Does the Bay Area have the worst "rat race" vibe after the East Coast? (San Francisco: apartments, mobile home)

[NewbiePoster]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

CEOs at 25, millionaires by 28. $120K is the new $50K in SF. Lawyer or accountant, teacher or police officer? Nobody cares. Selling a company as a college drop out? Everything.

People are so SO competitive and ambitious here, like nothing I've ever seen outside of the Northeast. Why? Because you cannot just coast in your job here, as you're always disposable and replaceable. Competition is fierce as is the cost of living.

I've never been around so many people that are so obsessed with money and success (it's not necessarily a bad thing) and yet it's fascinating because they market themselves as these work-to-live granola liberals (I'm liberal, just to clarify). I think SF is becoming more and more like NYC in its mentality, especially with all the Northeasterners who move here.

Thoughts?

This was the Seattle area in the 80's and 90's. Microsofties selling their company shares and retiring in their 30's, and starting their own charitable foundations off the proceeds.

I wouldn't say it's competitive and ambitious overall, though. It depends on your field. If you're stressed out, downshift to a more mellow field or job. Money's not worth stressing out over, and risking your health long term.

[UAE50]

Originally Posted by dmode

No, that's incorrect. Even the entire state of New York doesn't have 100 billionaires. It has only 88, compared to 111 in CA. Read Forbes analysis here: California Leads All States (And All But 2 Countries) With 111 Billionaires - Forbes

And I was referring to NY metro area population for an apples to apples MSA comparison with Bay Area

No, it's not incorrect. It just comes from a different source. Forbes isn't the only publication that ranks billionaires, Bloomberg and UBS ranks too (which is what CNN used). Here's another more recent major one which has Manhattan at 91 billionaires:

http://www.hurun.net/en/ArticleShow.aspx?nid=9607

Also, the NYC metro area has 107 billionaires according to your link. You only counted the city and left off the suburbs.

You also used CSA, not MSA since 70% of Bay Area's billionaires live in Silicon Valley, not the SF MSA.

Silicon Valley's and the San Francisco Bay Area's 56 billionaires listed by city - Silicon Valley Business Journal

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Compared to Seattle and SoCal, yes the Bay Area is a rat race. Compared to DC/NYC/Bos, haha no way.

Well at least the reward for rate race in norhteast is high standard of living and owning a house that does not look like tiny ugly shack-

[NewbiePoster]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

Well at least the reward for rate race in norhteast is high standard of living and owning a house that does not look like tiny ugly shack-

Dude, you bought the wrong house, or picked the wrong neighborhood! lol! Bay Area architecture is my fave in the US. It's one thing that contributes to the beauty of the area.

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by NewbiePoster

Dude, you bought the wrong house, or picked the wrong neighborhood! lol! Bay Area architecture is my fave in the US. It's one thing that contributes to the beauty of the area.

LOL.. Please don't use bay area (or CA) and architecture in the same sentence... SF is exception but the rest of bay area is UGLY when it comes to housing. The tiny suburban tract houses with little yards all over San Mateo and Santa Clara county are about as ugly as it can get. Sure there are pockets of wealthy areas with few mansions but even they are not very impressive compared to wealthy parts of just about any other cities.

No one will question the natural beauty of bay area but apart from that everything man-made is a disaster!

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

LOL.. Please don't use bay area (or CA) and architecture in the same sentence... SF is exception but the rest of bay area is UGLY when it comes to housing. The tiny suburban tract houses with little yards all over San Mateo and Santa Clara county are about as ugly as it can get. Sure there are pockets of wealthy areas with few mansions but even they are not very impressive compared to wealthy parts of just about any other cities.

No one will question the natural beauty of bay area but apart from that everything man-made is a disaster!

It depends on where you look, andy. Berkeley is gorgeous, and has homes by renowned architects, like Maybeck and Julia Morgan. The neighborhoods are a pleasure to walk through, a thrill, even, especially where there's a view of the Bay. Oakland has some beautiful neighborhoods, too. And the north Bay has some gems, like Mill Valley and Fairfax, with a variety of traditional architecture. Palo Alto is breathtaking, and Menlo Park is nice, too. And beautiful architecture isn't about mansions. I'm not sure why you'd conflate the two.

So, tell us, when were you going to move out of the area or state that you hate?

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

LOL.. Please don't use bay area (or CA) and architecture in the same sentence... SF is exception but the rest of bay area is UGLY when it comes to housing. The tiny suburban tract houses with little yards all over San Mateo and Santa Clara county are about as ugly as it can get. Sure there are pockets of wealthy areas with few mansions but even they are not very impressive compared to wealthy parts of just about any other cities.

No one will question the natural beauty of bay area but apart from that everything man-made is a disaster!

I agree with you, even the Victorian architecture in San Francisco is quite ugly in my eyes, especially because most of the buildings look like they need a new pain job. When you drive around the Bay Area, most of those houses could be found in the slums of many cities, yet they START at $500k to purchase here. The natural beauty of the area like you said is gorgeous, but the architecture if you call it that is horrendous besides a few areas, especially when it comes to homes.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

I agree with you, even the Victorian architecture in San Francisco is quite ugly in my eyes, especially because most of the buildings look like they need a new pain job. When you drive around the Bay Area, most of those houses could be found in the slums of many cities, yet they START at $500k to purchase here. The natural beauty of the area like you said is gorgeous, but the architecture if you call it that is horrendous besides a few areas, especially when it comes to homes.

The kind of shape the Victorians are in depends a lot on the neighborhood. A lot of those Victorians are painted to show off, to be photographed. Some just have basic paintjobs (multi-color jobs are more expensive to maintain), and some are neglected. It's a mixed bag, as in any city.

[cardinal2007]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

LOL.. Please don't use bay area (or CA) and architecture in the same sentence... SF is exception but the rest of bay area is UGLY when it comes to housing. The tiny suburban tract houses with little yards all over San Mateo and Santa Clara county are about as ugly as it can get. Sure there are pockets of wealthy areas with few mansions but even they are not very impressive compared to wealthy parts of just about any other cities.

No one will question the natural beauty of bay area but apart from that everything man-made is a disaster!

I disagree with this, I am like many of the neighborhoods nearby to where I live, especially the Arts and Crafts style homes (Craftsman), and some of the Spanish Colonial Revival style homes here in San Jose, the Victorians and Edwardians are okay, and some of them look good, but most of them are pretty small and not really that interesting, and have kind of boring color schemes.

I'm actually not that big a fan of the look and feel of houses out in the East coast where I grew up. A lot of split level, a lot aluminum siding, more vinyl siding these days, fancier neighborhoods with the brick veneer, kind of eh.

[cardinal2007]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

I agree with you, even the Victorian architecture in San Francisco is quite ugly in my eyes, especially because most of the buildings look like they need a new pain job. When you drive around the Bay Area, most of those houses could be found in the slums of many cities, yet they START at $500k to purchase here. The natural beauty of the area like you said is gorgeous, but the architecture if you call it that is horrendous besides a few areas, especially when it comes to homes.

I'm not sure about SF, I'm sure everything is extremely expensive there, but yeah, Victorian vary in quality, and it is not just based on the neighborhood, the areas to the north and south of where I live are probably both considered up and coming areas, which have a lot of Victorians, and the paint jobs and overall look vary from property to property. You can buy one of the ugly ones of about $500k, but it probably needs at least 60k in work just to have some semblance of livability. I have seem some upgraded ones on the market for over $1M.