4 ms·

If anyone has a 5- or 10-year forecast on SF (i.e. general state of SF in 5 or 10 years) I would love to hear it

xnx 4y ago
Location, location, location. Being a dysfunctional city is a small factor compared to the climate and nearby natural beauty. There is no shortage of people who would live there if they could afford it.
- boringg 4y ago
  Second this. What people outside the bay area miss is the location quality that is not possible to mimic. Unparalleled geologic features (Bay, Coastline, Hills) add on that you have many world class educational facilities that aren't going anywhere and an economy that has always ebbed and flowed but has a strong undercurrent of strength and resilience. Oh yeah and possibly the best food on the planet which has some value even if you don't really care about food. Will it be the same? No but cities never revert they always change and remain dynamic as us humans do.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Best food on the planet? Seriously? I mean SF is pretty good but I'm not going to choose it over New York or London. In addition while climate (though people will argue about the city itself as opposed to the South Bay) and natural beauty add to SF's appeal, I'm not sure how many it would draw absent the economy. Certainly there are many mostly East Coast plus Chicago cities that attract a lot of people without the climate or mostly the geography.
    - alephnerd 4y ago
      But if you're someone who values nature along with a solid food scene and a strong white collar job base (Software, Hardware, Biotech/Pharma, Healthcare, Accounting, West Coast IB) your only real option is the Bay Area (not just SF, San Jose is also a great city - especially as an Asian American). That's not to say NYC or London are bad, but if you value being able to bike in the mountains in 20 minutes or trail run at a 4,000 ft elevation in 30 minutes, it's hard to beat the Bay Area.
      - ghaff 4y ago
        Denver/Boulder is another obvious one but not as large a job base in a number of areas and, of course, it snows in the winter. Salt Lake City for a smaller city--same. Boston ticks a lot of the boxes but, again, snow and you're a couple hour drive from real mountains.
        alephnerd 4y ago
        100% agree about Boston - it's basically an East Coast version of the Bay Area, but software is very clearly overshadowed by Biotech/Pharma and the tech industry leans cybersecurity+defense (not a problem for me personally, but a harder industry for your stereotypical HN commentator to break into tbh). And I agree that Denver and SLC are both similar as well, but they don't have as deep and diverse a white collar environment yet. As a Bay Area native, only other metropolitan I've seriously considered living long term are Boston, DC, Seattle, and San Diego. But not all of them are one-to-one similar to the Bay.
    - omeze 4y ago
      really depends on what you like! I cant for the life of my find good mexican food in London vs it being a dime a dozen in SF (but ofc easily beat by SoCal or Texas). small wineries are likewise not going to be found in every part of the globe. but this is typical of the west vs east coast divide in the US -- it's very hard to find everything from one coast on the other. Agree that it would mostly be "a nice place to live" a la Seattle or Portland, than the forlorn days of $3k/1bd for a mediocre soma apartment of yesterdecade.
      - ghaff 4y ago
        Mexican and Southwestern seem to get particularly hit or miss once they get away from their home base. I assume there are decent examples in NYC. But I don't even know any in Boston--not that I'm a particular export.
        mrbombastic 4y ago
        As someone who lived in SF for a few years and has lived in NY for most of my life Mexican food options seemed to have improved a lot over the last few years on the east coast. That said there are definitely more abundant quality options in SF and the west coast.
    - system2 4y ago
      He probably meant "best food on the planet if you have enough money". SF is expensive but the food is amazing if you can afford it.
- proc0 4y ago
  > There is no shortage of people who would live there if they could afford it. That's also the problem when there is no way to restrict people who cannot afford it
foolfoolz 4y ago
i think big cities will always attract people. companies will do more to bring people back over time. the bay area will not be a leader in this space. i don’t think anyone doubts that when the commute is reasonable and office perks good it’s better to be in an office. mostly for social reasons. sf had some of the longer commutes in the country some other better connected metro area will grow bigger and more successful and then things will have a forcing function to make it less painful to go into the office
- ghaff 4y ago
  >i think big cities will always attract people. Certain demographics of generally younger people in particular. Mind you, this isn't a law of nature. A lot of now "elite" cities were still losing population 25 years or so ago. And when I graduated in the mid-80s, Manhattan aside, almost none of my classmates moved to a downtown. That said, very anecdotally, my company is has actually added some space downtown even though I understand our suburban office is pretty empty. (Boston area)
  - diebeforei485 4y ago
    That was unique to American (and to some extent Canadian) cities due to urban planning policies that prioritized suburban commuters over city residents.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      And somewhat uniquely American urban problems that basically led to a lot of white middle class people (and many companies) just abandoning the cities because it was basically the path of least resistance for them.
- cwkoss 4y ago
  > i don’t think anyone doubts that when the commute is reasonable and office perks good it’s better to be in an office. This is manager fantasy. You're not going to find enough talent to fill an office with a 'reasonable' commute in my city. Its silly to hire based on commute time, so inevitably any office situation like this will have a bell curve of commute times, with some being 1+ hour each way - a crazy waste of productivity.

