5 ms·

My thoughts on SF after living here for six months

41 points by zoba 13y ago

Apes 13y ago
Just want to point out that it's not fair to call the government incompetent here, when the issue is more complex. I see the sidewalks being cleaned every morning only to be covered in filth again the next day. And it's hard to deal with the homeless issue when New York is buying bus tickets to San Francisco to deal with their homeless.
- avree 13y ago
  Well, Nevada is buying bus tickets. http://www.nbcnews.com/health/san-francisco-sues-nevada-over-patient-dumping-8C11126850 http://www.nbcnews.com/health/san-francisco-sues-nevada-over...
- semmem1 13y ago
  As a NYer, just wondering where you heard this? If true, my opinion of Bloomberg just went up even more.
  - justinsteele 13y ago
    Because you consider shoveling those who are not as lucky in life to someone else's doorstep a solution?
    - semmem1 13y ago
      More because it is a known fact that a large proportion of the homless in NYC are not actually even from NY and I don't think we should be paying to take care of people who are not actually from the area. This to me should be a federal issue, why should major metropolitan areas have to pay for all the joe smoes who move to the city for no other reason than mooching off the "better" benefits that cities provide over small towns.
      - logjam 13y ago
        "...it is a known fact blah fucking blah..." [citation needed] And stop ducking the question, genius. Are you really trying to tell us that the solution to your homelessness problem is to bus people who you magically somehow don't think are from your area clear across the country to a place they almost certainly aren't from?
  - gav 13y ago
    NYC has a program to send homeless people back home with a one-way ticket: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/nyregion/29oneway.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/nyregion/29oneway.html
    - _delirium 13y ago
      The article makes the program sound reasonably humanitarian, while the initial description made it sound more like "dump the problem elsewhere". With the examples of homeless people who had relatives in France or Puerto Rico they could live with, but they just couldn't afford to get there, buying them plane tickets seems like an actual solution to the problem that's good for both the people in question and NYC. And it sounds like it's only done on request, not some kind of involuntary exile (compare: http://money.msn.com/now/post--columbia-sc-to-exile-its-homeless http://money.msn.com/now/post--columbia-sc-to-exile-its-home...). I have no idea if the article is cherry-picking unrepresentative positive examples, though. To determine if it's solving or just shifting the problem, it'd be interesting if there were any statistics on what % of people NYC bought one-way tickets for were homeless again N months or years afterwards, vs. in a more stable situation. Admittedly it's probably quite difficult to collect reliable data on that.
- paunchy 13y ago
  It is amusing to read about people complaining about how many homeless people there are in SF without seeming to consider the reasons why other cities have fewer homeless. This article further implies that with such high taxes we should be able to "get rid of our homeless" more effectively than other cities. On the taxes, SF doesn't have a city income tax. So unless the writer is a property or business owner, they're not directly paying taxes to SF aside from a 1% higher sales tax. Compare this to the 3% personal income tax in NYC (on top of the taxes listed above). Homeless factors include: good climate, fewer beatings from cops, fewer beatings from citizens, no bus deportation out of town, crazy people often head west until they hit water, better free health services for the poor, popular tourist destination means good pan-handling.
maxcan 13y ago
> The government must be terrible. Taxes are very high. Services are terrible (particularly bus). The city is gross. amen brother
- doseofreality 13y ago
  For a city that in theory has everything in the world going for it and an endless supply of rich people to tax, it must have one of the worst city governments (albeit most highly paid) in the country.
codex 13y ago
San Francisco is over-hyped, possibly because of the high concentration of bloggers who live in and around the city. I prefer New York, Chicago, Boston, and Seattle.
- justin66 13y ago
  > possibly because of the high concentration of bloggers Or the fact that it has much better weather than those other places you named. It's not mysterious: there are a lot of people who like to spend time outdoors and prioritize weather.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Chicagoian here. It's currently 11F, with a low under ~5F over the next few days [http://weatherspark.com/#!dashboard;q=60661 http://weatherspark.com/#!dashboard;q=60661]. Come see Chicago in the spring, summer, fall, but live somewhere warm. Disclaimer: Attempting to move somewhere warmer soon.
