6 ms·

>There are many stable renter neighborhoods with great schools. You forgot "...in other parts of the country." The "great" schools in the Bay Area are pretty m

>There are many stable renter neighborhoods with great schools. You forgot "...in other parts of the country." The "great" schools in the Bay Area are pretty much exclusively in places with $1m+ house prices, and with few places to rent for a reasonable amount. Also consider that the bubble primarily affected the distant 'burbs. House prices in San Francisco, and close in to the city, didn't really drop appreciably at all, and have now regained any losses. So either the "pop" was delayed (and another one is still coming, as you suggest), or there wasn't a "bubble" in SF at all. Not to say that I think it's sane to pay those prices, but I don't live the Bay Area any more for that exact reason. There are those of us who really want to own a house just so that we can change it however we like. There's something smothering about living in a rental when you've previously been free to do what you want. I know, first world problems, but still, home ownership means that I can't be kicked out (or priced out) on the whim of a landlord. And leaving the Bay Area is one way to achieve both. I've got better (for some measures of "better") public schools near me now than even exist in California any more, and yet I own my home (and paid only about $320k for it -- still not cheap, but much more reasonable). In my case (having bought and sold at good times in the Bay Area), I own the house outright, so living expenses are even lower than if I were renting, giving me the ability to pursue my own dream projects for more of the time.

api 13y ago
"giving me the ability to pursue my own dream projects for more of the time." That's what I was getting at. SF and SV were built on that, and it's not possible there anymore unless you've got big investors.
- bennyg 13y ago
  Exactly. The heyday of SV (think microprocessor and early PC heyday) had insanely low real estate prices. A guy could get buy doing manual labor and tinker on computers as a side project in the garage back then. Today that's unthinkable. It sucks that tech companies willingly WANT to be in SF/SV, as if it's some magical technological cloud city where the rest of the world can't compare.
  - comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
    It is a magical technological cloud city. For certain business models. If the company in question is betting on very strong growth, then it needs a large pool of experienced talent to draw upon. Paying 3X or 5X as much to get top talent can easily save money in the long run. If you want to be taken seriously by big fish VCs, you have to be able to speak intelligently about how to spend more for a disproportionately positive payoff. The problem here is not the VCs, but the aspirations of the founders. Finding less experienced talent for cheap may be the smarter move. For other business models.
    - bennyg 13y ago
      I think the problem is the belief that top talent only exists in SV - which is false. To me, I think top talent would be less willing to work insane hours, less willing to have long commutes, and less willing to spend a TON on housing. If Google and Apple HQ moved - it would be seen as the end of SV. The VCs would go too. And I think stuff like this will be happening soon.
    - rwmj 13y ago
      If only there was something that let you videoconference all day with your colleagues at virtually not cost.
geebee 13y ago
Schools actually aren't bad in SF, they're uneven. Take a look at greatschools.net and filter by public school. SF has an unusually large number of schools rated "10" - keep in mind, anything over 7 is good by California standards (not exactly a great standard, but that is the basis for comparison to the wealthy burbs). This is based on adjusted API (test) scores, which don't tell the whole story about a school, of course. In SF, school assignment is by lottery rather than by residence, which drives wealthy people nuts. I get it, if you live in a nice neighborhood across the street from a good school, and the city tells you you have to drive somewhere else, that'll piss you off - and if you can convert a high mortgage payment into access to a public school that the poor don't get in the suburbs, you may very well up and leave. Of course, if you live in a crappy neighborhood across the street from a failing school, you might not mind the lottery so much. SFUSD is moving to a more district residence model, though it won't be the overwhelming factor.
- SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
  >Schools actually aren't bad in SF, they're uneven. but >In SF, school assignment is by lottery rather than by residence Makes that irrelevant to me. Not just because I can't "buy" a good school, but because I can't deterministically choose a school. I wouldn't live in SF with kids that I intended to send to school for that reason alone. >which drives wealthy people nuts And worse than irrelevant: It's not just the wealthy people, but the people who value the ability to walk to school, which I do. Aside from not wasting gas, it gives kids an early sense of independence to be able to get to school on their own power. Which brings up a related point: I feel it's safer here (Colorado) than in San Francisco, or in any of the points in the Bay Area with less than $1M houses. And I'm not saying that because of race: I think that the income disparity drives more people to anger. Everyone is just more mellow here. And California's "10" or not, I went to at least one 10 when I lived there (grew up there and lived there until about 8 years ago). The "good" schools I referred to were 10s. But I'm pretty sure the schools in Colorado are just better, based on what I know about the top schools here, including interactions with my own kids and their friends, as well as other metrics. That said, I've come to believe that most schools are broken (or at least irrelevant [1]), but that's a completely orthogonal point. [1] http://is.gd/edu_irr http://is.gd/edu_irr

