3 ms·

SF is only a tiny (49 sq mile) part of the Bay Area. It's like saying nobody can live in the New York City MSA because the price of a 2-bedroom apartment in Man

SF is only a tiny (49 sq mile) part of the Bay Area. It's like saying nobody can live in the New York City MSA because the price of a 2-bedroom apartment in Manhattan is over $1M, despite the fact that most New Yorkers live in Queens or Brooklyn.

rayiner 13y ago
SF is the urban core of the Bay Area, but poorly linked with the rest of the MSA. Manhattan is very closely linked with the rest of the MSA thanks to an extensive transit network ranging out to Connecticut, New Jersey, and the New York State suburbs. In most cities with poor transit, living out in the suburbs is totally different from living in the city. You might only ever go into city on rare occasions. In New York, you can get much more affordable housing in say Westchester or New Jersey, and still work in Manhattan, with access to all the jobs Manhattan has, with a very reasonable commute.
- tomkarlo 13y ago
  In the Bay Area, most jobs aren't in SF. That's why SF has one of the largest proportions of reverse commuters in the country. So the idea that it's a transit situation where folks are trying to live close to work doesn't really make sense.
  - muzz 13y ago
    No, the opposite is true. SF population increases by 20% because of the net increase due to commuters. Table 2 on page 11: http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Commuter%20Adjusted%20Population%20Paper.pdf http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Commuter%20Ad...
    - SamReidHughes 13y ago
      That's not the number the parent is talking about. The question is how many people are commuting out of the city, not the difference between in and out.
      - muzz 13y ago
        Sure, but his claim is still wrong. Even nearby San Jose has a much higher proportion of reverse commuters than San Francisco. http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Table3.xls http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Table3.xls
    - tomkarlo 13y ago
      The proportion of reverse commuters in a region has nothing to do with how many commute in each day. It's just reverse commuters divided by residents. As far as the increase due to commuters, 20% is very low for any area with corporate offices and not just residential neighborhoods. Manhattan grows 95%. In the Bay Area, Mountain View has 75,000 residents, and Google alone brings 25,000 people in each day. Palo Alto (the next town up the 101) also grows ~80%.
      - muzz 13y ago
        Your original claim is still incorrect. Even nearby San Jose has a higher proportion of reverse commuters than San Francisco, much higher: http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Table3.xls http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Table3.xls
timcederman 13y ago
Have you seen prices outside of San Francisco? It's "okay" in the East Bay, but elsewhere on the peninsula it's just as bad or worse (Burlingame, San Carlos, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Mountain View).
- tomkarlo 13y ago
  Sure. I've also seen what their median income looks like. http://www.sfgate.com/news/slideshow/Palo-Alto-families-earn-3rd-highest-median-income-50612.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/slideshow/Palo-Alto-families-earn...
  - timcederman 13y ago
    Have you looked outside Palo Alto? I live in San Carlos, where the weekly median sale price is $1.3m at the moment. Median income is just over $100k. http://www.city-data.com/city/San-Carlos-California.html http://www.city-data.com/city/San-Carlos-California.html
    - tomkarlo 13y ago
      Proportionally, that's still a lot more affordable than SF, given that it's almost 50% higher in terms of household income. This is partially due the problems inherent in tracking home values based on median sale prices - by definition, transactions are always going go happen at a value higher than the value of the overall housing stock.
      - timcederman 13y ago
        $70k - $1m median $100k - $1.3m median Proportionately, you're about 10% worse off in SF.
- Domenic_S 13y ago
  Get a 2k sq ft 4br 2 ba place in Pittsburg for $299k: http://www.redfin.com/CA/Pittsburg/1171-Summer-Way-94565/home/1911125 http://www.redfin.com/CA/Pittsburg/1171-Summer-Way-94565/hom... Commute to SF on BART. Pay no attention to the crime, terrible schools, entire neighborhoods that have been foreclosed or never finished, etc.
zobzu 13y ago
TFA actually list an Oakland location. To be honest its +- like SF all around the bay area for a decent place. There are crappy ones which are cheaper tho.

rayiner 13y ago

SF is the urban core of the Bay Area, but poorly linked with the rest of the MSA. Manhattan is very closely linked with the rest of the MSA thanks to an extensive transit network ranging out to Connecticut, New Jersey, and the New York State suburbs. In most cities with poor transit, living out in the suburbs is totally different from living in the city. You might only ever go into city on rare occasions. In New York, you can get much more affordable housing in say Westchester or New Jersey, and still work in Manhattan, with access to all the jobs Manhattan has, with a very reasonable commute.

tomkarlo 13y ago
In the Bay Area, most jobs aren't in SF. That's why SF has one of the largest proportions of reverse commuters in the country. So the idea that it's a transit situation where folks are trying to live close to work doesn't really make sense.
- muzz 13y ago
  No, the opposite is true. SF population increases by 20% because of the net increase due to commuters. Table 2 on page 11: http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Commuter%20Adjusted%20Population%20Paper.pdf http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Commuter%20Ad...
  - SamReidHughes 13y ago
    That's not the number the parent is talking about. The question is how many people are commuting out of the city, not the difference between in and out.
    - muzz 13y ago
      Sure, but his claim is still wrong. Even nearby San Jose has a much higher proportion of reverse commuters than San Francisco. http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Table3.xls http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Table3.xls
  - tomkarlo 13y ago
    The proportion of reverse commuters in a region has nothing to do with how many commute in each day. It's just reverse commuters divided by residents. As far as the increase due to commuters, 20% is very low for any area with corporate offices and not just residential neighborhoods. Manhattan grows 95%. In the Bay Area, Mountain View has 75,000 residents, and Google alone brings 25,000 people in each day. Palo Alto (the next town up the 101) also grows ~80%.
    - muzz 13y ago
      Your original claim is still incorrect. Even nearby San Jose has a higher proportion of reverse commuters than San Francisco, much higher: http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Table3.xls http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Table3.xls

timcederman 13y ago

Have you seen prices outside of San Francisco? It's "okay" in the East Bay, but elsewhere on the peninsula it's just as bad or worse (Burlingame, San Carlos, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Mountain View).

tomkarlo 13y ago
Sure. I've also seen what their median income looks like. http://www.sfgate.com/news/slideshow/Palo-Alto-families-earn-3rd-highest-median-income-50612.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/slideshow/Palo-Alto-families-earn...
- timcederman 13y ago
  Have you looked outside Palo Alto? I live in San Carlos, where the weekly median sale price is $1.3m at the moment. Median income is just over $100k. http://www.city-data.com/city/San-Carlos-California.html http://www.city-data.com/city/San-Carlos-California.html
  - tomkarlo 13y ago
    Proportionally, that's still a lot more affordable than SF, given that it's almost 50% higher in terms of household income. This is partially due the problems inherent in tracking home values based on median sale prices - by definition, transactions are always going go happen at a value higher than the value of the overall housing stock.
    - timcederman 13y ago
      $70k - $1m median $100k - $1.3m median Proportionately, you're about 10% worse off in SF.
Domenic_S 13y ago
Get a 2k sq ft 4br 2 ba place in Pittsburg for $299k: http://www.redfin.com/CA/Pittsburg/1171-Summer-Way-94565/home/1911125 http://www.redfin.com/CA/Pittsburg/1171-Summer-Way-94565/hom... Commute to SF on BART. Pay no attention to the crime, terrible schools, entire neighborhoods that have been foreclosed or never finished, etc.

zobzu 13y ago

TFA actually list an Oakland location. To be honest its +- like SF all around the bay area for a decent place. There are crappy ones which are cheaper tho.