  - stefan_kendall 13y ago
    I grew up in Chicago. It was so cold. Never again.
    - toomuchtodo 13y ago
      I'm 31. Been here my whole life (besides traveling). Working on finding remote DevOps gig to work from Tampa/Key West/British Virgin Islands.
    - bbraasch 13y ago
      Good place to be from. Sounds like the noob chose to live at 6th and Market. That's where you go after you lose that brogrammer edge, not when you move here to find your fortune. I recall the advice Steve Martin's adopted mother in The Jerk gave him, "find your special purpose", and how that worked out for him. It all starts by working at the circus. Your fortune will find you when you find your special purpose.
  - 13y ago
pla3rhat3r 13y ago
It always cracks me up that people feel like they NEED to live in SF when they come there. I lived in the SF Bay Area for most of my life and NEVER felt the need or desire to live in SF.....at all! There is so much to do in other parts of the Bay Area that are much more affordable, less filthy, and just overall better for your sanity. If you move to the Bay Area and move to SF without looking at other areas then you have no reason to complain. BART may not be the best thing ever but it is everywhere. People move to SF for the same reason they buy an iPhone. They want to fit in. Go to the East Bay, buy an Android phone, and be different.
- xacaxulu 13y ago
  Based on weather and cleanliness, I'd rather live in San Mateo than SF proper. None of that annoying fog-mist.
  - epaladin 13y ago
    I was in SF for Google IO a couple years ago and was somewhat fascinated by the fog-mist. Also surprised to find that it shows up almost every day. Seems like a better place to visit than live though. Streetcars are a nice novelty, but I can't imagine commuting on that every day. Anyone know if there are there any cities in the US/Europe that are as clean and convenient (walk-ability and public transport) as Tokyo?
- smtddr 13y ago
  >>People move to SF for the same reason they buy an iPhone. They want to fit in. Lies & slander
- tw268 13y ago
  People move to SF because it is the only place in the area with 1) girls and 2) culture
  - abstractbill 13y ago
    Not anymore - the girls and culture are all moving to Oakland!
ChuckMcM 13y ago
I suspect that the quantity of homeless folks in the bay area is due in part to the weather. It is pretty difficult to die of exposure here given the relative narrow temperature band we stay in (30 - 95 degrees F with rare excursions outside that) A warm coat and blanket in the winter, a place of shade and fresh water in the summer, and you're pretty much protected from dying of exposure. I found the comment about the dirt and the street repair interesting because I've heard the complaint in reverse, which is that the peninsula / south bay cities are 'too clean and neat, almost like plastic.' For those people they were looking for the 'gritty urban appeal' of San Francisco which, as the author points out, it has in some places. It is interesting the competing memes about what a high tech utopia should look like, Blade Runner or Logan's Run? Or somewhere in the middle? I sometimes wish I could get Californians to have the same courage as the Swiss do when zoning towns which require only walking. I would love to see one of the Peninsula cities commit to that, create people mover transport to the edges and then ban cars in the interior. Imagine that your kids can ride their bike anywhere in the neighborhood or city and not be threatened by a car on its way to work? Don't have the stones for it though.
- mapgrep 13y ago
  >I sometimes wish I could get Californians to have the same courage as the Swiss do when zoning towns which require only walking. I would settle for just making pedestrian-only some small bits of San Francisco, ostensibly the most progressive city in the state. For example: Oh what I wouldn't give to have Third Street shut down from say Folsom to Market. I walk every day most of the length of Third Street and it is an automotive hellscape. Literally six lanes of cars all going in the same direction. And it's anarchy. At nearly every single light change, someone ends up blocking the intersection because they tried to make it across with no room. Cars nearly mowing down pedestrians as they try to turn into parking lot/hotel access roads. Cars clogging the bus lanes. And the honking, oh the honking. Just shut it down. From the convention center through Yerba Buena Gardens, the St Regis, MOMA, all the way to Market. Giant outdoor cafes and restaurants and biergartens. Some protected dedicated bike lanes. Nice pedestrian paths. Dedicated spaces for outdoor exhibits from MOMA, the African Diaspora museum (in the St Regis) and Yerba Buena Center. Earmark the extra tax increment for something nice, maybe for improving mass transit, or the police, or the art scene, as penance for taking away the six-lane artery of transit misery. Then do it again on some other miserable street. And so on.
