Where do San Franciscans move away to? (Los Angeles, San Diego: appointed, transplants)

[shavos]

I've started thinking about the probability that, someday, I may need to leave San Francisco.

I'm in my mid twenties, live and work in the city. I love it here and it's going to be great for the next few years. In the future, though, I'm going to want to start a family, and I'm not sure this is where I should do it. Buying a house may not be realistic for me, especially one big enough for 3-5 kids. My financial situation is good, but I don't foresee myself becoming a millionaire (or marrying one... my boyfriend is amazing, but he's an academic).

What are some other cities people who like San Francisco could move to and find some of things they like about living here? I know Portland and Eugene are popular destinations. Probably Austin as well. New York, though probably not if you want a family. A lot of people seem to stay in the greater Bay Area, which is also fair game.

Here's a quick list of areas of comparison I've been thinking about, in case anyone is going through the same mental checklist as me:

Weather San Francisco is sunny and moderate, with rainy winters and a cool spring/ summer. I wouldn't mind having seasons, but please no summers like in Washington, DC!

Size and density The density here is a big plus. It's small enough to walk/ bike many places and significantly more concentrated than a place like Austin.

Transit Transit is disappointing, which is why so many people ride their bikes. Yet, in my imaginary future life with 3-5 children, I would be driving them anyway...

Cost Rent and real estate here is ridonculous. Ri-don-cu-lous. Primary reason people move away.

Coffee, food and drink One of the best things about living here - we love our coffee and farm-fresh produce and we have tons of delicious restaurants.

Education and diversity You meet a lot of smart, accomplished people. Always good to have.

[dalparadise]

Weather, density, transit and food are all going to take a major dive with a move to Austin. Austin is nice, don't get me wrong, but people who move there as a poor man's San Francisco are usually disappointed. If you like it for what it is, it's a great place. It's no SF, though. Not by a long shot.

[ccm123]

My friends that have left SF, have basically left for these destinations:

Seattle, WA
RTP, North Carolina
Northern Virginia
Austin, TX
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Chicago, IL
Boston, MA

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by shavos

I've started thinking about the probability that, someday, I may need to leave San Francisco.

I'm in my mid twenties, live and work in the city. I love it here and it's going to be great for the next few years. In the future, though, I'm going to want to start a family, and I'm not sure this is where I should do it. Buying a house may not be realistic for me, especially one big enough for 3-5 kids. My financial situation is good, but I don't foresee myself becoming a millionaire (or marrying one... my boyfriend is amazing, but he's an academic).

What are some other cities people who like San Francisco could move to and find some of things they like about living here? I know Portland and Eugene are popular destinations. Probably Austin as well. New York, though probably not if you want a family. A lot of people seem to stay in the greater Bay Area, which is also fair game.

Here's a quick list of areas of comparison I've been thinking about, in case anyone is going through the same mental checklist as me:

Weather San Francisco is sunny and moderate, with rainy winters and a cool spring/ summer. I wouldn't mind having seasons, but please no summers like in Washington, DC!

Size and density The density here is a big plus. It's small enough to walk/ bike many places and significantly more concentrated than a place like Austin.

Transit Transit is disappointing, which is why so many people ride their bikes. Yet, in my imaginary future life with 3-5 children, I would be driving them anyway...

Cost Rent and real estate here is ridonculous. Ri-don-cu-lous. Primary reason people move away.

Coffee, food and drink One of the best things about living here - we love our coffee and farm-fresh produce and we have tons of delicious restaurants.

Education and diversity You meet a lot of smart, accomplished people. Always good to have.

TBH you almost sound like you're describing Oakland except that the transit is worse than SF and the schools are hit and miss. Other than that, everything else applies and you're still next to SF.

[bmw335xi]

I'd recommend Seattle

[bentobox34]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

TBH you almost sound like you're describing Oakland except that the transit is worse than SF and the schools are hit and miss. Other than that, everything else applies and you're still next to SF.

On average, Oakland's schools may be worse. However, as far as I understand it, Oakland has a simple neighborhood school system (ie if you live in the neighborhood served by the school, that's where your kid goes). SF has a complicated system for assigning kids to schools all over the city, so no matter where you live, you have no idea where your kid will be going. That puts Oakland above SF in my book, assuming you have the $$$ to live in one of the good districts.

All that being said, the OP said she is "not a millionaire" and depending on what that means, I'm not even sure if Oakland is within reach if you want A) good schools and B) enough housing for 3-5 children. The safe parts of the city are not exactly cheap right now. For example, I recently saw a four bedroom house a few blocks from me in Cleveland Heights on the market for $800,000.

I've been struggling with the same question recently - with only one kid, I wonder if I can even stay in Oakland for the long haul, much less SF.

