Is San Francisco the only city to have completely priced out its middle/working class? (Novato: transplants, rent)

[Clampdown69]

Seems to me that although SF has some areas for the poor (the SRO clusters in the TL, plus 16th & Mission and 6th street in SoMA) but it seems to have completely priced out its middle class. Some of the Asian immigrant families may be middle class in income but they have more residential spending power than other Americans because they don't have our cultural aversion to living multi-generationally (it is not that hard for 4 people making $500 per week to pay $3500 in rent).

Are there any areas that you can identify as places where the majority of residents are natives of San Francisco (not transplants or foreign immigrants) who are not white collar professionals or poor and beneficiaries of assistance. Even other cities that are mega pricey with a large transplant/hipster presence and many immigrants have at least a few of these neighborhoods (Boston has Charlestown, West Roxbury, certain parts of Dorchester. New York has the SW Corner of Brooklyn as well as all the predominantly Jewish areas, about 1/3 of Queens, Riverdale and City Island in the Bronx, and pretty much all of Staten Island except for some Mansions on Todt Hill and a handful of housing projects. Manhattan is the only borough without any areas that are mostly middle class or working class native NYers). I read something that says more SF city workers and law enforcement officers (mostly middle class professions) live in the suburbs of Novato and Martinez than they do it in the city.

Also is it true that SF is the "city without children?" As in it is very rare to see a family with kids living there? All cities have seen declining school enrollments but it seems that besides the children of newcomers to the USA, the city of San Francisco is devoid of children or at least very close to being that way. That's very saddening for me to hear, because there is a certain kind of civic pride that only comes from being born and raised somewhere. And if no one raises kids in SF, it will lose that.

How many of you are natives? How old are you? How many natives do you know that live in the city? How many of them are under 30?

I'm not trying to be insulting. I think SF looks beautiful, and a couple of months ago I did a job (I do home renovations for a living) for an old lady to make her house more wheelchair accessible and I spent half the time listening to her telling me about the 10 years (1964-74) that she lived in the North Beach area of SF and it sounded like a dream. I am really just curious so don't jump on me please.

[rah]

No offense, but what you "know" about SF is entirely comprised of silly stereotypes.

Originally Posted by Clampdown69

Seems to me that although SF has some areas for the poor (the SRO clusters in the TL, plus 16th & Mission and 6th street in SoMA) but it seems to have completely priced out its middle class.

Except it hasn't... the middle class is the single largest group in SF. From the lower-middle, to the "middle-middle" to the upper-middle class, that's the group most SF residents are part of. Most of us in SF sure aren't wealthy or impoverished (though many of us are). Look up some census income stats, and keep SF's high cost of living and high wages in mind, and you'll see this is true. The middle class has been shrinking over the decades as gentrification spreads, but as a lifelong SF resident, I assure you that it's still here.

SF has more poor areas than those too, by the way.

Originally Posted by Clampdown69

Also is it true that SF is the "city without children?" As in it is very rare to see a family with kids living there? All cities have seen declining school enrollments but it seems that besides the children of newcomers to the USA, the city of San Francisco is devoid of children or at least very close to being that way.

LOL

SF has around 100,000 children (not much lower than in 2000, 1990, or 1980). It is not "devoid" of children, not even remotely close. The touristy/trendy areas that are in the northeastern quarter of the city are ultra expensive though, and because of that do have a relatively/noticeably smaller amount of kids than one might expect (the exception being the relatively cheap tenderloin and chinatown, which are full of kids). If you go to the cheaper and less-visited neighborhoods in the more southern and western parts of SF there are a lot more kids overall.

Originally Posted by Clampdown69

How many of you are natives? How old are you? How many natives do you know that live in the city? How many of them are under 30?

I'm a native in my late 20s. The majority of my friends are natives and are under 30 too, and maybe half of them live in SF now. When it come to acquaintances though? Easily 90% of them are transplants.

[Clampdown69]

I don't know anything but what I've read, so that's why I asked a question! People can't learn if they don't ask and they can't ask if you give then snark.

Other than that, thanks for your answer.

And for me, middle class/blue collar is about more than income its almost a cultural thing.

A cop and a union electrician might make more than an entry level computer guy but they are still culturally middle class. It's more of a mindset IMO.


Also, did you attend SF public schools? How were they? I imagine them being of a higher quality than other urban schools...I might be wrong though

[bmw335xi]

Virtually every first world major urban city when it comes to housing is unaffordable think about london, tokyo, hong kong, berlin, rome, seoul etc

[Clampdown69]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Virtually every first world major urban city when it comes to housing is unaffordable think about london, tokyo, hong kong, berlin, rome, seoul etc

Unaffordable is relative though, a working class persons average salary is higher in the city than out in BME so there are usually some area where they can afford to live.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by Clampdown69

Unaffordable is relative though, a working class persons average salary is higher in the city than out in BME so there are usually some area where they can afford to live.

You can afford to live anywhere, dude. If you can't afford a dwelling of a certain size you go smaller. Minimum wage earners like myself typically share housing. I pay $300 for a living room in the south bay.

And yes it is the same in other major cities. Most people in London live in "flats" not single family homes, because London has been there for thousands of years, and a SFH there is expensive at this point. Supply and demand. A lot of people live there and a lot want to live in the same desirable areas so it is expensive.

[Clampdown69]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

You can afford to live anywhere, dude. If you can't afford a dwelling of a certain size you go smaller. Minimum wage earners like myself typically share housing. I pay $300 for a living room in the south bay.

And yes it is the same in other major cities. Most people in London live in "flats" not single family homes, because London has been there for thousands of years, and a SFH there is expensive at this point. Supply and demand. A lot of people live there and a lot want to live in the same desirable areas so it is expensive.

That may be true. But a family can't rent a room and the majority of Londoners actually do live in single family attached homes and many working class people can get rent subsidies only available to the dirt poor here in America. Off topic though.


Can Joe the electrician, Tammy his dental hygienist wife and his son and daughter afford to live anywhere in the city and county of San Francisco, if so where?

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by Clampdown69

That may be true. But a family can't rent a room and the majority of Londoners actually do live in single family attached homes and many working class people can get rent subsidies only available to the dirt poor here in America. Off topic though.


Can Joe the electrician, Tammy his dental hygienist wife and his son and daughter afford to live anywhere in the city and county of San Francisco, if so where?

My GF lived in an 800 square feet condo in Hong Kong, family of 5 and that isn't unusual there. Americans are just spoiled to be honest.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by Clampdown69

That may be true. But a family can't rent a room and the majority of Londoners actually do live in single family attached homes and many working class people can get rent subsidies only available to the dirt poor here in America. Off topic though.


Can Joe the electrician, Tammy his dental hygienist wife and his son and daughter afford to live anywhere in the city and county of San Francisco, if so where?

Portola, Excelsior, Oceanview, Silver Terrace, and then a step lower would be the Bayview/Hunter's Point or Visitacion Valley.

[Clampdown69]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

My GF lived in an 800 square feet condo in Hong Kong, family of 5 and that isn't unusual there. Americans are just spoiled to be honest.

We aren't talking about Hong Kong, urban Americans do live in smaller dwellings but this isn't 1914 on the lower east side..2 kids of different genders need a 3 bedroom

Let's say he makes $75k and she makes $35k, that's $110k pre tax is that live able for a 3 bed?