mojowo11 13y ago
"Taxes are very high." "Want to clean up areas of the city? Put a cop on every block!" Someone elect this guy to city government, he seems to have a unbelievably solid grasp on the complexities of running a city like San Francisco.
- wtbob 13y ago
  The taxes are very high, and they are mis-spent.
daphneokeefe 13y ago
I don't think we live in the same City. But it's good that you came here to follow your dream. Life is a buffet -- try a little of everything, and everywhere, and then move on.
kordless 13y ago
I love coming into the city, but I choose to live in Moraga because of some of the reasons you list here. Rent prices out here are actually down a bit from 6 months ago - you can rent a 3br house in Concord for around $2.5K a month. While that's exceedingly expensive compared to the rest of the US, it puts you within an hour and some change's striking distance of most Bay destinations, which can be valuable depending on your skill sets. Also, it's stunningly gorgeous out here: https://plus.google.com/100735767683148801066/posts/Y2ugoKdpnG4 https://plus.google.com/100735767683148801066/posts/Y2ugoKdp...
saosebastiao 13y ago
I moved from Cleveland to Seattle, and I would agree with most everything here (referring to Seattle of course). My only differences would be: 1) It is not as dirty. There is some level of dirtiness, but I found Cleveland to be much worse. 2) The government here isn't anywhere near as bad as SF or Cleveland. SF is NIMBY hell with a counter-intuitive positive feedback loop (They won't build, so they get gentrification, which oddly enough reduces their propensity to build), and a transit system that is so far gamed in the Transit Union's advantage that it has stopped functioning for society. Cleveland is playing the bribe-the-fortune-500 game with tax breaks that they can't afford, and city services which are mismanaged and underfunded. Seattle has a nimby problem, a noise problem, and their public transportation is pretty weak and poorly designed. But I love it here.
- michaelfdeberry 13y ago
  I was in SF a couple of days this year and one of the biggest things that I noticed during my short visit is how clean everything seemed compared to Cleveland. I was only in the downtown area, but even if only comparing downtown Cleveland there is still a huge difference.
- kyleblarson 13y ago
  +1 for Seattle. For the outdoor oriented tech types Seattle is the place to be. The access to amazing skiing, hiking, climbing, boating, mountain biking from Seattle cannot be beat. You can work until 5:30 and be skiing powder at Alpental at 6:30. In the summer you can access world class sport, trad or bouldering after work, or you can shuttle awesome MTB trails.
justinzollars 13y ago
In North Carolina the population density is much lower than SF so of course you are dealing with more pollution.
limsup 13y ago
interesting blog post but could have just been titled: "my thoughts on moving to a big city"
base698 13y ago
I too moved from RTP to SF. The two biggest reasons I had a desire to leave NC were the technical aptitude and proximity to the beautiful places. On the technical aptitude side, I remember more than one drunken conversation with Russian nationals about compilers. I remember thinking by the end of the conversation I was wholly outmatched in technical skill. Seems like more of a good thing since technical people are celebrated like gods in some areas. I loved being able to paraglide or ski on the weekends. Having real mountains that close gives you ample opportunity to do all sorts of things that aren't possible in other cities. Not to mention the ability to get a good bottle of wine and drink it on the craggy coast at sunset. Alas, the dirtiness of the city and production that is getting groceries home on the MUNI caused my wife and I to relocate to Santa Monica. We're further away from some of the outside things we like to do, but the day to day quality of life is 100-fold better.
- jboggan 13y ago
  Three cheers for the tech life in Santa Monica! I also moved here after a short stint in SF and decided this is a much better life overall. I even have a nice hill to live on if I want to pretend I'm back in SF. Groundworks is great coffee, but I will miss Philz.
- doseofreality 13y ago
  How is Santa Monica taking a step back from cool outside things to do? SM is one of the most beautiful places in the country, the weather is nearly perfect, and you are a walk or a short drive away from many outdoor activities.
JimboOmega 13y ago
