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.
It's more like an hour outside of SF - I use to work out there briefly, took me forever to get back into SF - and I remember the traffic being horrible the other way (most lived vice-versa than me - I was living in SF).
BART also sucks - overpriced, and really only a commuter transportation, doesn't service SF very well at all. But I guess if you are way out in Walnut Creek, than you'd be one of the few that the BART actually makes sense and appears useful. Except, of course, if you're living in Walnut Creek, you'll have to have a car just to get to the BART - so any 'hey, I don't even need a car!' argument is lost already.
At least the bay area has public transportation. What does Las Vegas have?? A bus system that comes around every so often.
With all of the money you'll save living in Las Vegas... take it and visit San Francisco, or San Diego, LA, Phoenix, Southern Cal, etc, etc... when you have time off from work and want to enjoy what the above places offer.
You can buy a nicer house for far less in Las Vegas.
Really! I guess you have a million dollars sitting in your bank account after spending tons of money on car insurance, medical, electricty. Granted housing is slightly cheaper than the bay area. You are correct about that. Lets remember that the pay is a lot lower than the bay area.
Really! I guess you have a million dollars sitting in your bank account after spending tons of money on car insurance, medical, electricty. Granted housing is slightly cheaper than the bay area. You are correct about that. Lets remember that the pay is a lot lower than the bay area.
Las Vegas average house $198,000
San Francisco average house $673,000
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
Really! I guess you have a million dollars sitting in your bank account after spending tons of money on car insurance, medical, electricty. Granted housing is slightly cheaper than the bay area. You are correct about that. Lets remember that the pay is a lot lower than the bay area.
According to the original poster, the pay is only $7,000 higher then what he would be paid in Las Vegas with the possibility of a pay raise.
Granted... due to the original question and the posters profession... networking opportunities for higher paying jobs will certainly be better up in the Bay area if he wants to work forever.
It's not what you get paid... it's what you do with the money that's left over.
Of course... I'm an entrepreneur that escaped the corporate slavery / Kool-Aid world by saving / investing my money and it's hard for people like yourself to understand what that is all about.
Instead... you would rather have people like myself pay for public transportation, medical care, etc, etc.. You might think it's free... but it's actually extremely expensive that must be paid for year after year... precisely why California is in far worse shape then Nevada.
So... Northern California is much more appropriate for you... Las Vegas is more appropriate to me and depending on what the original poster's long term goals are... he can make up his own mind with truthful statements that have been provided. (Which.. obviously are not coming from you as pointed out by some other posters.)
Sorry Vegas did not work out for you... but get over it and provide some truthful statements besides bashing Las Vegas. You remind me of a bitter drunk that blames a Casino Dealer for their bad luck / losing their money.
I've been reading these posts for a while and don't see anything wrong with what armyjimb has been posting. I think we're geting the clear message from everyone that San Francisco and Las Vegas are two very different places and will appeal to different people.
Armyjimb is saying that San Francisco will appeal to people:
- Who want to own a home before they are 90
- Who don't mind (or actually prefer) using public transportation
- Who like living in a dense built up city environment as opposed to sprawling lower density city
- Who are interested in the restaurants, clubs (besides casinos), and other nightlife that local people go to frequently
- Who want lots of career opportunities in occupations that aren't construction or service-industry positions
- Who don't mind paying a little more
- Who like living in a green, lush environment
The people who live Las Vegas are saying it's better for:
- People who love owning and driving cars
- People who want to own a house early in life
- People who want to live on a lot larger than a postage stamp
- People who don't mind the heat
- People who don't mind the desert
- People who are interested in service industry or construction jobs
Does that sum it up well? I don't see anything wrong with each person having their own opinions.
At least the bay area has public transportation. What does Las Vegas have?? A bus system that comes around every so often.
Honestly, I think the Bay Area public transportation is a much bigger joke - mainly because they think they actually have one.
