Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
I definitely understand your points. I have lived in both inner loop Houston and in the northern, western and southern suburbs.
The western half of the inner loop is very much its own place and very different -- more urban and interesting than the rest of the city. In terms of density and lifestyle, I'd equate the western inner loop to the East Bay, though. There are distinct districts, but overall, it's still pretty homogeneous. There are nice areas and bad areas. Higher Ed has a good presence. There are business districts and residential ones and they don't really overlap. Plus, much of the housing is single family. There are a few good restaurants and lots of ethnic cuisine. Shopping is great and the big chains are well represented. People also have cars and depend on them a lot.
SF, as you note, is markedly different from this, though. The East Bay (mostly Oakland and Berkeley) is an urban area, to be sure. It is not an SF suburb. But, compared to SF, it feels pretty suburban in all but Downtown Oakland -- just as inner loop Houston feels suburban, compared to SF, except in Downtown Houston. For some people, this is a reason to prefer Houston. I get that. To each his own.
I must say that I prefer the options present in the Bay Area. Here, I can live in a fast-paced, dense urban area or a spread-out, car-centric one. I can also choose sprawling suburbs, small hillside communities, warm valley communities or chilly coastal ones. I just wouldn't have the range of living options and climates available in Houston.
I don't have kids and I work in the financial district. So, city life works for me. I take public transportation. I shop at local stores in my neighborhood. Yes, my rent is expensive. So is rent in any world-class city. And yes, there is a homeless problem here. Houston has one too (lesser, i admit) but it's harder to see them from your cars. If you walked everywhere like we do here, you would run into many more of them.
I'm no Houston basher. It will always feel like home. I absolutely understand anyone who loves Houston. I did for over 20 years. I am also not a blind SF booster. This place has its warts, too. SF has a great history of compensating people who understand her vibe, for those warts, though -- like the way she rewards anyone willing to pay the exorbitant rents with an incomparable urban lifestyle.
I can agree w/ pretty much all you stated there. I love both Houston and the Bay. If the Bay were affordable who knows I might would be living there. And that's mostly only because of commute in Houston. But then again it would be a hard toss up. I mean both are some my favorite cities/areas in the country.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
1,066 posts, read 375,695 times
Reputation: 1032
Quote:
Originally Posted by jek74
But don't we have to take costs in consideration. Sure, the Bay area is great. So is Malibu, Santa Barbara and San Diego. But the rent is ridiculous. I was going to move there many years back and I went through all different parts of the city to try to get my rent under 1500 for a one bedroom. Couldn't do it. My only option was to live with at least two other people. I mean if money is no option, then life is wonderful!!!!!!! You can live anywhere! The nice thing about Houston is that you can actually afford to live a lifestyle that you could never afford in NY, Boston, DC or CA. I mean if we are all billionaires here then yes, forget Houston, much better places to live.
The point is that when you live in a great city, you measure your lifestyle by different factors. I haven't driven my car in two weeks. It's a used Mini Cooper, which I traded a new 2010 convertible sports car to get, so I could come to SF. Most would call that a major lifestyle hit, but I don't. Life is so much more convenient and enjoyable walking and taking public transportation around a compact city. Plus, I meet and interact with people more often. Even co-workers are more up for happy hours and things after work.
Another thing-- my gas and electric bill, together, were $28 last month. In July! Last year in Houston, my electricity alone was over $400. I also had a lawn and pool to take care of and home maintenance as well.
Not only could I not afford this lifestyle in SF, NY, etc. I wouldn't want it, because that kind of lifestyle is all about compensating for geographical shortcomings with possessions. These things are more affordable in the suburbs, but then you begin to approximate the Houston lifestyle and pay more for it, with little substantive difference other than proximity to a more interesting city to show for it. I agree -- that's not worth it.
The thing is, life in Houston was very comfortable. It didn't inspire me creatively, though. At this stage of my life, I wasn't playing for my endgame lifestyle, I was hungry to be challenged and enjoy a vibrant, unique culture or five every day. It costs more to live here and I am paid more. Im not an engineer or a doctor. My opportunities for advancement in my creative profession are far greater here. This is a city that rewards creative professionals and attracts creative business. Houston is not. With its recent, much publicized 8% growth in creative fields, it still lags behind even Dallas and Austin in opportunities. It is truly one of the worst markets in the country in this regard.
