A few words regarding cost of living and housing in San Francisco (San Jose: foreclosure, home)

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by sliverbox

Of course the overall "quality of life" is going to be a personal opinion. What I've heard from most here and on the streets is that there's usually two distinct classes of people: Those who've only lived in major cities ( Boston, NYC, LA, SF, Seattle, etc etc) and therefor tend to ONLY live in such cities and then there's those that have only lived in places that are more rural and less populated.

This is much to do with comfort zones and adaptation. I find that most city dwellers aren't really all that flexible when it comes to adapting to new environments. Admittedly as a 'country boy', it took me a good 2-3 years to get used to the hectic pace of living in a large metro. But I can assure you that most who live in cities wouldn't do as well if they were removed and thrown into the 'sticks'- away from all their sushi bars, fine eateries, and densely populated neighborhoods. When I hear the argument of how such-and-such city is the ONLY place a person could possibly live, it's usually because they don't want to ever experience anything different.

When I make the comments regarding quality of life, I'm talking about rudimentary things. How much personal space do you have? How much is the cost of living compared to wages? What is the traffic like? What are food and fuel prices? How much social strife is there? And so on. In that regard, just about any other area beats SF hands down by a huge margin. I am fully capable and willing to live just about anywhere. I enjoy cities, but I also love the country. If I had to choose, a hybrid of the two is ideal: A smaller metro with close approximation to lower density rural surroundings. These places are in my mind what makes living ideal and why many cities like NYC, SF, Boston and etc are having a difficult time retaining anyone over the age of 30.

Lastly, I'm not sure if concrete, steel, and packed little apartment complexes are what I'd call "Beautiful" Give me the Smokey Mountains or a quiet river. THAT's beauty...

Good post, even though I personally don't see things quite the same way. I'm neither a "city girl" nor a "country mouse," since I've lived in nearly every environment... 2 suburbs in Maryland, West Philadelphia, San Mateo, Eugene (OR), South Lake Tahoe, Stockton, Pacifica, East Palo Alto, Belmont, and San Francisco itself (for a total of about 2 years). So I've covered suburbs, rural/mountain, cities, safe, dangerous, east coast, west coast, torrential rain, snow, humidity, dry heat, fog, etc. etc. When all is said and done, I've learned a lot about priorities and what makes me happy... for now it's being near my loved ones, and experiencing the big city life. And no matter where I've lived in recent years, I've always called San Francisco/BA home, so that's probably where I should be for now. Who knows where I'll be in 10 years, but I'm not going to dwell on everything (like housing) in the meantime. Just my perspective, take it or leave it.

P.S. Everyone's opinions have been very interesting to read, and I think they are all equally valid... nobody is right or wrong in these issues, since it all comes down to personal preferences in the end. Right?

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by sliverbox

Secondly, I'd argue that city dwellers actually have less ability to travel due to incurred expenses.

Actually, I have to side with gellio on this one, since nearly everyone I know here is very well-traveled. As for myself, I've been to probably 20 foreign countries, and about 1/2 of the U.S. states... and I'm the least well-traveled member of my family by a mile! Big cities have more "transplants," so by definition and nature alone, we're guaranteed to have been more places. Unlike in smaller/rural communities, it's rare to meet somebody here who's never left the area - whereas when I lived in Oregon, that was a common thing. I took 2 friends from OR on a trip down here (to my mom's house), and it was their first time leaving Oregon, which seemed crazy to me.

[Mika>Kimi]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

Actually, I have to side with gellio on this one, since nearly everyone I know here is very well-traveled. As for myself, I've been to probably 20 foreign countries, and about 1/2 of the U.S. states... and I'm the least well-traveled member of my family by a mile! Big cities have more "transplants," so by definition and nature alone, we're guaranteed to have been more places. Unlike in smaller/rural communities, it's rare to meet somebody here who's never left the area - whereas when I lived in Oregon, that was a common thing. I took 2 friends from OR on a trip down here (to my mom's house), and it was their first time leaving Oregon, which seemed crazy to me.

I could not agree more. I have lived in different countries, and in both rural/city in those countries. And as a general rule, city people are more well-traveled. Cities always have a great number of transients whereas rural areas usually have a great number of people who have lived there for generations. In my experience, transient city dwellers have more of an "adventurous" spirit and love to expereince new places and cultures while rural inhabitants are often content to remain in their area. Not that one mindset is better than another--just different.

[sliverbox]

I could not agree more. I have lived in different countries, and in both rural/city in those countries. And as a general rule, city people are more well-traveled. Cities always have a great number of transients whereas rural areas usually have a great number of people who have lived there for generations.

