6 ms·

I lived for about 12 months in telegraph hill (got lucky with a solid apartment). I had my wife and 1 year old son. Despite it being a really nice and affluent

I lived for about 12 months in telegraph hill (got lucky with a solid apartment). I had my wife and 1 year old son. Despite it being a really nice and affluent neighborhood, there was a weekly mugging outside my house. Any packages or items left outside were basically taken if left out for more than 1 hour. My neighbor’s car parked in front of the house was stolen, taken for a joyride and left in a random part of the city. On top of that the schools were bottom of the stack in terms of scholastic achievement compared to where i grew up (upstate ny). Bottomline, when you have a family you don’t have the luxury of tolerating political nonsense at the cost of elevated risk. Moved out. Only things I miss is the natural beauty and outdoors of California, and the technical community. Nothing like it elsewhere.

hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
While SF is a nice place to visit, but the sheer numbers of unreasonable, lemming-like people who will spend and do anything to cling to live there as some sort of Promised Land™ make it a hellish place to try to live a sustainable life for almost everyone who isn't already a multimillionaire. Keeping a car parked in SF to as far south as San Mateo on the street is a recipe for catalytic converter theft. Visit the de Young museum's observation tower. It has a spectacular vantage point. The other things California have are: less annoying creepy crawlies, more variety of scenery and microclimates, weather, food, and relatively cheaper property taxes.
- not_alexb 2y ago
  California is massive though, and I would argue there is nothing in the rest of California that resembles the Bay even a little bit. Redding is nothing like the Bay; Joshua Tree is nothing like the Bay; Orange County is nothing like the Bay; Big Bear is nothing like the Bay. None of those regions are anything like the other, too. Hell, the difference inside 10 miles of Los Angeles is enormous. Compare Venice Beach to East LA for example.
  - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
    Absolutely. There is variety in CA. Unfortunately, there aren't many safe and economical places to live and too many rich people gentrifying everything that was good. LA is a s-hole requires driving in absurd and crazy traffic because it's purposely spread out and its public transportation is terrible.
choppaface 2y ago
Telegraph Hill is one of the most touristy parts of the city, hence lots of crime (especially at night). It might be pretty but you just chose poorly / naively if safety was a priority. Raising a kid in SF is definitely tough, but places in the Sunset have yards, and there are some top-notch schools e.g. Lowell High School, UHS, Lick, etc. A lot of tech people come from out of town and don’t take any time to adjust to the fact that SF has very distinct neighborhoods. Many will just draw high salaries and gravitate towards whatever is popular / flashy without considering the consequences.
- throwawayq3423 2y ago
  Correct me if i'm wrong but that's haight ashbury right? The famous magnet for druggies and general sh*theads? Why is this being help up as an example of a safe place?
  - heylook 2y ago
    I think you either replied to the wrong comment or are maybe confused. Telegraph Hill is quite far from Haight Ashbury (as much as anything can be far apart in a 7x7 mile city).
    - throwawayq3423 2y ago
      You are right I got confused, but Telegraph Hill still was known for beatniks etc. And today it's close to the embarcadero which is ... well bad.
- rapatel0 2y ago
  Actually due to a confluence of events the place we chose was the best deal we found. The decision was based on cost (not trendiness) Regarding schools, school catchment is based on an esoteric lottery system loosely related to the area you place you live. If you have money, there are ways to game the system but otherwise it’s a low probability roll of the dice that you get a good school. Also, I didn’t have money Also, Day cares generally have a waitlist that starts before children are born. It’s interesting you feel you can judge the type of person I am almost no information. The internet makes everyone overfit their priors.
mempko 2y ago
Crime is a function of inequality.
- jdp23 2y ago
  Agreed. Although based on the downvotes HN doesn't see it that way, who could have predicted?
  - heylook 2y ago
    > Crime is a function of inequality I think the prevailing attitude is more like, "Yes, crime is a function of inequality, but it's also a function of X, Y, Z other things, and leaving them out does more harm than good to the discourse."
- robertoandred 2y ago
  Don't blame crime on the poor.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235223000363#:~:text=There%20is%20compelling%20evidence%20that,on%20the%20social%20resistance%20framework https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472.... There is compelling evidence crime is correlated with inequality.
    - fastball 2y ago
      https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
      - mempko 2y ago
        Ok, but not all correlations are spurious. What makes that research spurious?
pfannkuchen 2y ago
Did you ever try the peninsula, like Palo Alto? Crazy expensive if you want a free standing house but condos and townhouses aren’t too bad (relatively) and always felt safe when I was there.
- rapatel0 2y ago
  I wasn’t making very much actually and we were a single income household. We wanted to look into buying a house but it was north of 850k for a closet sized space. Rent+food basically ate up all my income. Moving to Palo Alto was definitively not in the cards
neilv 2y ago
Question from someone who doesn't know the SF neighborhoods... Can a single, childless tech startup-type person live comfortably walking car-free in contemporary SF, long-term? If so, how much does that cost, and in what neighborhoods? Reason I'm asking: the East Coast city where I currently live isn't great for software startups, and, on top of some crazy downsides of this city, there's a possibly emerging new downside: panhandler demographics shifting more towards angry 20yo men who use borderline mugging approaches, very brazenly. Ideal for me in tech work is what I'll call "mostly-WFH-in-town", where people get most of the WFH flexibility goodness, but can also easily meet up for in-person high-bandwidth focused collaboration, personalizing, working on hardware, etc. So I'd probably want a concentration of potential colleagues who also like mostly-WFH-in-town. So I'm wondering whether SF is that place. Zillow searches for modern apartments in parts of SF proper look more attractive, for the same money, as places in my city. But I don't know the SF neighborhoods, and I don't know how representative are the SF stories about stepping over needles on the sidewalk all the time, finding poo on your doorstep every morning, frequent casual break-ins, etc. Socioeconomic diversity, social justice, and safety nets are great, and preferred. Excessive poo, and other hazards, aren't. When you walk most places, the sidewalk environment matters even more than if you're usually insulated in either a building or a car.
- rapatel0 2y ago
  > Can a single, childless tech startup-type person live comfortably walking car-free in contemporary SF, long-term? If so, how much does that cost, and in what neighborhoods? I used this when doing analysis. It's pretty good. https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/comparison.jsp https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/comparison.jsp From a pure cost, POV you burn most of your money on rent and food. When we had visitors, I had to plan out my budget to cover meals for everyone. I remember paying >$80 for a decent bagels+coffee breakfast for me, my wife and her parents. In terms of security, If you keep your head on a swivel then you're fine. I had the same alertness that I have when traveling a foreign country. You need to be on high alert all the time. Otherwise is it's a wonderful place. If I was a single guy, I'd love the vibe, the people, and the opportunity. If your in a WFH situation then I'd suggest just trying it out for 6 to 12 months. The experience will be great either way. Other place id recommend is the Folsom near Sacremento. It's ~1 hour to lake tahoe and lots of nature to enjoy there. Very suburban WFH tolerant with roughly 50% of the rental cost

hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago

While SF is a nice place to visit, but the sheer numbers of unreasonable, lemming-like people who will spend and do anything to cling to live there as some sort of Promised Land™ make it a hellish place to try to live a sustainable life for almost everyone who isn't already a multimillionaire. Keeping a car parked in SF to as far south as San Mateo on the street is a recipe for catalytic converter theft. Visit the de Young museum's observation tower. It has a spectacular vantage point. The other things California have are: less annoying creepy crawlies, more variety of scenery and microclimates, weather, food, and relatively cheaper property taxes.

not_alexb 2y ago
California is massive though, and I would argue there is nothing in the rest of California that resembles the Bay even a little bit. Redding is nothing like the Bay; Joshua Tree is nothing like the Bay; Orange County is nothing like the Bay; Big Bear is nothing like the Bay. None of those regions are anything like the other, too. Hell, the difference inside 10 miles of Los Angeles is enormous. Compare Venice Beach to East LA for example.
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
  Absolutely. There is variety in CA. Unfortunately, there aren't many safe and economical places to live and too many rich people gentrifying everything that was good. LA is a s-hole requires driving in absurd and crazy traffic because it's purposely spread out and its public transportation is terrible.

choppaface 2y ago

Telegraph Hill is one of the most touristy parts of the city, hence lots of crime (especially at night). It might be pretty but you just chose poorly / naively if safety was a priority. Raising a kid in SF is definitely tough, but places in the Sunset have yards, and there are some top-notch schools e.g. Lowell High School, UHS, Lick, etc. A lot of tech people come from out of town and don’t take any time to adjust to the fact that SF has very distinct neighborhoods. Many will just draw high salaries and gravitate towards whatever is popular / flashy without considering the consequences.

