3 ms·

"Part of the problem is that affluent tech workers want to have their cake and eat it too-everyone wants to live in cool, trendy neighborhoods in SF, and commut

"Part of the problem is that affluent tech workers want to have their cake and eat it too-everyone wants to live in cool, trendy neighborhoods in SF, and commute to their fancy jobs in the Valley." It's a little unfair to make it seem like tech workers are spoiled for wanting to live in areas they'd enjoy living in. I know several people who tried to live in the south bay (burlingame, san mateo, mountain view) close to where they worked. It can be nice, but it can also be lonely and depressing. If you live in the south bay, it's likely all the places you frequently go to will at least be a 10-18 minute drive away from eachother (work, grocery store, your friends house, your favorite bar/restaurant). San Francisco is one of the only places in the Bay Area where everything you want is in walking distance. Disclaimer, I've lived in both SF and Palo Alto.

underwater 14y ago
People who work for the big tech companies are spoiled. I've worked for a bunch of companies around the world and none come even close to what Bay Area companies provide. I'd bet that a large percentage of working Americans would love to mix the great job with atmosphere of city living. Unfortunately most workers have to accept the trade offs and settle for the dull suburban life.
prodigal_erik 14y ago
This. I live in the city because my favorite club nights and shows are here and I don't need a designated driver to get home. When I lived in Mountain View, going out was such a hassle that I pretty much didn't bother. Even though I have to commute now, I'm sort of glad so many employers are in the 'burbs and giving homebodies good reasons to stay there; it slows down gentrification. I'm sort of amazed the regional transportation system is so dysfunctional that five private busses on the same route with no shared capacity is the solution everyone settled on. But then I remember what a farce MUNI has become; I routinely see busses and trains so overloaded that riders literally can't squeeze into the doors, and sometimes nothing shows up at all.
vidarh 14y ago
I've stayed in Palo Alto and Menlo Park in hotels a lot, and while I can't speak for lots of other areas, what I can say is that despite the fact that I don't even have a drivers license (lived primarily in Oslo and London, so not really needed one), I had no problems getting around on foot. Was it less convenient than what I'm used to? Yes. It'd have been great with more buses and trains. But it worked. I could get to the grocery store. I could get to plenty of shops. I could get to dozens of restaurants - I know this from making a point out of trying new restaurants every time I was in town - as well as bars etc. I'd even go in to SF now and again, though Caltrain's schedule is just atrocious (and for the record: years ago, I did go out clubbing in SF while staying in Santa Cruz without having a car to get me back - if you want it bad enough, even that works). Once I stayed in Atherton, right on the edge near Redwood City, while the office I was visiting was in downtown Menlo Park, and I walked to/from most days. That's the only time when I thought things were a bit too inconvenient for my liking. Not so much the distances - it was only a 30-35 minute walk or so from what I remember - but due to the large plots in Atherton, the fastest walking route is along El Camino, and part of that stretch was pretty much without light or sidewalk or decent shoulder. Sure, there are plenty of locations you could live in that area which would make managing on foot too inconvenient, and finding somewhere in the middle of Atherton or similar might not be great if you want to get to lots of stuff without a car, but there are plenty of parts of the Bay Area outside of SF which are viable on foot, and far more that are viable with short car journeys now and again So, yes: Spoiled. Large parts of the worlds population - including in developed countries - are living places where getting to stuff they want or need takes far longer on average.
- magicalist 14y ago
  > I had no problems getting around on foot sure, when you're only visiting, you don't have kids, etc. Many people aren't amenable to having a minimum half hour walk to get anywhere, and if your grocery store is anything but close by, you're in trouble if you don't go shopping every few days (having a grocery store every few blocks is one of my favorite things about high density living situations). > Yes. It'd have been great with more buses and trains and even where there are a few, it can take you two hours to get to friends only 10 or 15 miles away (this is more due to the design of their interlinks). If you want to encourage people to take public transit and walk more, you can't make cars so convenient for most of the ways they travel around the bay area. > I could get to the grocery store. I could get to plenty of shops. I could get to dozens of restaurants - I know this from making a point out of trying new restaurants every time I was in town - as well as bars etc. And this shows the real reason behind your post: you were staying in a hotel on El Camino :) Head up into one of the neighborhoods nearby and suddenly nothing is nearby. This is less of a problem in a city like Palo Alto, which is centered around El Camino and has a decent bus service, but for many of the towns along the 101, a car is pretty much the only way you can live there. Meanwhile, take a look at the correlation between housing prices with the more walkable cities (like Palo Alto and Menlo Park that you mentioned). I won't be buying a house in any dense part of Palo Alto any time soon. > years ago, I did go out clubbing in SF while staying in Santa Cruz without having a car to get me back - if you want it bad enough, even that works No, it won't work unless you're paying hundreds for a cab, you get a friend to drive you, or you head home at like 6 in the evening. AFAIK, there's really no other way to do that (and transit on google maps isn't coming up with anything short of "wait 6 hours for transfer to bus"). I would say Caltrain having its last train at midnight is an even worst feature than its operating schedule. > So, yes: Spoiled. Large parts of the worlds population - including in developed countries - are living places where getting to stuff they want or need takes far longer on average. Sure, but that's a pretty useless definition of spoiled; essentially any non-utilitarian aspect of living would fall under it. City planning and public transit exist to encourage good behavior and serve the public. Building walkable neighborhoods is good, building around public transit to make it accessible is also good. When you haven't done these things, "well, you should walk more" isn't going to fly when "buy a car" is so easy, and probably necessary anyways for those few times when the thing you need isn't accessible by public transit. You're not going to make living in SF seem less cool or convenient any time soon, so all the current system is doing is encouraging car use and this private bus system. -- non-car-owner considering moving up to SF because he's sick of using zipcar so often and commuting all weekend to see friends up in the city

underwater 14y ago

People who work for the big tech companies are spoiled. I've worked for a bunch of companies around the world and none come even close to what Bay Area companies provide. I'd bet that a large percentage of working Americans would love to mix the great job with atmosphere of city living. Unfortunately most workers have to accept the trade offs and settle for the dull suburban life.