You listed Malibu, Santa Barbara and San Diego as great places to live. I wouldn't know. Those are primarily beach communities with the same lack of urban diversity that Houston experiences. It's just different there. Whether its better or not is a matter of personal preference. I think I'd prefer Houson to San Diego in the long run, because I like the energy of cities and cultures and all that comes with that. San Diego is more fun for a vacation, but for the long haul, Houston would win with me.
If you accept that reasoning, for me, San Diego is to Houston as Houston is to San Francisco. In terms of urban amenities, culture, street life, distinct districts, public transportation, beautiful scenery, weather and many more lifestyle components, Houston seems like a pretty small town in comparison. It's nice, even perfect, for many but there's more to it than just the price of rent.
The point is that when you live in a great city, you measure your lifestyle by different factors. I haven't driven my car in two weeks. It's a used Mini Cooper, which I traded a new 2010 convertible sports car to get, so I could come to SF. Most would call that a major lifestyle hit, but I don't. Life is so much more convenient and enjoyable walking and taking public transportation around a compact city. Plus, I meet and interact with people more often. Even co-workers are more up for happy hours and things after work.
Another thing-- my gas and electric bill, together, were $28 last month. In July! Last year in Houston, my electricity alone was over $400. I also had a lawn and pool to take care of and home maintenance as well.
Not only could I not afford this lifestyle in SF, NY, etc. I wouldn't want it, because that kind of lifestyle is all about compensating for geographical shortcomings with possessions. These things are more affordable in the suburbs, but then you begin to approximate the Houston lifestyle and pay more for it, with little substantive difference other than proximity to a more interesting city to show for it. I agree -- that's not worth it.
The thing is, life in Houston was very comfortable. It didn't inspire me creatively, though. At this stage of my life, I wasn't playing for my endgame lifestyle, I was hungry to be challenged and enjoy a vibrant, unique culture or five every day. It costs more to live here and I am paid more. Im not an engineer or a doctor. My opportunities for advancement in my creative profession are far greater here. This is a city that rewards creative professionals and attracts creative business. Houston is not. With its recent, much publicized 8% growth in creative fields, it still lags behind even Dallas and Austin in opportunities. It is truly one of the worst markets in the country in this regard.
You listed Malibu, Santa Barbara and San Diego as great places to live. I wouldn't know. Those are primarily beach communities with the same lack of urban diversity that Houston experiences. It's just different there. Whether its better or not is a matter of personal preference. I think I'd prefer Houson to San Diego in the long run, because I like the energy of cities and cultures and all that comes with that. San Diego is more fun for a vacation, but for the long haul, Houston would win with me.
If you accept that reasoning, for me, San Diego is to Houston as Houston is to San Francisco. In terms of urban amenities, culture, street life, distinct districts, public transportation, beautiful scenery, weather and many more lifestyle components, Houston seems like a pretty small town in comparison. It's nice, even perfect, for many but there's more to it than just the price of rent.
I appreciate that response. And I can't say I disagree with much of it. I have no idea what "creative profession" you have but it must pay VERY well. SF is insanely expensive. I agree it's a beautiful city and very small and compact. But when I talk to people who use to live there, they tell me they left for precisely the reasons you went there. The artists are getting pushed out because of cost of living. This is not the same SF from the 60's and 70's. It's now a much more corporate and yuppy city where there is much less diversity since the creative types had to move further out to afford to live there.
I just looked at the numbers 100 times and I could never get them to add up and I work in finance. It just made no sense to live broke out there where one could live better and accumulate savings somewhere else. I respect the fact that you somehow found a way to do it. I have to admit, I have no idea how you did it.
I remember reading a story back before the real estate crash where teachers who worked in SF had to commute from Sacramento, yes Sacramento, to make ends meet. Can you imagine driving all the way from Sacramento to San Fran every day to teach? That's how hard it was even for teachers to make ends meet. Whatever job you landed out there, I really hope you keep it.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
1,066 posts, read 375,695 times
Reputation: 1032
I hear the same complaints about Austin-- it ain't what it was 30 years ago.
SF isn't all yuppie. It's actually a lot more laid back than Houston -- at least in my field, which is advertising, by the way.