I moved to the area about six months ago, and after living in Oakland for 3 months, moved to the city. I'd agree with most of these points (though a lot of the upside, particularly the huge range of people who are welcomed here, are left out). I disagree that the transit system is falling apart. The BART strikes were a huge embarrassment, but all things considered, I haven't felt handicapped not having a car since I've been here. Also, after the dirtiness stops bothering you. Ditto on the noise (though I may be spoiled by an 11th floor apartment). The rents and the NIMBYism (which does drive up rents) is the worst of any city in the United States. Certainly in terms of the cost necessary for the "right to build", and as far as rent goes, it's either SF or NYC. (From 2007, but: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-of-two-town-houses/306334/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-o...)
forgottenpass 13y ago
>The government must be terrible. Taxes are very high. Services are terrible (particularly bus). Infer about state of gov't, don't bother finding anything out about it let alone get involved, then griping online? You probably deserve bad government.
- liquidise 13y ago
  6 months residency is more than enough time to become acclimated to the cities problems and be a champion of fiscally acceptable infrastructure solutions, right? No. It is not. The author makes a very fair observation. Side note, the idea that some people "deserve bad government" is one if the single most ludicrous things i have ever read on HN
  - forgottenpass 13y ago
    6 months residency is more than enough time to become acclimated to the cities problems and be a champion of fiscally acceptable infrastructure solutions, right? No. It is not. It's not. But it's more than enough time to start investigating local governance beyond "must be" statements if it is a thing you care about.
hcatlin 13y ago
This reads like "I don't like big cities" which is totally fair, but not a general comparison. To each their own. Dirty, loud, expensive: It's a big city! I personally love big cities. I grew up in the suburbs, but have chosen to spend my adult life in Toronto, NYC, London, and SF. I love the kinetic motion, the bars, the rowdiness, the closeness of social classes, the camaraderie of being 'miserable'. I love it! But, I also see how someone who only moved here for a tech job and to be financially comfortable, who previously lived in a very middle-class suburban area, wouldn't be totally thrilled. Fair enough! Lots of good jobs in lots of decent places. I do want to throw in one small defense item in the middle of SF hating. I didn't move here because of the tech stuff (which I am a part of) or because of the weather. I moved here for the crazy, wild, weird city that SF is without technology. For the hippies, the dropouts, the drag queens, the commies, the environmentalists, the capitalists, the techies, the artists, ... the great mashup of people that make up SF as a big and wild city. Before anyone moves to SF, they should read "Tales of the City" by Armistead Maupin. If reading that doesn't make you want to immediately move to SF, then you'd probably do better in some other city with a decent tech scene. Or, as another reader pointed out, you'd probably be happier in the Valley if you are looking for a more NC-feel. PS: the homeless problems being right next to the rich reminds me of the Settlement Movement of the early 20th century. check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_movement
baoist 13y ago
Making friends is what ultimately drove me away from SF. I went in knowing one person, whom I relied too much on socially. As he and I were both working long hours, in separate startups, it became more and more difficult to sustain myself and fulfill that personal need. I loved the size, the atmosphere of where I was living, the noise, the weather (MN kills), the amazing coffee and food, and the lack of need for personal transportation. It was strange in that everyone I met outside of tech was great, while a majority of those who were I really didn't care for (this is being kind; although it's not my intent to state that everyone in the SF tech scene is my enemy). But again, working in a startup, with those expected hours and meeting deadlines, it would've been borderline impossible.
kiral 13y ago
I've lived in a few tech cities, and SF is pretty high up thee for not sucking. Lots of jobs if you have skills, areas around the city have less horrid rent, pretty warm without being too hot, and neat culture. I'll give a slight edge to Seattle, because I like the geography a bit better. It's where I'll land next. But for now I've spent half a decade in Boston. Good .edu jobs, lots of startups, and Pharma jobs too. Nice folks, and living in Cambridge or Somerville is on the subway and more reasonable for housing costs. Yes we have snow, but I grew up near Philly, so this doesn't phase me. I tried NYC and Austin, but too packed (NYC), and too damn hot. (~105 in May in Austin, and rarely lower...)
randomguy7788 13y ago
just moved to SF from Ohio 3 months ago myself and i feel the exact same way as this guy...(its been more of a positive than a negative for me though)

