could definitely pay more, and you could find cheaper, but for a ~1000 sqft single, the needle really hasn't trended far.
sushid 4y ago
C'mon. Rent was/is expensive but never $3000 for a bunk bed. If you were really splitting a room I'm pretty sure you could have had one for <$800 pre pandemic (assuming you're splitting 1 bedroom in a 3 bedroom setup).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ghaff 4y ago

I think it's also the case that people whose main experience with SF is going to conferences at the Moscone get exposed to more than their fair share of the city's underbelly. When I was last in SF last December, I was actually led to expect things would be a lot worse than they were. To be honest, it seemed "normal" which is sort of a low bar in certain areas but, as you say, that's true of Seattle too.

ceeplusplus 4y ago

> like most major cities I have lived in or visited Boston, Chicago, North Carolina's RTP, and the Bay. Only in SF are there homeless camps with blatant drug abuse and public defecation being tolerated by authorities. Only in SF can you run into, with 100% probability, a mentally deranged person on your daily commute. When "specific streets" cover half the city (Financial district, Tenderloin, SoMA, Mission...) they aren't so specific anymore.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
The other cities listed are very cold at times and/or very humid/hot at times. It is much easier and pleasant to camp outside in western cities.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  …which makes people less sympathetic to the homeless, and feel less compelled to take real action to get them off the street.
vineyardmike 4y ago
Obviously NC is a completely different environment, so it doesn’t even make sense to compare. But I think the fair weather of the west coast absolutely hurts the homeless more. In Boston, they have a “right to shelter” law that will house people, even in hotel rooms. SF weather is so nice that people don’t feel bad about letting people stay on the street. Boston actually has more homeless people (with a similar total population) than SF - but almost all of them are “sheltered” and off the street. Boston has a 97% shelter rate, SF has 40%. NYC has a much bigger population (and more absolute homelessness), and a sheltered rate of 95% - due to similar “right to shelter” laws. Even Chicago has a meager 72% shelter rate. https://sfgov.org/scorecards/benchmarking/homelessness https://sfgov.org/scorecards/benchmarking/homelessness
mancerayder 4y ago
Why is this so prevalent in wealthy U.S. cities but so much less in cities like Paris and London. These are more expensive (relative to income), dense cities with housing shortages and smaller GDP's. Maybe there's something to be said for management of tax revenue and prioritization. Also petty theft is prosecuted in these cities.

lmeyerov 4y ago

I've lived in the same spot in the mission for 10+ years (and been around longer), and other folks in the building for 20+: the mission hasn't regressed to the gang wars era (we have stories there...), but between the break-ins, homeless tents, poop & drugs, crazy people shouting at 4am, and occasional shootings, the neighborhood has slid back 10-15 years. Luckily I've only witnessed 1 murder, so the crime is merely 'costly and disruptive' vs 'life threatening', but that doesn't mean it's acceptable. I lived in Seattle as well & visit frequently -- around when capital+pill hill gentrified again around MS downtown employees (games studios?): the current Amazon-era of the city is closer to SF 5-10 years ago vs today's slide back. It's not all good, to be clear: I'm guessing buying a place just got steadily harder as well, and families pushed further out.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
I think it's worth noting that while it was definitely statistically less safe in the gang wars era, it was also less obvious. You didn't have to step over someone shooting up on the sidewalk (or the turd they left behind). You wouldn't see a broad daylight theft. If it wasn't your car stereo that was stolen the problems felt a lot farther away.
MikeTheRocker 4y ago
Curious why you continue to live there if you feel it's gotten so much more dangerous? Perhaps rent control? There are so many nice and safer parts of SF.
rustybelt 4y ago
I spent a decade in St. Louis, MO, famously rated "Most Dangerous City in America" multiple years running and witnessed 0 murders. How many murders would you need to witness before you start to worry about your own safety?
- lmeyerov 4y ago
  Yep :) Unfortunately, guns is a US problem, not a SF one. Within that, most violence is between people who know each other, so that's a funny one to work through. We moved our Oakland office to SF not long after watching a drive-by shooting of a downtown subway bus stop during a product strategy meeting: avoiding being the collateral damage is the tricky calculation here. I am indeed moving out, but due to the city failing at its homeless programs + the historic property crime levels. (Parking a car shouldn't be a game of chance where you factor in the chance of theft & broken windows into the meter cost!) Simply going outside is annoying at this point, while there are amazing areas all around the bay area where that's still a joy.

etempleton 4y ago

I have visited almost every major US cities including a lot of experience living in and near some of the “worst crime” cities. Cities where there really are streets you do not dare go. In San Francisco I never felt unsafe anywhere, even in the “worst” parts of town. That said, the concentration of homeless people when I last visited was unlike anything I had ever seen in a US city.

ProfessorLayton 4y ago
I'm a city native living in SF, but grew up all over the SFBAY including much, much rougher neighborhoods than anything I've experienced in SF. Several of my family members and myself have been assaulted/robbed in broad daylight, had cars stolen, and some have been shot by stray bullets due to a local gang fight. When I was in grade school someone brought a gun to class and showed it off by pointing it at me (!!) — all outside of SF. SF feels incredibly safe compared to my lived experience in the rest of the Bay. I'm not saying there aren't any issues here, but SF is nowhere near as bad as some of the roughest parts of the Bay. Not by a longshot.
- dahdum 4y ago
  > SF is nowhere near as bad as some of the roughest parts of the Bay. Not by a longshot. You’re absolutely right, but compared to other global cities SF often looks comically bad, and certainly has the appearance of decline. No fundamental reason it can’t rise again though.
  - diogenescynic 4y ago
    And especially given its income and tax levels... there's no excuse for SF to be so chaotic and disheveled. It's like having the income and taxes of Switzerland but living conditions of a third world country.
    - ProfessorLayton 4y ago
      1: Cities don’t have the authority to levy income taxes. 2: SF has a lower sales tax rate than surrounding counties. 3: Crime data shows SF is no more chaotic than its much larger and more populated neighbor across the bay (Alameda County)

dahdum 4y ago

It’s pretty easy for the highly paid and wealthy to insulate themselves from the problems of any city and live in a bubble of comfort. SF is becoming more challenging to do so in, but far from impossible. It’s the lower and middle classes that suffer most from SF’s problems, they can’t afford the rose colored glasses. Until the wealthy are truly inconvenienced they’ll continue with the feel-good ineffective measures. That’s not specific to SF of course, it’s just becoming more prevalent. I definitely enjoy spending time there, but I’m lucky enough to afford to.

mancerayder 4y ago
In places like NYC the feel-good measures (like not prosecuting low level crimes, like shoplifting and petty theft) cost the city tax revenue due to businesses leaving and tourists becoming more reluctant to come. Headlines have effects. Ironically, that tax revenue can be used to reduce these very issues, a secondary effect not brought up often.

newbie2020 4y ago

Where are the good areas? I work from SF occasionally (SoMa), but many of my post-work exploration (of restaurants and bars) lead me to walk through or near places that are aptly described by the “hellscape” comparisons. I get skeeved out to the max. Are there better places to hang out for rich people/people in the know? Random walks are rarely fruitful for me here in SF compared to other large cities I’ve been to. Also, for what it’s worth, I’m not sure people who live in the city have noticed the decline from its prepandemic “peak”. As someone who visits a few times a year, the changes are far more dramatic.