Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
SF is probably one of the very few cities in the world in which people live at the beach because they can't afford anything else. SF has built up to the beach, but it's largely an ignored part of the city. Not much activity going on there compared to the rest of the city. Generally pretty quiet and empty.
The terrain is a factor, but there are breaks in the terrain. Half Moon Bay is barely developed. The entire coastline of Monterey Bay is vastly underdeveloped compared to SoCal. Beachfront property in NorCal simply isn't as coveted as in most beachfront cities across the world. And SoCal still has places like Malibu and Laguna Beach that are very sought after areas with quite a bit of development for their rough terrain. It might be a little more extreme in NorCal, but still. It's not as well developed because SF is not a beach city and NorCal doesn't have as great beaches as SoCal. Who goes to NorCal for beach vacations? Even those in NorCal hit up Santa Cruz for a local spot, but they drive down to SoCal for real beach vacations. People from all over the world come to LA for the beaches. The same cannot be said for SF. While the coastline is definitely beautiful, it doesn't mean SF has better beaches.
Well as Nei pointed out, SF didn't develop first on the beach. It developed on its natural harbor, inland facing the bay where ships could moor. Thus downtown happened there. On the far east side of San Francisco. Which means that with San Francisco's density and inefficient transit, commute times from the western reaches are actually longer into the financial district than commutes all the way in from Berkeley or other parts of the E Bay.
I do believe that commute times have a huge effect on home values and desirability in CA cities, even LA . What's different between LA's beach communities and San Francisco's is that San Francisco's developed exclusively as residential neighborhoods, so there are no commercial areas out there aside from shops and restaurants to serve residents. Santa Monica and the whole Westside of LA (Brentwood, Westwood, Culver City, Playa Vista, etc) are actually the premier commercial areas in LA, which is not even DTLA, still, despite recent changes and hype. Land values in SM and on the Westside are higher than elsewhere throughout LA, and while being near beautiful usable beaches is part of that, so is the fact that LA developed large secondary office CBDs in these areas.
Thus as San Francisco was an industrial port city for much of its development/existence, it became a financial center, and much more urban/downtown oriented city than LA. Undoubtedly LA and all of SoCal have a superior climate, I would say the best in the US. It's also no coincidence that Hollywood set up shop there and LA became more of typical "beach" city rather than one centered on its downtown.
The cities have very different resources and attributes at their disposal that have led them to be developed in such different ways such that we end up where we are today.
Also keep in mind that the Sunset/Richmond, being where all of the homeowners of San Francisco live (whereas the rest of the city is almost entirely rental), the political capital to increase density from single family home to mid-rise or high-rise apartments is not there. There was a push to increase height limits to a whopping 40' recently, and major pushback from standard intense Bay Area NIMBYism, in this case, actual homeowners, not renters.
Not to mention, as has also been pointed out, much of NorCal's coastline is very jagged/rugged/hilly, or protected, or both. While many parts of SoCal's are, as well, SoCal doesn't have a mountain range separating its beaches from its main inland area like NorCal does.
All of this not to say that SoCal doesn't have better beaches, but jessemh431, your bias does come out when you try to make it sound like naturally Ocean Beach in San Francisco would be just like Santa Monica if SF beaches didn't absolutely suck. SF beaches neither suck nor would that part of town naturally resemble Santa Monica under any circumstance other than those that led to Santa Monica forming where it did (also note that LA has highways, SF does not).
All of this not to say that SoCal doesn't have better beaches, but jessemh431, your bias does come out when you try to make it sound like naturally Ocean Beach in San Francisco would be just like Santa Monica if SF beaches didn't absolutely suck. SF beaches neither suck nor would that part of town naturally resemble Santa Monica under any circumstance other than those that led to Santa Monica forming where it did (also note that LA has highways, SF does not).
Still, I suspect if San Francisco beach weather (and water temperatures) was warmer the beach neighborhoods would be more than just sleepy residential neighborhoods and be more of a destination with a bigger commercial district. It's a long commute from the Outer Sunset to downtown, but many suburbs are as well. If the beach was more "fun", there'd be some people willing to tolerate an inconvenient commute for the beach location.
SF is probably one of the very few cities in the world in which people live at the beach because they can't afford anything else. SF has built up to the beach, but it's largely an ignored part of the city. Not much activity going on there compared to the rest of the city. Generally pretty quiet and empty.
New York City is another. Much of Brooklyn and Queens (Rockaways) beachfront areas has some of the cheaper rents in the city; though there are a few fancier areas. Part of the beachfront of NYC is lined with housing projects...
Quote:
The terrain is a factor, but there are breaks in the terrain. Half Moon Bay is barely developed. The entire coastline of Monterey Bay is vastly underdeveloped compared to SoCal. Beachfront property in NorCal simply isn't as coveted as in most beachfront cities across the world.
Monterey Bay isn't part of a large city / metro so there'd be less demand.