xnx 4y ago

Location, location, location. Being a dysfunctional city is a small factor compared to the climate and nearby natural beauty. There is no shortage of people who would live there if they could afford it.

boringg 4y ago
Second this. What people outside the bay area miss is the location quality that is not possible to mimic. Unparalleled geologic features (Bay, Coastline, Hills) add on that you have many world class educational facilities that aren't going anywhere and an economy that has always ebbed and flowed but has a strong undercurrent of strength and resilience. Oh yeah and possibly the best food on the planet which has some value even if you don't really care about food. Will it be the same? No but cities never revert they always change and remain dynamic as us humans do.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Best food on the planet? Seriously? I mean SF is pretty good but I'm not going to choose it over New York or London. In addition while climate (though people will argue about the city itself as opposed to the South Bay) and natural beauty add to SF's appeal, I'm not sure how many it would draw absent the economy. Certainly there are many mostly East Coast plus Chicago cities that attract a lot of people without the climate or mostly the geography.
  - alephnerd 4y ago
    But if you're someone who values nature along with a solid food scene and a strong white collar job base (Software, Hardware, Biotech/Pharma, Healthcare, Accounting, West Coast IB) your only real option is the Bay Area (not just SF, San Jose is also a great city - especially as an Asian American). That's not to say NYC or London are bad, but if you value being able to bike in the mountains in 20 minutes or trail run at a 4,000 ft elevation in 30 minutes, it's hard to beat the Bay Area.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Denver/Boulder is another obvious one but not as large a job base in a number of areas and, of course, it snows in the winter. Salt Lake City for a smaller city--same. Boston ticks a lot of the boxes but, again, snow and you're a couple hour drive from real mountains.
      - alephnerd 4y ago
        100% agree about Boston - it's basically an East Coast version of the Bay Area, but software is very clearly overshadowed by Biotech/Pharma and the tech industry leans cybersecurity+defense (not a problem for me personally, but a harder industry for your stereotypical HN commentator to break into tbh). And I agree that Denver and SLC are both similar as well, but they don't have as deep and diverse a white collar environment yet. As a Bay Area native, only other metropolitan I've seriously considered living long term are Boston, DC, Seattle, and San Diego. But not all of them are one-to-one similar to the Bay.
  - omeze 4y ago
    really depends on what you like! I cant for the life of my find good mexican food in London vs it being a dime a dozen in SF (but ofc easily beat by SoCal or Texas). small wineries are likewise not going to be found in every part of the globe. but this is typical of the west vs east coast divide in the US -- it's very hard to find everything from one coast on the other. Agree that it would mostly be "a nice place to live" a la Seattle or Portland, than the forlorn days of $3k/1bd for a mediocre soma apartment of yesterdecade.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Mexican and Southwestern seem to get particularly hit or miss once they get away from their home base. I assume there are decent examples in NYC. But I don't even know any in Boston--not that I'm a particular export.
      - mrbombastic 4y ago
        As someone who lived in SF for a few years and has lived in NY for most of my life Mexican food options seemed to have improved a lot over the last few years on the east coast. That said there are definitely more abundant quality options in SF and the west coast.
  - system2 4y ago
    He probably meant "best food on the planet if you have enough money". SF is expensive but the food is amazing if you can afford it.
proc0 4y ago
> There is no shortage of people who would live there if they could afford it. That's also the problem when there is no way to restrict people who cannot afford it

foolfoolz 4y ago

i think big cities will always attract people. companies will do more to bring people back over time. the bay area will not be a leader in this space. i don’t think anyone doubts that when the commute is reasonable and office perks good it’s better to be in an office. mostly for social reasons. sf had some of the longer commutes in the country some other better connected metro area will grow bigger and more successful and then things will have a forcing function to make it less painful to go into the office

ghaff 4y ago
>i think big cities will always attract people. Certain demographics of generally younger people in particular. Mind you, this isn't a law of nature. A lot of now "elite" cities were still losing population 25 years or so ago. And when I graduated in the mid-80s, Manhattan aside, almost none of my classmates moved to a downtown. That said, very anecdotally, my company is has actually added some space downtown even though I understand our suburban office is pretty empty. (Boston area)
- diebeforei485 4y ago
  That was unique to American (and to some extent Canadian) cities due to urban planning policies that prioritized suburban commuters over city residents.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    And somewhat uniquely American urban problems that basically led to a lot of white middle class people (and many companies) just abandoning the cities because it was basically the path of least resistance for them.
cwkoss 4y ago
> i don’t think anyone doubts that when the commute is reasonable and office perks good it’s better to be in an office. This is manager fantasy. You're not going to find enough talent to fill an office with a 'reasonable' commute in my city. Its silly to hire based on commute time, so inevitably any office situation like this will have a bell curve of commute times, with some being 1+ hour each way - a crazy waste of productivity.