Is San Francisco becoming Manhattan? (Cupertino: homes, best school districts, living in)

[415_s2k]

I never finished my degree, most likely never will, and am totally content with this - I do well for myself, and am on an upward trajectory. I had no problem dating women in SF the entire time I was there... charm, charisma, intelligence, wit, and character seem to mean a lot more to people who are worth getting to know than where you went to school.

There are certainly parallels between SF and Manhattan, but to an extent, they're the same things you'll see in any international, world-class city that attracts the best and brightest of any given industry - SF isn't cheap. London isn't cheap. NYC isn't cheap. Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Hong Kong: not cheap, at least not in the desirable, downtown cores. It doesn't really "make sense" to have a car in these cities for the average person, nor are they reasonable for the average person to start a family, because they are dense, cramped, and expensive. But, people come to these cities for the high salaries and opportunities, which in many cases aren't available in other, less-expensive areas. There was some yutz on the general CA forum who was going on and on about how he was leaving SV for Tampa to work in its booming, high-paying tech sector... don't think anyone was sure whether the guy was naive or just a moron.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by 415_s2k

I never finished my degree, most likely never will, and am totally content with this - I do well for myself, and am on an upward trajectory. I had no problem dating women in SF the entire time I was there... charm, charisma, intelligence, wit, and character seem to mean a lot more to people who are worth getting to know than where you went to school.

There are certainly parallels between SF and Manhattan, but to an extent, they're the same things you'll see in any international, world-class city that attracts the best and brightest of any given industry - SF isn't cheap. London isn't cheap. NYC isn't cheap. Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Hong Kong: not cheap, at least not in the desirable, downtown cores. It doesn't really "make sense" to have a car in these cities for the average person, nor are they reasonable for the average person to start a family, because they are dense, cramped, and expensive. But, people come to these cities for the high salaries and opportunities, which in many cases aren't available in other, less-expensive areas. There was some yutz on the general CA forum who was going on and on about how he was leaving SV for Tampa to work in its booming, high-paying tech sector... don't think anyone was sure whether the guy was naive or just a moron.

Get that man a chicken dinner.

[luau]

Originally Posted by clongirl

...You said in a recent post that you've been living here for more than 10yrs? Then in another you mention that you've been here only one year. Only a week ago you mention trying to move here on a certain income with preferably no roommates. I'm totally confused. I'm reading a lot of contradictions.

*(I hope I don't get banned for noticing inconsistencies). I just pick up on stuff.

I lived in South Bay for over 10 years, haven't been in SF that long. Where's the contradiction?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

What I am saying is, San Francisco cares less about that M5 and $150 sneakers than most any other city you will find. In fact, you will find that car a real liability in a neighborhood like Telegraph Hill. And with the amount of walking and crowded transit rides with people stepping on your shoes, you won't really like having those either.

The City seems less concerned with brands and outward status symbols than just about any major city I've ever seen. It certainly doesn't equate car ownership with being an adult.

I really have to disagree with this. While I don't think SF is say as flashy or flaunts wealth like other places such as LA, NYC, etc.. people here definitely love their name brands and are materialistic in a way. It's a very wealthy city and region and people love their high priced luxury items. Just look at all the pricey stores and boutiques all over the city and the region. I've seen SF make several lists for spending a lot on clothes, beauty, etc.. before so I just googled real quick to see what would pop up, SF is indeed materialistic compared to the national average:

What City
3. San Francisco, CA, The 10 Most Vain Cities

If anything, owning a car is somewhat frowned upon in the City.

Almost everyone I know that lives in SF owns a car. While SF does have a relatively high percentage of people that do not own cars compared to the national average, over 70% of residents own vehicles while it's the reverse in Manhattan. It seems to be mainly transplants that think Muni is a good enough system where you don't need a car.