41 points by zoba 13y ago

Apes 13y ago

Just want to point out that it's not fair to call the government incompetent here, when the issue is more complex. I see the sidewalks being cleaned every morning only to be covered in filth again the next day. And it's hard to deal with the homeless issue when New York is buying bus tickets to San Francisco to deal with their homeless.

avree 13y ago
Well, Nevada is buying bus tickets. http://www.nbcnews.com/health/san-francisco-sues-nevada-over-patient-dumping-8C11126850 http://www.nbcnews.com/health/san-francisco-sues-nevada-over...
semmem1 13y ago
As a NYer, just wondering where you heard this? If true, my opinion of Bloomberg just went up even more.
- justinsteele 13y ago
  Because you consider shoveling those who are not as lucky in life to someone else's doorstep a solution?
  - semmem1 13y ago
    More because it is a known fact that a large proportion of the homless in NYC are not actually even from NY and I don't think we should be paying to take care of people who are not actually from the area. This to me should be a federal issue, why should major metropolitan areas have to pay for all the joe smoes who move to the city for no other reason than mooching off the "better" benefits that cities provide over small towns.
    - logjam 13y ago
      "...it is a known fact blah fucking blah..." [citation needed] And stop ducking the question, genius. Are you really trying to tell us that the solution to your homelessness problem is to bus people who you magically somehow don't think are from your area clear across the country to a place they almost certainly aren't from?
- gav 13y ago
  NYC has a program to send homeless people back home with a one-way ticket: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/nyregion/29oneway.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/nyregion/29oneway.html
  - _delirium 13y ago
    The article makes the program sound reasonably humanitarian, while the initial description made it sound more like "dump the problem elsewhere". With the examples of homeless people who had relatives in France or Puerto Rico they could live with, but they just couldn't afford to get there, buying them plane tickets seems like an actual solution to the problem that's good for both the people in question and NYC. And it sounds like it's only done on request, not some kind of involuntary exile (compare: http://money.msn.com/now/post--columbia-sc-to-exile-its-homeless http://money.msn.com/now/post--columbia-sc-to-exile-its-home...). I have no idea if the article is cherry-picking unrepresentative positive examples, though. To determine if it's solving or just shifting the problem, it'd be interesting if there were any statistics on what % of people NYC bought one-way tickets for were homeless again N months or years afterwards, vs. in a more stable situation. Admittedly it's probably quite difficult to collect reliable data on that.
paunchy 13y ago
It is amusing to read about people complaining about how many homeless people there are in SF without seeming to consider the reasons why other cities have fewer homeless. This article further implies that with such high taxes we should be able to "get rid of our homeless" more effectively than other cities. On the taxes, SF doesn't have a city income tax. So unless the writer is a property or business owner, they're not directly paying taxes to SF aside from a 1% higher sales tax. Compare this to the 3% personal income tax in NYC (on top of the taxes listed above). Homeless factors include: good climate, fewer beatings from cops, fewer beatings from citizens, no bus deportation out of town, crazy people often head west until they hit water, better free health services for the poor, popular tourist destination means good pan-handling.

maxcan 13y ago

> The government must be terrible. Taxes are very high. Services are terrible (particularly bus). The city is gross. amen brother

doseofreality 13y ago
For a city that in theory has everything in the world going for it and an endless supply of rich people to tax, it must have one of the worst city governments (albeit most highly paid) in the country.

codex 13y ago

San Francisco is over-hyped, possibly because of the high concentration of bloggers who live in and around the city. I prefer New York, Chicago, Boston, and Seattle.