api 13y ago

"giving me the ability to pursue my own dream projects for more of the time." That's what I was getting at. SF and SV were built on that, and it's not possible there anymore unless you've got big investors.

bennyg 13y ago
Exactly. The heyday of SV (think microprocessor and early PC heyday) had insanely low real estate prices. A guy could get buy doing manual labor and tinker on computers as a side project in the garage back then. Today that's unthinkable. It sucks that tech companies willingly WANT to be in SF/SV, as if it's some magical technological cloud city where the rest of the world can't compare.
- comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
  It is a magical technological cloud city. For certain business models. If the company in question is betting on very strong growth, then it needs a large pool of experienced talent to draw upon. Paying 3X or 5X as much to get top talent can easily save money in the long run. If you want to be taken seriously by big fish VCs, you have to be able to speak intelligently about how to spend more for a disproportionately positive payoff. The problem here is not the VCs, but the aspirations of the founders. Finding less experienced talent for cheap may be the smarter move. For other business models.
  - bennyg 13y ago
    I think the problem is the belief that top talent only exists in SV - which is false. To me, I think top talent would be less willing to work insane hours, less willing to have long commutes, and less willing to spend a TON on housing. If Google and Apple HQ moved - it would be seen as the end of SV. The VCs would go too. And I think stuff like this will be happening soon.
  - rwmj 13y ago
    If only there was something that let you videoconference all day with your colleagues at virtually not cost.

geebee 13y ago

Schools actually aren't bad in SF, they're uneven. Take a look at greatschools.net and filter by public school. SF has an unusually large number of schools rated "10" - keep in mind, anything over 7 is good by California standards (not exactly a great standard, but that is the basis for comparison to the wealthy burbs). This is based on adjusted API (test) scores, which don't tell the whole story about a school, of course. In SF, school assignment is by lottery rather than by residence, which drives wealthy people nuts. I get it, if you live in a nice neighborhood across the street from a good school, and the city tells you you have to drive somewhere else, that'll piss you off - and if you can convert a high mortgage payment into access to a public school that the poor don't get in the suburbs, you may very well up and leave. Of course, if you live in a crappy neighborhood across the street from a failing school, you might not mind the lottery so much. SFUSD is moving to a more district residence model, though it won't be the overwhelming factor.

SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
>Schools actually aren't bad in SF, they're uneven. but >In SF, school assignment is by lottery rather than by residence Makes that irrelevant to me. Not just because I can't "buy" a good school, but because I can't deterministically choose a school. I wouldn't live in SF with kids that I intended to send to school for that reason alone. >which drives wealthy people nuts And worse than irrelevant: It's not just the wealthy people, but the people who value the ability to walk to school, which I do. Aside from not wasting gas, it gives kids an early sense of independence to be able to get to school on their own power. Which brings up a related point: I feel it's safer here (Colorado) than in San Francisco, or in any of the points in the Bay Area with less than $1M houses. And I'm not saying that because of race: I think that the income disparity drives more people to anger. Everyone is just more mellow here. And California's "10" or not, I went to at least one 10 when I lived there (grew up there and lived there until about 8 years ago). The "good" schools I referred to were 10s. But I'm pretty sure the schools in Colorado are just better, based on what I know about the top schools here, including interactions with my own kids and their friends, as well as other metrics. That said, I've come to believe that most schools are broken (or at least irrelevant [1]), but that's a completely orthogonal point. [1] http://is.gd/edu_irr http://is.gd/edu_irr