Is S.F. Really Worth The Cost? C'mon -- Really? (San Francisco: mortgage, real estate)

[gizmo980]

Okay, I just checked the BART website (www.bart.gov), and I was wrong about the fare... it would be around $12-14 round trip, so you were closer on the monthly total. I still think you should find out about reimbursement, because a lot of employers here do that - especially if it's a government job, like mine. They try to encourage us to carpool & use public transit, since our roads are so darned crowded. Now if they'd only extend BART down the Peninsula, that would REALLY ease the traffic... but I'll save that rant for another time.

[PNH]

I just checked this thread for the first time today, and I'm surprised at the amount of emotion people have around this issue! My family has lived in the Bay Area since the late 1800's, and we often joke that it is a hard place to move away from. I know not everyone's experience is the same here, but I can't think of anywhere else I can live where I can go for a walk outside almost every day of the year, can ski in the winter and go to the beach in the summer, eat in a wide variety of ethnic restaurants and shop in ethnic grocery stores within a ten minute drive, let my kids walk to school, be anything from a green party member to a libertarian without anyone batting an eye, eat only local organic produce if I so choose, be a member of any religion or no religion at all, never have to shovel snow or have air conditioning, be within an hour's drive of at least eight major universities, garden year-round, etc. etc. etc.--except California, or maybe Seattle.

I was discussing "quality of life" with a friend of mine who is considering moving to the Sacramento area in order to have a larger house with a smaller house payment. My question was, what is quality of life, anyway? Is it having a big house with a small mortgage, or is it living in someplace that is so beautiful, temperate, and interesting that you don't have to spend much time in your house anyway? I guess I know how I answer the question, but I know that many other people would answer the opposite.

[pwright1]

Is S.F. really worth the cost. You bet it is. It is the most beautiful city in N.A. imho. Who cares about real estate prices. I would rent and be happy. It has what I like, scenic beauty, fantastic public transportation, cosmopolitan flair, sophistication, great parks, the ocean at your feet, great restaurants, nightlife, a downtown shoppers paradise, great people, wine country, great jazz, few bugs, no oppressive heat & humidity, very tolerable winters, very walkable, flowers year around. It's my kind of city. I also noticed on these boards so many people are looking for life in the so-called safe suburbs of just about every major city. Stonesbridge Estates, Cantebury at Maplewood, The Woodlands, Broadview at Lakeridge, Sunset Hills at Town Center East on Peter Pan Way, LOL!! Give me the heart of San Francisco anyday.

[aka_mouse]

Originally Posted by osjo73

LOL...akamouse hilarious!

Seriously tho, I love Buffalo to death (those prices were fo teh GHETTO... but If I had to or wanted I wouldnt Id live there.. If I could go back and buy that $900 house, I would, neighborhood problems and all)... Im also pretty sure Id like the Bay area too - Even if it got all gritty and cheaper like Upstate NY cities which it may be trending that way... There does need to be a reduction of population out there. My family has some history there [Richmond-Pinole] , Id love the climate.

I just think there is this fake American dream thats completely permeated peoples heads to the point of stupidity. Succeeding, or being able to succeed, having a good quality of life is the real american dream (its dying out, IMO). Not some cheap and shoddy single family home with 2 cars inthe garage (mcMansion) thrown up overnight in some far flung burb or exurb with an outrageous price tag. Rent vs. own? Unless you pay the full price in cash, you dont own ****. Ignore one of those mortgage bills that comes everymonth and find out.. OR hey, if you do pay in full , skip paying your taxes and learn the same lesson.

All this talk about cities and COL is largely illusion, just numbers or ideas. If you want to live in Manhatten, OF COURSE you arnt going to live in a single family home with a yard and white picket fence... It doesnt exist there.Maybe you can own a condo or an apartment, but thats it. Most average people arnt going to be able to buy a whole plot of land (building). You probably arn't even going to be able to own a car even if you wanted to cause its completely impractical. You rent and you take public transportation. ****ing RICH people do that in Manhatten. If you want a HOUSE .. then enjoy your 2 hour commute from LI or NJ or CT or wherever (or rent one). That doesnt mean the quality of life diminishes... its just not how things are done there. If youre not cool with that - DONT LIVE THERE. The people who get frustrated are the people who are stubborn and have these unrealistic expectations of what thier life is supposed to look like. I have friends who make $20-$30k a year here and own thier own homes in Buffalo. I know guys who make $75k a year and do that in Charlotte NC (where costs are rising rapidly)... whats the difference? you make a $125k+ a year and you can do that in expensive places in CA.