There's no way around it -- it's expensive to pay rent here. The rest is manageable, though. You have to shift your priorities if you want to make it work. I pay as much in rent for a 900 square foot apartment as I did for my mortgage on a 3100 square foot house. But, I have eliminated about 2/3 of my monthly transportation expenses, which were nearly $1800 per month and my utilities are next to nothing now. Food and groceries can be less, when you live as the San Franciscans do. For all the press about corporate and yuppie plagues, there is a big "locavore" and farm-to-table/farmers market culture here, where people eat very well for cheap.
There are also nice places in Oakland, within a 20 minute train ride of The City that cost about $1000 per month less than I pay in rent. So, you make your priority list and find a place that suits it. As I stated, so far, SF is worth the premium charged. If my priorities shift, say, my wife got pregnant, or we wanted a house or a second car, we'd have to look at the East Bay or something.
One more thing-- the Sacramento commute is not as ridiculous as it may seem. Downtown Sacto and Downtown SF are about 90 minutes apart by car. By train or train/car combination, it's more like an hour and 45 minutes. And if a teacher had a gig in an east bay or north bay community, it would probably be an hour or less. There are people in Houston who commute an hour to work, so that's not all that unusual.
I got an offer to go to Sacto for a lot more money, but turned it down. I told my wife, if it was just about that lifestyle stuff I wrote about above, I might as well just stay in Houston. My dream wasn't to move to Sacramento.
I hear the same complaints about Austin-- it ain't what it was 30 years ago.
SF isn't all yuppie. It's actually a lot more laid back than Houston -- at least in my field, which is advertising, by the way.
There's no way around it -- it's expensive to pay rent here. The rest is manageable, though. You have to shift your priorities if you want to make it work. I pay as much in rent for a 900 square foot apartment as I did for my mortgage on a 3100 square foot house. But, I have eliminated about 2/3 of my monthly transportation expenses, which were nearly $1800 per month and my utilities are next to nothing now. Food and groceries can be less, when you live as the San Franciscans do. For all the press about corporate and yuppie plagues, there is a big "locavore" and farm-to-table/farmers market culture here, where people eat very well for cheap.
There are also nice places in Oakland, within a 20 minute train ride of The City that cost about $1000 per month less than I pay in rent. So, you make your priority list and find a place that suits it. As I stated, so far, SF is worth the premium charged. If my priorities shift, say, my wife got pregnant, or we wanted a house or a second car, we'd have to look at the East Bay or something.
One more thing-- the Sacramento commute is not as ridiculous as it may seem. Downtown Sacto and Downtown SF are about 90 minutes apart by car. By train or train/car combination, it's more like an hour and 45 minutes. And if a teacher had a gig in an east bay or north bay community, it would probably be an hour or less. There are people in Houston who commute an hour to work, so that's not all that unusual.
I got an offer to go to Sacto for a lot more money, but turned it down. I told my wife, if it was just about that lifestyle stuff I wrote about above, I might as well just stay in Houston. My dream wasn't to move to Sacramento.
I really appreciate this conversation. These types of number comparisons are fascinating but I want to dig deeper here. I am a little confused by what you mean by 1800 in monthly transportation expenses. Can you walk me through that. Gas prices in Houston are almost the lowest in the country. About 25% less then in CA. How the hell are you saving 1800 a month?
Second, I'm not going to ask you how much you make as that is personal, but I believe you pay 10% in state income taxes out there. So if you make 100k a year, that is an extra 10k a year in taxes alone!!!! That's almost 1k a month right there in added expense. I'm still not seeing where the savings are. As far as utilities go, my mother has a 3k sq foot home in the woodlands and her electric is about 250 a month. Sure, she is cheap and doesn't over use it, but she does run it every day. I'm still not sure I see how you are making the numbers work. I believe what you are saying, I just think the numbers you are giving for Houston are way high. Food and gas are cheap in texas along with no state income tax. I'm not sure how you make up the huge difference.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
1,066 posts, read 375,695 times
Reputation: 1032
Quote:
Originally Posted by jek74
I really appreciate this conversation. These types of number comparisons are fascinating but I want to dig deeper here. I am a little confused by what you mean by 1800 in monthly transportation expenses. Can you walk me through that. Gas prices in Houston are almost the lowest in the country. About 25% less then in CA. How the hell are you saving 1800 a month?