Also I don't notice a shortage of luxury vehicles in SF, in the tonier neighborhoods you see plenty of BMW's, Mercedes, Lexus', etc..in places like Telegraph Hill, Pac Heights, etc.. A lot of buildings in SF have garages. A recent list I saw showed the top selling vehicles in the country's most expesnive zip codes, none of the zips are in the city of SF but a few Bay Area suburbs make the list and I don't think it would be that different in SF. Only Downtown Chicago didn't have any luxury brands.

Bestselling Cars in America’s Wealthiest Zip Codes | TrueCar Blog

Overall I feel there are a lot of other cities that are less materialistic than SF. People here may not be as flashy or overt about it but they definitely like to spend on luxury items and expensive clothes and cars.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by sav858

I really have to disagree with this. While I don't think SF is say as flashy or flaunts wealth like other places such as LA, NYC, etc.. people here definitely love their name brands and are materialistic in a way. It's a very wealthy city and region and people love their high priced luxury items. Just look at all the pricey stores and boutiques all over the city and the region. I've seen SF make several lists for spending a lot on clothes, beauty, etc.. before so I just googled real quick to see what would pop up, SF is indeed materialistic compared to the national average:

What City
3. San Francisco, CA, The 10 Most Vain Cities

Almost everyone I know that lives in SF owns a car. While SF does have a relatively high percentage of people that do not own cars compared to the national average, over 70% of residents own vehicles while it's the reverse in Manhattan. It seems to be mainly transplants that think Muni is a good enough system where you don't need a car.

Also I don't notice a shortage of luxury vehicles in SF, in the tonier neighborhoods you see plenty of BMW's, Mercedes, Lexus', etc..in places like Telegraph Hill, Pac Heights, etc.. A lot of buildings in SF have garages. A recent list I saw showed the top selling vehicles in the country's most expesnive zip codes, none of the zips are in the city of SF but a few Bay Area suburbs make the list and I don't think it would be that different in SF. Only Downtown Chicago didn't have any luxury brands.

Bestselling Cars in America’s Wealthiest Zip Codes | TrueCar Blog

Overall I feel there are a lot of other cities that are less materialistic than SF. People here may not be as flashy or overt about it but they definitely like to spend on luxury items and expensive clothes and cars.

Well, luau agrees with you. Coming from Houston and having traveled quite a bit, I have to say San Francisco is refreshingly reserved in this regard.

[luau]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

Well, luau agrees with you. Coming from Houston and having traveled quite a bit, I have to say San Francisco is refreshingly reserved in this regard.

maybe it's reserved partially because it's resident's simply can't afford those nice clothes or cars anymore now that it's all gone to their rent lol.

[dalparadise]

Hopeless.

[expect]

to hell with paying manhattan money on rent and not living in manhattan. sf and most of the bay area rents are f'ing insane.
cupertino 1650 for 585 sq feet. CUPERTINO.

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by luau

I was just saying that SF seems to be becoming like Manhattan in that rent is insanely high for the square footage. It's sad that I can basically eat whatever I want whenever I want, wear $150 sneakers, and drive and M5 but can't put a decent roof over my head. And in case you're saying - you can afford a decent place if you didn't drive that car, no:

1. It's a used '06
2. How am i going to be an adult and not have a car?
3. If I were to get a car half the price I still don't believe in spending a ridiculous proportion of my income on rent.

Oh my. I haven't read through the whole thread yet, but the bolded comment is certain to rile people up. That's a slap in the face for the many adults who live in SF without a car. And ditto the folks in Manhattan who live without a car if we're equating the two in this regard. Many of us managed to live just fine in those places without a car.

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by marilyn220

The difference between SF and NYC is that the landlords in NYC UPGRADE their apartments to justify the high cost of rent. In many instances you get new appliances, floors, etc., whereas in SF, the landlords do NOT upgrade their ratty, roach and mice infested apartments, but can STILL get thousands of dollars for it.

Sorry, but even if I had the money, NO WAY would I spend $3,000 for 1930s appliances and chipped ceilings.

Uh, marilyn, SF isn't NYC with regards to rats, roaches and mice. Not remotely close.