justin66 13y ago
> possibly because of the high concentration of bloggers Or the fact that it has much better weather than those other places you named. It's not mysterious: there are a lot of people who like to spend time outdoors and prioritize weather.
toomuchtodo 13y ago
Chicagoian here. It's currently 11F, with a low under ~5F over the next few days [http://weatherspark.com/#!dashboard;q=60661 http://weatherspark.com/#!dashboard;q=60661]. Come see Chicago in the spring, summer, fall, but live somewhere warm. Disclaimer: Attempting to move somewhere warmer soon.
- stefan_kendall 13y ago
  I grew up in Chicago. It was so cold. Never again.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    I'm 31. Been here my whole life (besides traveling). Working on finding remote DevOps gig to work from Tampa/Key West/British Virgin Islands.
  - bbraasch 13y ago
    Good place to be from. Sounds like the noob chose to live at 6th and Market. That's where you go after you lose that brogrammer edge, not when you move here to find your fortune. I recall the advice Steve Martin's adopted mother in The Jerk gave him, "find your special purpose", and how that worked out for him. It all starts by working at the circus. Your fortune will find you when you find your special purpose.
- 13y ago

pla3rhat3r 13y ago

It always cracks me up that people feel like they NEED to live in SF when they come there. I lived in the SF Bay Area for most of my life and NEVER felt the need or desire to live in SF.....at all! There is so much to do in other parts of the Bay Area that are much more affordable, less filthy, and just overall better for your sanity. If you move to the Bay Area and move to SF without looking at other areas then you have no reason to complain. BART may not be the best thing ever but it is everywhere. People move to SF for the same reason they buy an iPhone. They want to fit in. Go to the East Bay, buy an Android phone, and be different.

xacaxulu 13y ago
Based on weather and cleanliness, I'd rather live in San Mateo than SF proper. None of that annoying fog-mist.
- epaladin 13y ago
  I was in SF for Google IO a couple years ago and was somewhat fascinated by the fog-mist. Also surprised to find that it shows up almost every day. Seems like a better place to visit than live though. Streetcars are a nice novelty, but I can't imagine commuting on that every day. Anyone know if there are there any cities in the US/Europe that are as clean and convenient (walk-ability and public transport) as Tokyo?
smtddr 13y ago
>>People move to SF for the same reason they buy an iPhone. They want to fit in. Lies & slander
tw268 13y ago
People move to SF because it is the only place in the area with 1) girls and 2) culture
- abstractbill 13y ago
  Not anymore - the girls and culture are all moving to Oakland!

ChuckMcM 13y ago

I suspect that the quantity of homeless folks in the bay area is due in part to the weather. It is pretty difficult to die of exposure here given the relative narrow temperature band we stay in (30 - 95 degrees F with rare excursions outside that) A warm coat and blanket in the winter, a place of shade and fresh water in the summer, and you're pretty much protected from dying of exposure. I found the comment about the dirt and the street repair interesting because I've heard the complaint in reverse, which is that the peninsula / south bay cities are 'too clean and neat, almost like plastic.' For those people they were looking for the 'gritty urban appeal' of San Francisco which, as the author points out, it has in some places. It is interesting the competing memes about what a high tech utopia should look like, Blade Runner or Logan's Run? Or somewhere in the middle? I sometimes wish I could get Californians to have the same courage as the Swiss do when zoning towns which require only walking. I would love to see one of the Peninsula cities commit to that, create people mover transport to the edges and then ban cars in the interior. Imagine that your kids can ride their bike anywhere in the neighborhood or city and not be threatened by a car on its way to work? Don't have the stones for it though.

mapgrep 13y ago
>I sometimes wish I could get Californians to have the same courage as the Swiss do when zoning towns which require only walking. I would settle for just making pedestrian-only some small bits of San Francisco, ostensibly the most progressive city in the state. For example: Oh what I wouldn't give to have Third Street shut down from say Folsom to Market. I walk every day most of the length of Third Street and it is an automotive hellscape. Literally six lanes of cars all going in the same direction. And it's anarchy. At nearly every single light change, someone ends up blocking the intersection because they tried to make it across with no room. Cars nearly mowing down pedestrians as they try to turn into parking lot/hotel access roads. Cars clogging the bus lanes. And the honking, oh the honking. Just shut it down. From the convention center through Yerba Buena Gardens, the St Regis, MOMA, all the way to Market. Giant outdoor cafes and restaurants and biergartens. Some protected dedicated bike lanes. Nice pedestrian paths. Dedicated spaces for outdoor exhibits from MOMA, the African Diaspora museum (in the St Regis) and Yerba Buena Center. Earmark the extra tax increment for something nice, maybe for improving mass transit, or the police, or the art scene, as penance for taking away the six-lane artery of transit misery. Then do it again on some other miserable street. And so on.