throwawayq3423 2y ago
Correct me if i'm wrong but that's haight ashbury right? The famous magnet for druggies and general sh*theads? Why is this being help up as an example of a safe place?
- heylook 2y ago
  I think you either replied to the wrong comment or are maybe confused. Telegraph Hill is quite far from Haight Ashbury (as much as anything can be far apart in a 7x7 mile city).
  - throwawayq3423 2y ago
    You are right I got confused, but Telegraph Hill still was known for beatniks etc. And today it's close to the embarcadero which is ... well bad.
rapatel0 2y ago
Actually due to a confluence of events the place we chose was the best deal we found. The decision was based on cost (not trendiness) Regarding schools, school catchment is based on an esoteric lottery system loosely related to the area you place you live. If you have money, there are ways to game the system but otherwise it’s a low probability roll of the dice that you get a good school. Also, I didn’t have money Also, Day cares generally have a waitlist that starts before children are born. It’s interesting you feel you can judge the type of person I am almost no information. The internet makes everyone overfit their priors.

mempko 2y ago

Crime is a function of inequality.

jdp23 2y ago
Agreed. Although based on the downvotes HN doesn't see it that way, who could have predicted?
- heylook 2y ago
  > Crime is a function of inequality I think the prevailing attitude is more like, "Yes, crime is a function of inequality, but it's also a function of X, Y, Z other things, and leaving them out does more harm than good to the discourse."
robertoandred 2y ago
Don't blame crime on the poor.
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235223000363#:~:text=There%20is%20compelling%20evidence%20that,on%20the%20social%20resistance%20framework https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472.... There is compelling evidence crime is correlated with inequality.
  - fastball 2y ago
    https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
    - mempko 2y ago
      Ok, but not all correlations are spurious. What makes that research spurious?

pfannkuchen 2y ago

Did you ever try the peninsula, like Palo Alto? Crazy expensive if you want a free standing house but condos and townhouses aren’t too bad (relatively) and always felt safe when I was there.

rapatel0 2y ago
I wasn’t making very much actually and we were a single income household. We wanted to look into buying a house but it was north of 850k for a closet sized space. Rent+food basically ate up all my income. Moving to Palo Alto was definitively not in the cards

neilv 2y ago

Question from someone who doesn't know the SF neighborhoods... Can a single, childless tech startup-type person live comfortably walking car-free in contemporary SF, long-term? If so, how much does that cost, and in what neighborhoods? Reason I'm asking: the East Coast city where I currently live isn't great for software startups, and, on top of some crazy downsides of this city, there's a possibly emerging new downside: panhandler demographics shifting more towards angry 20yo men who use borderline mugging approaches, very brazenly. Ideal for me in tech work is what I'll call "mostly-WFH-in-town", where people get most of the WFH flexibility goodness, but can also easily meet up for in-person high-bandwidth focused collaboration, personalizing, working on hardware, etc. So I'd probably want a concentration of potential colleagues who also like mostly-WFH-in-town. So I'm wondering whether SF is that place. Zillow searches for modern apartments in parts of SF proper look more attractive, for the same money, as places in my city. But I don't know the SF neighborhoods, and I don't know how representative are the SF stories about stepping over needles on the sidewalk all the time, finding poo on your doorstep every morning, frequent casual break-ins, etc. Socioeconomic diversity, social justice, and safety nets are great, and preferred. Excessive poo, and other hazards, aren't. When you walk most places, the sidewalk environment matters even more than if you're usually insulated in either a building or a car.

rapatel0 2y ago
> Can a single, childless tech startup-type person live comfortably walking car-free in contemporary SF, long-term? If so, how much does that cost, and in what neighborhoods? I used this when doing analysis. It's pretty good. https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/comparison.jsp https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/comparison.jsp From a pure cost, POV you burn most of your money on rent and food. When we had visitors, I had to plan out my budget to cover meals for everyone. I remember paying >$80 for a decent bagels+coffee breakfast for me, my wife and her parents. In terms of security, If you keep your head on a swivel then you're fine. I had the same alertness that I have when traveling a foreign country. You need to be on high alert all the time. Otherwise is it's a wonderful place. If I was a single guy, I'd love the vibe, the people, and the opportunity. If your in a WFH situation then I'd suggest just trying it out for 6 to 12 months. The experience will be great either way. Other place id recommend is the Folsom near Sacremento. It's ~1 hour to lake tahoe and lots of nature to enjoy there. Very suburban WFH tolerant with roughly 50% of the rental cost