The terrain is a factor, but there are breaks in the terrain. Half Moon Bay is barely developed. The entire coastline of Monterey Bay is vastly underdeveloped compared to SoCal. Beachfront property in NorCal simply isn't as coveted as in most beachfront cities across the world.
Not disagreeing with you, per se, but as Nei pointed out, NYC, arguably the premier city of this world, is on the beach with a harbor and yet its coastline is generally less desirable. New York formed around where there could be harbors for ships. It never formed around a beach. As it grew pre-auto, like SF did, less desirable and less dense housing went up along the beaches as commutes into the city weren't coveted. In SF's case, now with cars and better transit, you have better commutes, still bad, though. However, now you have single family homes that are owned, not rented. And that's a rare commodity in SF. Sunset may look meager, but all those homes are still now $1-2-3+ million. Now you may call that "undesirable", but someone is still paying more money than 99% of Americans do to own a home near SF's beaches. Are they moving there because of the beaches? No! I'll give you that. But are these areas "undesirable"? No! They are single family neighborhoods IN San Francisco. It hardly gets more desirable than that. They just aren't as desirable as houses in Pac Heights or Noe Valley, both closer in with far superior housing stock and greater density from nearby rentals that allows for more activity/amenities.
Also, you conveniently mention Monterey Bay. Have you been to Carmel? Pebble Beach? Those home prices may not be the occasional $50-100M you see in Beverly Hills, but I'd say $5M is an average, and for coastal/oceanfront houses in the area, much much more. Sometimes approaching $50M. That's NorCal. Right around Monterey Bay. Oh, and forgot, Big Sur right there to the south. Can't build there, but arguably the most gorgeous stretch of coastline in north america. Great for camping, not for living. And Santa Cruz is on Monterey Bay. Everyone keeps hailing Santa Cruz as the "one" beach in NorCal that is ok. So I guess Monterey Bay is covered.
Not disagreeing with you, per se, but as Nei pointed out, NYC, arguably the premier city of this world, is on the beach with a harbor and yet its coastline is generally less desirable. New York formed around where there could be harbors for ships. It never formed around a beach. As it grew pre-auto, like SF did, less desirable and less dense housing went up along the beaches as commutes into the city weren't coveted.
Maybe in a relative sense. But there are blocks like these:
Still, I suspect if San Francisco beach weather (and water temperatures) was warmer the beach neighborhoods would be more than just sleepy residential neighborhoods and be more of a destination with a bigger commercial district. It's a long commute from the Outer Sunset to downtown, but many suburbs are as well. If the beach was more "fun", there'd be some people willing to tolerate an inconvenient commute for the beach location.
Totally agree, but also keep in mind that suburbs on the Peninsula, in San Jose, and in the East Bay all have large centers of office/commercial. Outer E Bay has Walnut Creek, Concord, and Pleasonton, each with many millions of sf of office space and little downtown areas, shopping malls, etc. While some commute in from outer E Bay into SF, I suspect most people living that far out are also working around the E Bay. That commute's like living in SGV and working in Irvine. It just doesn't make sense, though some people do.
Sunset/Richmond set up shop as ethnic housing communities, with single family homes. Commutes are actually not terrible now with the advent of nicer cars and better transit options, but there's no way these neighborhoods will transition from single family/ownership to multifamily/renter. There's just no way. The latter is a way to build up density to produce demand for more activity/amenities, but alas, the neighborhoods are still lower density ethnic single family neighborhoods. They will likely always be so.
They could be super dense neighborhoods with more activity. Then we wouldn't be conflating lack of activity with inferior beaches.
So while I agree with you, and I agree with everyone, SF's beaches pale as swimming/laying out amenities compared to SoCal's, the facts are still the facts.
Yea, no I know there are projects along the beach. But just beyond those projects you see houses. i'm being relative here. Beach communities in NYC just aren't nearly as dense as communities in Manhattan or inner Brooklyn/Queens, where you literally have no houses and every single building is > 5 stories, in some cases >10 stories.
Even in Ocean Beach and the Sunset you have some higher density blocks, but overall the density in that area is 15-22K ppsm whereas in the NE quadrant of the city where most people live, it's on average significantly higher.
Yea, no I know there are projects along the beach. But just beyond those projects you see houses. i'm being relative here. Beach communities in NYC just aren't nearly as dense as communities in Manhattan or inner Brooklyn/Queens, where you literally have no houses and every single building is > 5 stories, in some cases >10 stories.
Those aren't housing projects, just private apartment buildings. That particular census tract is 118k/sq mile, but yes, that isn't typical
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. What's different between LA's beach communities and San Francisco's is that San Francisco's developed exclusively as residential neighborhoods, so there are no commercial areas out there aside from shops and restaurants to serve residents. Santa Monica and the whole Westside of LA (Brentwood, Westwood, Culver City, Playa Vista, etc) are actually the premier commercial areas in LA, which is not even DTLA, still, despite recent changes and hype. Land values in SM and on the Westside are higher than elsewhere throughout LA, and while being near beautiful usable beaches is part of that, so is the fact that LA developed large secondary office CBDs in these areas.