mojowo11 13y ago

"Taxes are very high." "Want to clean up areas of the city? Put a cop on every block!" Someone elect this guy to city government, he seems to have a unbelievably solid grasp on the complexities of running a city like San Francisco.

wtbob 13y ago
The taxes are very high, and they are mis-spent.

daphneokeefe 13y ago

I don't think we live in the same City. But it's good that you came here to follow your dream. Life is a buffet -- try a little of everything, and everywhere, and then move on.

kordless 13y ago

I love coming into the city, but I choose to live in Moraga because of some of the reasons you list here. Rent prices out here are actually down a bit from 6 months ago - you can rent a 3br house in Concord for around $2.5K a month. While that's exceedingly expensive compared to the rest of the US, it puts you within an hour and some change's striking distance of most Bay destinations, which can be valuable depending on your skill sets. Also, it's stunningly gorgeous out here: https://plus.google.com/100735767683148801066/posts/Y2ugoKdpnG4 https://plus.google.com/100735767683148801066/posts/Y2ugoKdp...

saosebastiao 13y ago

I moved from Cleveland to Seattle, and I would agree with most everything here (referring to Seattle of course). My only differences would be: 1) It is not as dirty. There is some level of dirtiness, but I found Cleveland to be much worse. 2) The government here isn't anywhere near as bad as SF or Cleveland. SF is NIMBY hell with a counter-intuitive positive feedback loop (They won't build, so they get gentrification, which oddly enough reduces their propensity to build), and a transit system that is so far gamed in the Transit Union's advantage that it has stopped functioning for society. Cleveland is playing the bribe-the-fortune-500 game with tax breaks that they can't afford, and city services which are mismanaged and underfunded. Seattle has a nimby problem, a noise problem, and their public transportation is pretty weak and poorly designed. But I love it here.

michaelfdeberry 13y ago
I was in SF a couple of days this year and one of the biggest things that I noticed during my short visit is how clean everything seemed compared to Cleveland. I was only in the downtown area, but even if only comparing downtown Cleveland there is still a huge difference.
kyleblarson 13y ago
+1 for Seattle. For the outdoor oriented tech types Seattle is the place to be. The access to amazing skiing, hiking, climbing, boating, mountain biking from Seattle cannot be beat. You can work until 5:30 and be skiing powder at Alpental at 6:30. In the summer you can access world class sport, trad or bouldering after work, or you can shuttle awesome MTB trails.

justinzollars 13y ago

In North Carolina the population density is much lower than SF so of course you are dealing with more pollution.

limsup 13y ago

interesting blog post but could have just been titled: "my thoughts on moving to a big city"

base698 13y ago

I too moved from RTP to SF. The two biggest reasons I had a desire to leave NC were the technical aptitude and proximity to the beautiful places. On the technical aptitude side, I remember more than one drunken conversation with Russian nationals about compilers. I remember thinking by the end of the conversation I was wholly outmatched in technical skill. Seems like more of a good thing since technical people are celebrated like gods in some areas. I loved being able to paraglide or ski on the weekends. Having real mountains that close gives you ample opportunity to do all sorts of things that aren't possible in other cities. Not to mention the ability to get a good bottle of wine and drink it on the craggy coast at sunset. Alas, the dirtiness of the city and production that is getting groceries home on the MUNI caused my wife and I to relocate to Santa Monica. We're further away from some of the outside things we like to do, but the day to day quality of life is 100-fold better.

jboggan 13y ago
Three cheers for the tech life in Santa Monica! I also moved here after a short stint in SF and decided this is a much better life overall. I even have a nice hill to live on if I want to pretend I'm back in SF. Groundworks is great coffee, but I will miss Philz.
doseofreality 13y ago
How is Santa Monica taking a step back from cool outside things to do? SM is one of the most beautiful places in the country, the weather is nearly perfect, and you are a walk or a short drive away from many outdoor activities.