tho California, IMO, is a specific case.. the prices out there (and many other metro areas) are way outta whack with incomes... its not gonna last. Desirable places are expensive ... CA currently is so expensive no one (other than the truely RICH - they dont need financing) can buy anything without exotic financing. Everythings gonna come crashing back down to earth, back down to reallity. e.g. Median income is $50k median house price will be $150k. (in Buffalo its ~$20k income - ~$60k house SURPRISE ..and all variations on that.. who cares?) That old conservative banking standard comes up over and over again - Price is 3x annual income..Its cause everyone has to live somewhere. I can live in the best place inthe country - If I decide to rent my closet out for a million dollars a month its gonna sit empty. In a 'hot' desirable area it might be 6X ... $50k income - $300k house. A bit more a stretch, but its a place youd want to live in. Anything more is just fantasy and playing with numbers. And its going to hurt us in the long run when its over.

[gizmo980]

Good post, AKA Mouse, and I really agree with most of it... just ask my friends who "own" their homes, and frequently complain about the cost of mortgages, taxes, upkeep, etc. Heck, my mother just sold her home based on these issues, and she's - well, let's just say that money is NOT a problem for her. But even for someone like her, who can afford all those things, she chooses not to deal with it anymore... she's moving into a townhouse instead (in the same area), which she'll basically be paying cash for. Anyway, just wanted to say that you made some good points!

Oh, and not to pick on Buffalo, but I actually heard a comedian making fun of it last night. It was Louis CK (hilarious guy!!) on a TV comedy special, and he joked about how people in "places like Buffalo" just look depressed... standing in front of their homes with a sad look on their faces, like "Help! This place sucks!"

[mr2007]

Originally Posted by PNH

I was discussing "quality of life" with a friend of mine who is considering moving to the Sacramento area in order to have a larger house with a smaller house payment. My question was, what is quality of life, anyway? Is it having a big house with a small mortgage, or is it living in someplace that is so beautiful, temperate, and interesting that you don't have to spend much time in your house anyway? I guess I know how I answer the question, but I know that many other people would answer the opposite.

I actually appreciate the emotion and the thoughtful commentary. Some folks digressed into a few issues that I wasn't particularly concerned about, but I still appreciated the insight.

I guess the way I look at it is that I would rather live in an area with a less extreme COL and less cost prohibitive, then take the disposable income I have retained to travel to the more dynamic, dare I say exotic areas of the U.S. and the rest of the world. There was a time in the history of our nation that once you moved away from your parents home (and particularly if you moved from the east to the far west coast), you may never see your family again - ever. You may never even cross back over the Mississippi River or perhaps even leave your state during that era in U.S. history.

However, seeing that we have advanced well beyond that stage in the history of modern mankind in Western civilization - given that air travel is no longer a luxury only for the uber rich and automobile ownership is the norm in most areas -- I don't feel as compelled to live in an area that absolutely satisfies every whim I could ever hope to indulge.

I live in Michigan. But if I want to gamble, I can hop a flight to Vegas no problem. If I want to catch a Broadway show, I can buy tickets online and fly to New York. If I want good Barbeque, I can fly to Memphis and catch a cab to Beale Street. If I want to have some sun and fun, I can fly to Miami and stay in one of the Art Deco hotels on South Beach. If I want to experience a great international city, I can fly to Toronto, Ontario in less than one hour. If I want to have a great time abroad, I can fly to Amsterdam or Tokyo without much fanfare. And if I want to visit a beautiful west coast city with some of the best dining and leisure experiences in the world, I can -- yes, you guessed it -- fly to San Francisco. And guess what -- I have done all of those things.

Perhaps growing up in small towns in upstate New York and Michigan, I have grown accustomed to not needing vibrance and excitement and EXTERNAL stimulation at every single turn just to be happy with my life. I guess I have found that you can read a book anywhere. You can volunteer to help the needy anywhere. You can go to the gym and work out anywhere. My point is that living in the United States, we all have communities that we can become involved in or be stimulated by. If it takes living in San Francisco or New York or LA or Miami to be stimulating enough to make life worth living for you, I respect that and to each his own, but that doesn't happen to be the case with me.

I have just heard so many people over the years say things like "I'm getting outta this small town so I can start my life over in the big city". A person who I respect very much told me something once that I will never forget: He said "Grow Where You're Planted". What that means to me is not that you should sit idle and be content with mediocre circumstances. It means that whether you find yourself living in Bettendorf Iowa or Chillicothe Ohio or Saginaw Michigan or Utica New York, you can be a productive, thriving citizen and lead a life filled with stimulation and purpose. Changing your physical location will not change you. A couch potato from Cleveland isn't likely to move to San Francisco and become a mover & shaker through some type of osmosis just because "I'm in San Francisco now!". Why? Because the quality of life that you lead as an adult is more a direct result of the personal decisions you make and your internal drive/motivation than any external, sociological factors -- or how many fine dining options, mountain views, or entertainment options are located within a 2 hour radius of your geographic location.

