3 ms·

> 99.99% of the world's population don't live in San Francisco, so it's probably geared towards them Is the situation any better in other big IT-cities in the

> 99.99% of the world's population don't live in San Francisco, so it's probably geared towards them Is the situation any better in other big IT-cities in the States (Seattle, NYC) or in Europe (London, Amsterdam, Zurich, Munich)? Some of these are slightly better than SF and some are even worse IMO.

parkingrift 4y ago
It’s not as dire in NYC unless you’re exclusively considering Manhattan. And even in Manhattan it’s relatively “affordable” if you’re willing to live in the 160s+. Significantly less than people think, at least.
- caskstrength 4y ago
  OP wrote about owning a "home" as opposed to his coworkers who live in "condos" which makes me think he meant single-family house. Are you saying that SFH in Manhattan is relatively affordable for average FAANG developer?
  - g_sch 4y ago
    I mean, SHFs barely exist in Manhattan so it's kind of a moot comparison. But the thrust of GP is correct - you can buy a townhome in much of Brooklyn and Queens for less than $1m.
    - caskstrength 4y ago
      Well, it is like saying that in order to live in SF you can just buy a house in Oakland for less than $1m.
      - g_sch 4y ago
        I suppose, although perhaps this analogy would be more apt if there were few to no single family homes in SF (as is the case with Manhattan).
ghaff 4y ago
The geography of the Bay Area makes it harder to escape high housing prices while retaining somewhat reasonable access to pretty much the whole stretch between SF and San Jose. By contrast, go out to the suburbs and exurbs of Boston and--while some are pretty pricey--there are pretty reasonable options on commuter rail and an hour drive from the city. (And many jobs in tech and other fields aren't in the city anyway.) Yes, housing in the core downtowns is pricey, but get outside the city and there are decent options. This is true of a lot of places. The Bay Area makes it unusually hard to escape high pricing.

parkingrift 4y ago

It’s not as dire in NYC unless you’re exclusively considering Manhattan. And even in Manhattan it’s relatively “affordable” if you’re willing to live in the 160s+. Significantly less than people think, at least.

caskstrength 4y ago
OP wrote about owning a "home" as opposed to his coworkers who live in "condos" which makes me think he meant single-family house. Are you saying that SFH in Manhattan is relatively affordable for average FAANG developer?
- g_sch 4y ago
  I mean, SHFs barely exist in Manhattan so it's kind of a moot comparison. But the thrust of GP is correct - you can buy a townhome in much of Brooklyn and Queens for less than $1m.
  - caskstrength 4y ago
    Well, it is like saying that in order to live in SF you can just buy a house in Oakland for less than $1m.
    - g_sch 4y ago
      I suppose, although perhaps this analogy would be more apt if there were few to no single family homes in SF (as is the case with Manhattan).

ghaff 4y ago

The geography of the Bay Area makes it harder to escape high housing prices while retaining somewhat reasonable access to pretty much the whole stretch between SF and San Jose. By contrast, go out to the suburbs and exurbs of Boston and--while some are pretty pricey--there are pretty reasonable options on commuter rail and an hour drive from the city. (And many jobs in tech and other fields aren't in the city anyway.) Yes, housing in the core downtowns is pricey, but get outside the city and there are decent options. This is true of a lot of places. The Bay Area makes it unusually hard to escape high pricing.