Either a city MUST do the public transporation RIGHT...or you go the other way and make it a car city RIGHT. Vegas chose the car culture and parking is EASY in Vegas. San Francisco THINKS it has public transportation, so decided to strongly encourage the automobile to put more people into public transportation. YET...it has abysmal public transportation! So people end up using their cars anyways and paying high toll bridge fares, inadequate parking, overpriced parking lots, short time meters and car being towed quickly, etc.
Additionally, the idea of popping into one station (that you want to spend time) and getting out of another (that you want to spend time) - like 99% of the rest of the world's cities, never happened in SF. You just pay a small fortune (very overpiced on BART) and go directly downtown and then go directly back out again (to your big parking lots out in suburbs), and that is about it.
I've come to the conclusion after living in San Francisco, that SF might as well NOT have public transportation for how pathetic it is...
I've been reading these posts for a while and don't see anything wrong with what armyjimb has been posting. I think we're geting the clear message from everyone that San Francisco and Las Vegas are two very different places and will appeal to different people.
Armyjimb is saying that San Francisco will appeal to people:
- Who want to own a home before they are 90
- Who don't mind (or actually prefer) using public transportation
- Who like living in a dense built up city environment as opposed to sprawling lower density city
- Who are interested in the restaurants, clubs (besides casinos), and other nightlife that local people go to frequently
- Who want lots of career opportunities in occupations that aren't construction or service-industry positions
- Who don't mind paying a little more
- Who like living in a green, lush environment
The people who live Las Vegas are saying it's better for:
- People who love owning and driving cars
- People who want to own a house early in life
- People who want to live on a lot larger than a postage stamp
- People who don't mind the heat
- People who don't mind the desert
- People who are interested in service industry or construction jobs
Does that sum it up well? I don't see anything wrong with each person having their own opinions.
I think that is generally right.
BUT...most of the Bay Area actually is just immense urban sprawl...significantly worse than Vegas with much greater distances of sprawl to drive through - with few exceptions, the few dense areas of SF, Oakland, and Berkeley - but the mass majority of people in the Bay Area are living in the sprawl. The sprawl is actually significantly worse than Vegas.
Also, the Bay Area has a horrible public transportation. Anyone who has lived in another country or the East Coast U.S., readily dismisses the SF public transportation. I certainly have, and do. It is very inadequate. I've lived in Japan, Korea, Spain, Austria, New York City, Brazil, and Hungary without a car. However, when I lived in the Bay Area, it was required to have a car - unless I could have afforded very overpiced San Francisco city itself near my workplace, but that could be said for just about any city including Vegas minus the overpriced part. I just didn't find the SF public transportation adequate enough to live a car-free existance.
Restaurants, clubs, etc. - Las Vegas is right up there with San Francisco - I"ve actually had a lot more fun in Vegas than SF at night. I actually found SF quite dull if you don't fit into a set scene - i.e. hippy, yuppie or gay. Haight or North Beach or Castro.
I voted for Las Vegas, but it was close, and it's based on my own personal preference...
I'll give you the pros and cons for your situation, for each option, as I see it:
San Francisco PROS:
- Climate - can be cold and damp, but never too cold (never snow) and never too hot; fairly steady, cool and often damp
- More of a major city with more diverse opportunities and everything a major city has to offer; old city with long history
- Beautiful surroundings, charming city, on the ocean yet near woods, farmland, mountains, hills, desert, etc.; Napa and Sonoma valleys are nearby, noted for wine
- Close to silicon valley, which could be beneficial to your career as a programmer.