I only offer those thoughts because I have read many comments about some San Francisco residents not being overly concerned with housing costs becuase they are out experiencing life and rarely at home. As much as I respect those comments I feel that there is a bit of revisionist logic going on with that rationale in an attempt to retrofit a compelling argument for living in San Francisco. Personally, I feel that living in an area with a more reasonable cost of living allows me to be more philanthropic and generous with my time and money. I am not working as much to make ends meet, so I have more time to volunteer. I can make a $1000 donation to the March of Dimes without getting the heartburn of thinking that money might have been better served going toward my mortgage. Sure, the wealthy in any U.S. community wouldn't have to worry about these things. But I believe I saw that the average income in San Francisco is $60K, not $600K. So, not everyone in San Francisco is wealthy enough -- IMHO -- to have the COL make sense. In fact, I'm guessing if you do the math most aren't financially wealthy enough. Actually, the best reason that I have heard for living in San Francisco is the simplest yet most profound of all: "My family is here. San Francisco is my home". Family trumps cost. This scenario would make San Francisco "worth it - yes, really"!

Bottom line: I believe that most San Franciscan's have learned to endure through whatever they have determined to be "an acceptable level of financial discomfort" for the sake of living in and being known to others as a "Bay Area Resident", or just to be near family. In my view, most residents of San Francisco had better think that S.F. is one great city (and California is one great state) because as much as it costs to live out there, I don't think most residents with moderate incomes will ever get a chance to leave their city or state much. But for the record, that is an individual choice that I can respect. If San Francisco makes you happy, that is where you should be -- without regard to cost. Since I'm not paying your mortgage and other expenses for you, who am I to judge, right?

No harm, no foul...... just enjoy life wherever you are "planted". Thanks all........

[fromthebay]

sf is not worth it..... its nice but not nice enough to pay what you have to to live there

[sliverbox]

I think this conversation could be summed easily: If you are a metropolitan person with a metropolitan personality, then you will be more likely to think that higher prices, traffic, crowding, noise, and pollution are acceptable because you feel at home in big cities.

if you are a more suburban/rural person who has a preference for a slower pace, less activity, less emphasis on external stimuli- as mentioned by mr2007- then you will not find prices within a metro area worth the added expense because you are NOT in your element.

I too grew up in a very small town and we had no internet, cable TV, or other forms of entertainment other than our big back yard or the litter of neighborhood kids. I do not feel comfortable in big cities and do not feel culturally enriched by it's influence. I can also spend days just poking around the house or the general neighborhood.So my entertainments needs are next to nothing.

To me, a city is just a city. I've been to many cities and they all share the same attributes, more or less. You'll generally find more liberal attitudes in Kansas City versus Witchita Falls just like you'd find the same difference between say- Auburn CA and SF. I've found Nashville to be just as pretty as San Francisco, and I've also enjoyed art exhibits in the dead of winter in Boston. So to me the differences between SF and other cities are less transparent to me: they're all cities and have their own claim to cultural significance. Thus I see little reason to find the prices in SF at all worth it when you can live in an equally pretty metro for a fraction of the cost and keep the change. Why one metro would be more expensive isn't a clear-cut distinction to me.

Then again- I am not a metro person nor do I partake in hardly any of the things that people who are enthusiastic about the area do. So in other words, I don't appreciate the "metro-ness"that others might.Perhaps if I did, I would feel the cost was worth it.I don't even live in the city period, but outside in a smaller east bay city.Heck- I don't even like going to SF in general, so that alone tells you my general opinion about cities. But for someone who does all the things that are appealing to city dwellers, perhaps it is worth every single cent. Whatever makes you happy.

There is no wrong answer here.

[NewToCA]

Waking up every day in San Francisco appears worth the cost to me. The place is incredible, like stepping into a time machine and going back 30-120 years (depending on the area). And the variety in the city and surrounding area is breathtaking.

It is different than flying to places to do stuff, time and convenience limits this ability.

By the way, I don't live in San Francisco but go there often. I grew up in Philly, moved to Kansas City, Cleveland, Washington DC, Columbus OH and than Sacramento, and nothing else compares to San Francisco. It is worth the cost differences to all of those areas.

[sliverbox]

By the way, I don't live in San Francisco but go there often.

There is a BIG difference between living here and visiting here. Then again, you can find out for yourself, do the morning commute and work the 9-5 shift then decide if paying 4 times the amount to live here is REALLY worth it.