Second, I'm not going to ask you how much you make as that is personal, but I believe you pay 10% in state income taxes out there. So if you make 100k a year, that is an extra 10k a year in taxes alone!!!! That's almost 1k a month right there in added expense. I'm still not seeing where the savings are. As far as utilities go, my mother has a 3k sq foot home in the woodlands and her electric is about 250 a month. Sure, she is cheap and doesn't over use it, but she does run it every day. I'm still not sure I see how you are making the numbers work. I believe what you are saying, I just think the numbers you are giving for Houston are way high. Food and gas are cheap in texas along with no state income tax. I'm not sure how you make up the huge difference.
For the transportation costs, I was factoring in car payments, insurance, gas, tolls and maintenance on two cars. Remember, this was a lifestyle discussion, not a purely numbers one. In Houston, I felt, if not the need, then the desire, to drive a much fancier car than I do in SF. My wife needed one, too. Plus, I drove it 50 miles round trip to work on the tollway every day. I sold both of those cars when I moved to SF and now we share a single, compact car that we drive about 800 miles per month or less.
The utilities expenses I experienced we're what they were. I can't speak to what others pay. That's what ours cost. There were some cooler months when it was $120 or so, but in the depths of summer, it occasionally topped $400.
I think you are trying to analyze this from a purely financial standpoint. I have always said that a city like SF is a place one chooses with his heart as much as his head. I do live a bit more frugally here during the week, so i can splurge on the weekends. The taxes are what they are, though. I don't claim that it's not more expensive in SF, and I don't claim that savings realized in my change of lifestyle completely offset the higher costs. I simply say that it's not as insurmountable as some think and in the end, I have found it is worth it.
For the transportation costs, I was factoring in car payments, insurance, gas, tolls and maintenance on two cars. Remember, this was a lifestyle discussion, not a purely numbers one. In Houston, I felt, if not the need, then the desire, to drive a much fancier car than I do in SF. My wife needed one, too. Plus, I drove it 50 miles round trip to work on the tollway every day. I sold both of those cars when I moved to SF and now we share a single, compact car that we drive about 800 miles per month or less.
The utilities expenses I experienced we're what they were. I can't speak to what others pay. That's what ours cost. There were some cooler months when it was $120 or so, but in the depths of summer, it occasionally topped $400.
I think you are trying to analyze this from a purely financial standpoint. I have always said that a city like SF is a place one chooses with his heart as much as his head. I do live a bit more frugally here during the week, so i can splurge on the weekends. The taxes are what they are, though. I don't claim that it's not more expensive in SF, and I don't claim that savings realized in my change of lifestyle completely offset the higher costs. I simply say that it's not as insurmountable as some think and in the end, I have found it is worth it.
Damn. That is some car you must have owned. So basically I assume you lived in the boring suburbs since you commuted 25 miles each way. I'm surprised a creative guy like you chose to live in the burbs vs the city. You would have found it more stimulating. Saved a lot of money on gas and tolls as well. SF must seem like heaven compared to living in the suburbs of Houston. But obviously not an apples to apples comparison. I appreciate you taking the time to give me the numbers.
So affordable means ghetto? We're not talking section 8 public housing here. I live in an area now where most prices are 500-800 a month and this is not what you would call the ghetto. I'm pretty sure outsiders would label it that because it's alot of minorities here. But crime rate is real low, affordable safe area.
and HP has alot of potential just needs more infill that's all. I mean people already come to House of Blues, Lucky Strikes, Forever 21. I mean people do go to these places. They could just use some more businesses there.
$700 is unreaslistic and unreasonable consideringthe cost of land downtown. Even in midtown/Wahngton/Greenway/Uptown/etc. newer efficiencies go for over $1,000/month.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
1,066 posts, read 375,695 times
Reputation: 1032
Quote:
Originally Posted by jek74
Damn. That is some car you must have owned. So basically I assume you lived in the boring suburbs since you commuted 25 miles each way. I'm surprised a creative guy like you chose to live in the burbs vs the city. You would have found it more stimulating. Saved a lot of money on gas and tolls as well. SF must seem like heaven compared to living in the suburbs of Houston. But obviously not an apples to apples comparison. I appreciate you taking the time to give me the numbers.
In 20+ years I lived all over Houston. About 15 of those were spent in Montrose, The Heights and West End. So, yeah, I know the stimulation level of Houston.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