JimboOmega 13y ago

I moved to the area about six months ago, and after living in Oakland for 3 months, moved to the city. I'd agree with most of these points (though a lot of the upside, particularly the huge range of people who are welcomed here, are left out). I disagree that the transit system is falling apart. The BART strikes were a huge embarrassment, but all things considered, I haven't felt handicapped not having a car since I've been here. Also, after the dirtiness stops bothering you. Ditto on the noise (though I may be spoiled by an 11th floor apartment). The rents and the NIMBYism (which does drive up rents) is the worst of any city in the United States. Certainly in terms of the cost necessary for the "right to build", and as far as rent goes, it's either SF or NYC. (From 2007, but: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-of-two-town-houses/306334/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-o...)

forgottenpass 13y ago

>The government must be terrible. Taxes are very high. Services are terrible (particularly bus). Infer about state of gov't, don't bother finding anything out about it let alone get involved, then griping online? You probably deserve bad government.

liquidise 13y ago
6 months residency is more than enough time to become acclimated to the cities problems and be a champion of fiscally acceptable infrastructure solutions, right? No. It is not. The author makes a very fair observation. Side note, the idea that some people "deserve bad government" is one if the single most ludicrous things i have ever read on HN
- forgottenpass 13y ago
  6 months residency is more than enough time to become acclimated to the cities problems and be a champion of fiscally acceptable infrastructure solutions, right? No. It is not. It's not. But it's more than enough time to start investigating local governance beyond "must be" statements if it is a thing you care about.

hcatlin 13y ago

This reads like "I don't like big cities" which is totally fair, but not a general comparison. To each their own. Dirty, loud, expensive: It's a big city! I personally love big cities. I grew up in the suburbs, but have chosen to spend my adult life in Toronto, NYC, London, and SF. I love the kinetic motion, the bars, the rowdiness, the closeness of social classes, the camaraderie of being 'miserable'. I love it! But, I also see how someone who only moved here for a tech job and to be financially comfortable, who previously lived in a very middle-class suburban area, wouldn't be totally thrilled. Fair enough! Lots of good jobs in lots of decent places. I do want to throw in one small defense item in the middle of SF hating. I didn't move here because of the tech stuff (which I am a part of) or because of the weather. I moved here for the crazy, wild, weird city that SF is without technology. For the hippies, the dropouts, the drag queens, the commies, the environmentalists, the capitalists, the techies, the artists, ... the great mashup of people that make up SF as a big and wild city. Before anyone moves to SF, they should read "Tales of the City" by Armistead Maupin. If reading that doesn't make you want to immediately move to SF, then you'd probably do better in some other city with a decent tech scene. Or, as another reader pointed out, you'd probably be happier in the Valley if you are looking for a more NC-feel. PS: the homeless problems being right next to the rich reminds me of the Settlement Movement of the early 20th century. check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_movement

baoist 13y ago

Making friends is what ultimately drove me away from SF. I went in knowing one person, whom I relied too much on socially. As he and I were both working long hours, in separate startups, it became more and more difficult to sustain myself and fulfill that personal need. I loved the size, the atmosphere of where I was living, the noise, the weather (MN kills), the amazing coffee and food, and the lack of need for personal transportation. It was strange in that everyone I met outside of tech was great, while a majority of those who were I really didn't care for (this is being kind; although it's not my intent to state that everyone in the SF tech scene is my enemy). But again, working in a startup, with those expected hours and meeting deadlines, it would've been borderline impossible.

kiral 13y ago

I've lived in a few tech cities, and SF is pretty high up thee for not sucking. Lots of jobs if you have skills, areas around the city have less horrid rent, pretty warm without being too hot, and neat culture. I'll give a slight edge to Seattle, because I like the geography a bit better. It's where I'll land next. But for now I've spent half a decade in Boston. Good .edu jobs, lots of startups, and Pharma jobs too. Nice folks, and living in Cambridge or Somerville is on the subway and more reasonable for housing costs. Yes we have snow, but I grew up near Philly, so this doesn't phase me. I tried NYC and Austin, but too packed (NYC), and too damn hot. (~105 in May in Austin, and rarely lower...)

randomguy7788 13y ago

just moved to SF from Ohio 3 months ago myself and i feel the exact same way as this guy...(its been more of a positive than a negative for me though)