- Good schools in the area, including top-notch universities such as Stanford and UC Berkeley
- Arts, culture, entertainment - SF is known as a top city for dining and has more art and cultural performances, museums, etc. than most cities - it is on par with the biggest cities such as NY, LA
CONS:
- Highest cost of housing in the nation other than Manhattan, NYC - whether you rent or buy, you will pay top dollar and get little home for your money, due to location
- Lots of competition for jobs from a largely well educated and affluent population, so moving on to new opportunities can be tough
- General higher cost of living, high taxes
- The weather could be a con, depends on what you like... Many hate the cold - it can be cold in summertime there, weather is unpredictable due to microclimates
Las Vegas PROS:
- Great entertainment, some of the best in the world
- Some of the absolute best dining options in the nation and in the world, also
- Much lower cost of living, enabling you to enjoy more of the entertainment and dining than you'd be able to in other cities for the same money
- Much lower housing costs - you will have a beautiful place, whether you buy or rent - probably new within the last 10 years and very modern and comfortable for much less than you'd spend in SF
- Much lower taxes; if I'm not mistaken, Nevada has no state income tax. Compared to CA the taxes are virtually non-existent in Nevada.
- a growing city with job opportunities, and a fairly reliable tourism/gaming industry to keep the city growing
- weather is desert - cool and pleasant in winter, can get cold, snow is very rare; summers are very, very hot, as to be expected in a desert. It is dry heat, which does help a little bit.\
- recreational options are there - the desert is beautiful to visit and explore and is near the city - e.g., Red Rocks canyon is only a few miles from the city limits; Mt. Charleston, only 20 minutes from city limits, provides snow activities, including full skiing/snowboarding, in winter months; Lake Mead provides boating, swimming, fishing nearby.
- Los Angeles is only under 4 hours away, so if you need the excitement of a really big city, you can easily go to LA for a day or two; LA is the second biggest city in the nation, and much of what you could experience in SF you can experience in LA - the biggest difference is the cities' styles, but quality of culture, food, etc. is mostly equal.
CONS:
- weather can be a con - depends on what you like or hate
- Arts/culture is limited. There are cultural centers, but they are small and fewer in number; most of the performances are modern entertainment type, although they do have broadway plays
- Future job opportunities in the computer field would be more limited here than SF, but there is the gaming industry which provides options, and companies are still moving to Vegas from LA, so there is some growth
- The city doesn't have a long history, and doesn't respect much of its own history; much of the city is garish and new; still there is history preserved and the city has a charm, but not in the classical sense
- The city downtown is geared towards tourists, the rest of the city is very suburban and sprawling, which some consider a con (but this could be a pro, depending on the person) - you will end up driving just about everywhere, although they have an OK mass transit system
If you feel good about the Vegas opportunity, I'd say go there. You will have a nicer home, you will spend less money, your 70K will go much further than your 78K will go in San Francisco.
Last edited by BergenCountyJohnny; 09-24-2009 at 04:14 PM..
I've been reading these posts for a while and don't see anything wrong with what armyjimb has been posting. I think we're geting the clear message from everyone that San Francisco and Las Vegas are two very different places and will appeal to different people.
Armyjimb is saying that San Francisco will appeal to people:
- Who want to own a home before they are 90
- Who don't mind (or actually prefer) using public transportation
- Who like living in a dense built up city environment as opposed to sprawling lower density city
- Who are interested in the restaurants, clubs (besides casinos), and other nightlife that local people go to frequently
- Who want lots of career opportunities in occupations that aren't construction or service-industry positions
- Who don't mind paying a little more
- Who like living in a green, lush environment
The people who live Las Vegas are saying it's better for:
- People who love owning and driving cars
- People who want to own a house early in life
- People who want to live on a lot larger than a postage stamp
- People who don't mind the heat
- People who don't mind the desert
- People who are interested in service industry or construction jobs
Does that sum it up well? I don't see anything wrong with each person having their own opinions.
People in the Bay Area are using cars, trust me.. just take a look at the traffic on the 101/80 (bay bridge, golden gate..san mateo ..etc.)) Then you have all the commute traffic going either to and from the central valley where people commute almost 2 hours or more each way. If you call BART a great deal?? common, Bart doesn't even go to Mt. View, most of the peninsula and San Jose (where there are a lot of people). People are posting this stuff that isn't even true. Bay Area Public Transportation is a joke because the Bay Area is so spread out you need a car.
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.