This isn't exactly a black and white argument. As I mentioned, my parents who've never lived anywhere except East Tennessee have actually traveled quite a bit. They've been all over Europe, Canada, the US, and Mexico. The argument can easily be made that people who live in more rural and subsequently less costly areas have more disposable income; they will be retiring by the age of 55. They are by no means rich and have middle income wages.

Perhaps an alternative attitude could be made that since we live in an increasingly wired world, the advent of mass telecommuting could become more of a reality, further giving people the ability to work where they want but live where they want as well. Imagine if you could live in a beautiful picturesque mountain landscape and be working for a company in SF.

If this sort of working environment were to occur, it would alleviate the severe financial pressure in Metro areas.

Ultimately, I've lived here for almost 10 years. Me and my wife have already decided that despite making good wages and living frugally, we will be relocating within the next few years. We're not alone because most anyone I know has already left or getting ready to. What will happen if all the future brainpower leaves? Will SF become like FL with lots of rich old people?

[redwoodlvr]

Originally Posted by sliverbox

What will happen if all the future brainpower leaves? Will SF become like FL with lots of rich old people?

Yes, it's already happening.

And they'll be debating via space videoconferencing with other life forms about the benefits of living on earth.

It will be a much shorter thread than this one.

[sliverbox]

Yes, it's already happening.

And they'll be debating via space videoconferencing with other life forms about the benefits of living on earth.

It will be a much shorter thread than this one.

I suppose you won't be joining the rest of the think tanks then. At least you'll have all those redwoods to love.

Anyhow, why people who live here scold anyone who takes it upon themselves to make life improving choices is beyond me. Such as the attitude here.

Take the blinders off.

[redwoodlvr]

Originally Posted by sliverbox

I suppose you won't be joining the rest of the think tanks then. At least you'll have all those redwoods to love.

Anyhow, why people who live here scold anyone who takes it upon themselves to make life improving choices is beyond me. Such as the attitude here.

Take the blinders off.

Scolding? What you are you five years old then? That's your stuff sweetheart, not mine.

I could say the same to you dear sir or madam "take the blinders off". You obviously don't have a sense of humor and read between the lines too much.

I do not need to join the "think tank" thank you very much. That's the point. It really is very simple how to experience a "good life" and I will not waste my time trying to explain it to you that's for sure. You would not hear me. But nonetheless, I do wish you a great life. Carry on with your debating and enjoy.

The redwood lover.

[nicolegrumpybear]

I love this bulletin! I myself live in the East Bay Area. I would LOVE to live in the city. I am working on getting a good education just so I can spend that extra bit to live there.
It irritates me when people carp on The City as if it is the only expensive place in the whole world to live. Blah blah. The fact is that people would not pay so much if it was not worth it and peoples all over the world manage to live environments far more extreme, expensive, crowded, ect, ect...

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by redwoodlvr

Yes, it's already happening.

And they'll be debating via space videoconferencing with other life forms about the benefits of living on earth.

It will be a much shorter thread than this one.

Touche.

Sliverbox - luckily my job has nothing to do with San Francisco, and can already be done in any town ANYwhere (without telecommuting). But I get paid more for doing it here, and the scenery is better than Kansas.

[KT13]

Originally Posted by sliverbox

I suppose you won't be joining the rest of the think tanks then. At least you'll have all those redwoods to love.

Anyhow, why people who live here scold anyone who takes it upon themselves to make life improving choices is beyond me. Such as the attitude here.

Take the blinders off.

You are making a lot of assumptions here. Telling people to take their blinders off you are 'suggesting' that everyone living here is making a huge mistake.

Please trust that this place has lots of people who have been around and have seen and lived in many different places. Think that some of these people may have lived in some places you find to be the 'right choice' and decided otherwise. I am not going to say the cliche 'to each their own' anymore, there is a reason why people like places like SF and this reason is not because they are somehow brainwashed.

I am pretty much like you, I value financial independence and flexibility that it brings above all. I have moved and lived in the affordable places in the Sunbelt and the NE of the country. While I appreciated and continue to appreciate what these places gave me allowing me to save up and invest, it is all the 'means to the end' not the 'end'. I consider living there a 'sacrifice' of sorts. One of the purposes was that one day I will have enough to live comfortably in the places like SF, DC, or Seattle or Manhattan Beach without having to run the rat race. But the thought that I would have to stick around some of these places that are so affordable and assumed to be nice by many is depressing to me. It's not that I went there with this thought in mind, I gave these places a fair chance and I didn't have a bad quality of life there, it just made me realize better than ever that the places that I truly enjoy, well, happen to be very expensive and enjoyed by many others.

I am hardly the only person who thinks the same and for whom the affordable nice towns you so much revere are just the transition point to bigger and better things. If you are happy there, my best wishes are to you, you are lucky you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for the things you like and enjoy. Don't assume others will find the same level of happiness where you are and all it takes is for them to take their 'blinds' off.