prodigal_erik 14y ago

This. I live in the city because my favorite club nights and shows are here and I don't need a designated driver to get home. When I lived in Mountain View, going out was such a hassle that I pretty much didn't bother. Even though I have to commute now, I'm sort of glad so many employers are in the 'burbs and giving homebodies good reasons to stay there; it slows down gentrification. I'm sort of amazed the regional transportation system is so dysfunctional that five private busses on the same route with no shared capacity is the solution everyone settled on. But then I remember what a farce MUNI has become; I routinely see busses and trains so overloaded that riders literally can't squeeze into the doors, and sometimes nothing shows up at all.

vidarh 14y ago

I've stayed in Palo Alto and Menlo Park in hotels a lot, and while I can't speak for lots of other areas, what I can say is that despite the fact that I don't even have a drivers license (lived primarily in Oslo and London, so not really needed one), I had no problems getting around on foot. Was it less convenient than what I'm used to? Yes. It'd have been great with more buses and trains. But it worked. I could get to the grocery store. I could get to plenty of shops. I could get to dozens of restaurants - I know this from making a point out of trying new restaurants every time I was in town - as well as bars etc. I'd even go in to SF now and again, though Caltrain's schedule is just atrocious (and for the record: years ago, I did go out clubbing in SF while staying in Santa Cruz without having a car to get me back - if you want it bad enough, even that works). Once I stayed in Atherton, right on the edge near Redwood City, while the office I was visiting was in downtown Menlo Park, and I walked to/from most days. That's the only time when I thought things were a bit too inconvenient for my liking. Not so much the distances - it was only a 30-35 minute walk or so from what I remember - but due to the large plots in Atherton, the fastest walking route is along El Camino, and part of that stretch was pretty much without light or sidewalk or decent shoulder. Sure, there are plenty of locations you could live in that area which would make managing on foot too inconvenient, and finding somewhere in the middle of Atherton or similar might not be great if you want to get to lots of stuff without a car, but there are plenty of parts of the Bay Area outside of SF which are viable on foot, and far more that are viable with short car journeys now and again So, yes: Spoiled. Large parts of the worlds population - including in developed countries - are living places where getting to stuff they want or need takes far longer on average.

magicalist 14y ago
> I had no problems getting around on foot sure, when you're only visiting, you don't have kids, etc. Many people aren't amenable to having a minimum half hour walk to get anywhere, and if your grocery store is anything but close by, you're in trouble if you don't go shopping every few days (having a grocery store every few blocks is one of my favorite things about high density living situations). > Yes. It'd have been great with more buses and trains and even where there are a few, it can take you two hours to get to friends only 10 or 15 miles away (this is more due to the design of their interlinks). If you want to encourage people to take public transit and walk more, you can't make cars so convenient for most of the ways they travel around the bay area. > I could get to the grocery store. I could get to plenty of shops. I could get to dozens of restaurants - I know this from making a point out of trying new restaurants every time I was in town - as well as bars etc. And this shows the real reason behind your post: you were staying in a hotel on El Camino :) Head up into one of the neighborhoods nearby and suddenly nothing is nearby. This is less of a problem in a city like Palo Alto, which is centered around El Camino and has a decent bus service, but for many of the towns along the 101, a car is pretty much the only way you can live there. Meanwhile, take a look at the correlation between housing prices with the more walkable cities (like Palo Alto and Menlo Park that you mentioned). I won't be buying a house in any dense part of Palo Alto any time soon. > years ago, I did go out clubbing in SF while staying in Santa Cruz without having a car to get me back - if you want it bad enough, even that works No, it won't work unless you're paying hundreds for a cab, you get a friend to drive you, or you head home at like 6 in the evening. AFAIK, there's really no other way to do that (and transit on google maps isn't coming up with anything short of "wait 6 hours for transfer to bus"). I would say Caltrain having its last train at midnight is an even worst feature than its operating schedule. > So, yes: Spoiled. Large parts of the worlds population - including in developed countries - are living places where getting to stuff they want or need takes far longer on average. Sure, but that's a pretty useless definition of spoiled; essentially any non-utilitarian aspect of living would fall under it. City planning and public transit exist to encourage good behavior and serve the public. Building walkable neighborhoods is good, building around public transit to make it accessible is also good. When you haven't done these things, "well, you should walk more" isn't going to fly when "buy a car" is so easy, and probably necessary anyways for those few times when the thing you need isn't accessible by public transit. You're not going to make living in SF seem less cool or convenient any time soon, so all the current system is doing is encouraging car use and this private bus system. -- non-car-owner considering moving up to SF because he's sick of using zipcar so often and commuting all weekend to see friends up in the city