As far as other metro areas go, if you want anything at all similar to the weather, culture, and food/coffee culture of the Bay Area, the only direction to go is up I-5 to Oregon and Washington. If you can flex on these things, you could think about some low-cost cities in the Midwest like: Madison (People call it "Berkeley of the Midwest", GREAT coffeehouse culture, plenty of smart people, really into their local farms, HORRIBLE weather), Chicago (Better density and transit than SF, not as diverse and vibrant however), Pittsburgh, Minneapolis (Never been to either of those, but I always hear good things about them). Also, maybe check out Philadelphia - the "sixth borough," currently a popular low-cost alternative to NYC. OK transit system that is about on par with SF, lost of density, an Ivy League school so lots of smart people, cheap and quick bus access to Manhattan.

[Isebiel]

Madison, WI or Portland, OR would be my choices. I think Madison is nicer, but yeah, the weather is kind of brutal.

[Bayarea4]

Portland gets my vote (if you can find a job that is). It's a very hip city, extremely walkable and bike-able, and if you can tolerate all the fog down here, you can probably get used to the rain and gray skies up there.

[shavos]

Originally Posted by bentobox34

I'm not even sure if Oakland is within reach if you want A) good schools and B) enough housing for 3-5 children. The safe parts of the city are not exactly cheap right now. For example, I recently saw a four bedroom house a few blocks from me in Cleveland Heights on the market for $800,000.

That's been my calculus as well - Oakland may be cheap for young people who want to be the first wave of gentrification, but looking for a nice house in a safe neighborhood... well, still cheaper than San Francisco, but a long ways from being affordable. Two other possibilities in the Bay Area might be San Mateo and Redwood City.

In a lot of ways I think a medium-sized East Coast city could be my final destination, except that I've never liked sticky East Coast summers. Living here has spoiled me in that regard.

I'm also looking up north, to Eugene, Portland and perhaps Seattle. Less sunny than San Francisco, but similar in other ways.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by bentobox34

On average, Oakland's schools may be worse. However, as far as I understand it, Oakland has a simple neighborhood school system (ie if you live in the neighborhood served by the school, that's where your kid goes). SF has a complicated system for assigning kids to schools all over the city, so no matter where you live, you have no idea where your kid will be going. That puts Oakland above SF in my book, assuming you have the $$$ to live in one of the good districts.

All that being said, the OP said she is "not a millionaire" and depending on what that means, I'm not even sure if Oakland is within reach if you want A) good schools and B) enough housing for 3-5 children. The safe parts of the city are not exactly cheap right now. For example, I recently saw a four bedroom house a few blocks from me in Cleveland Heights on the market for $800,000.

I've been struggling with the same question recently - with only one kid, I wonder if I can even stay in Oakland for the long haul, much less SF.

As far as other metro areas go, if you want anything at all similar to the weather, culture, and food/coffee culture of the Bay Area, the only direction to go is up I-5 to Oregon and Washington. If you can flex on these things, you could think about some low-cost cities in the Midwest like: Madison (People call it "Berkeley of the Midwest", GREAT coffeehouse culture, plenty of smart people, really into their local farms, HORRIBLE weather), Chicago (Better density and transit than SF, not as diverse and vibrant however), Pittsburgh, Minneapolis (Never been to either of those, but I always hear good things about them). Also, maybe check out Philadelphia - the "sixth borough," currently a popular low-cost alternative to NYC. OK transit system that is about on par with SF, lost of density, an Ivy League school so lots of smart people, cheap and quick bus access to Manhattan.

It depends on what "safe" means to you. Frankly, a lot of Oakland gets written off by many as unsafe simply because there's not enough people around who look just like them for their comfort zone... often it has very little to do with the actual level of danger. To put a face to what I'm talking about, why is it that neighborhoods like Golden Gate and Bushrod in North Oakland are seeing a wealthier population move in in spite of the fact that both neighborhoods are at the heart of a gang injunction and an ongoing turf war while neighborhoods like the Eastmont Hills and Toler Heights in East Oakland - solidly middle class, close to BART, great weather, easy access to 580 and 880, very affordable - are all but ignored? One would think that gentrification would occur in areas that already have a population with enough capital to be able to support more upscale commodities... instead, gentrification is largely happening in what were very recently some of the poorest and most violent Oakland neighborhoods.

In my mind, the answer is depressingly simple... in this city - and really, in this country - private investment only follows when certain groups move in regardless of their income. Looking at a now-gentrifying area like Jingletown, what was once a working class area where poor artists had begun to move to because of the cheap warehouse space has turned into a hotspot for condominiums. The income of the area did not noticeably change when the artists poured in... the only statistic that changed was the racial demography. In this country, there is apparently a racial tipping point for when the image of an area changes... after an area becomes more than a quarter white, any other negative connotations associated with the area are not reinforced as strongly. Is it a coincidence that West Oakland is now seen very differently than it was 15-20 years ago despite that the issues have not changed? For that matter, is it a coincidence that Oakland is now seen as somewhere in the wake of the influx of largely-white San Francisco transplants when 15 years ago many of these same people had never even been there? I doubt it.

My point is that there are actually a ton of areas in Oakland that are both affordable and not dangerous... and yet there are only a couple of areas in Oakland seeing an increase in private investment and their property values. Can you guess what they all have in common?