Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think, eventually, SF will start losing people to more affordable cities. Probably not long-term sustainable (if the streets are any indication).
You keep pushing this narrative so could you please clarify what you mean when you say 'the streets' as in what percentage of the streets of SFs 46 sq miles you are saying are 'not long-term sustainable'?
And what specific part(s)of the city are you referring to?
No one is denying that that there are very serious issues that must be addressed, but you havent really specified what exactly youre saying aside from sweeping, citywide generalizations and stereotypes.
You keep pushing this narrative so could you please clarify what you mean when you say 'the streets' as in what percentage of the streets of SFs 46 sq miles you are saying are 'not long-term sustainable'?
And what specific part(s)of the city are you referring to?
No one is denying that that there are very serious issues that must be addressed, but you havent really specified what exactly youre saying aside from sweeping, citywide generalizations and stereotypes.
I don't think SF is sustainable. I read....a lot....and I traveled there. I know you live there, but the city is dealing with a lot of problems. I don't remember streets specifically, but you know which ones they are. I saw the homeless, I saw excrement, and I saw a huge problem that SF doesn't know how to deal with. I know residents have tried different measures, that haven't worked, or the city said they weren't an option (boulders for example). I don't need to explain any more than this, as you always have a comeback for anything negative anyone says about SF. I'll just say this...for what one has to pay to live there, the city needs to figure this out, or people will take their money elsewhere. I know you'll disagree, as that's what you do, but it's certainly one of the last cities I would ever choose to live in. Parts of it are beautiful, and parts are Third World.
I don't think SF is sustainable. I read....a lot....and I traveled there. I know you live there, but the city is dealing with a lot of problems. I don't remember streets specifically, but you know which ones they are. I saw the homeless, I saw excrement, and I saw a huge problem that SF doesn't know how to deal with. I know residents have tried different measures, that haven't worked, or the city said they weren't an option (boulders for example). I don't need to explain any more than this, as you always have a comeback for anything negative anyone says about SF. I'll just say this...for what one has to pay to live there, the city needs to figure this out, or people will take their money elsewhere. I know you'll disagree, as that's what you do, but it's certainly one of the last cities I would ever choose to live in. Parts of it are beautiful, and parts are Third World.
It's not sustainable because they refuse to build housing. Point blank. So much time is spent agonizing over what type of housing should be built, that nothing does, prices go up, and QOL for all but the very wealthy decreases.
NYC is the opposite case - it is expensive but prices have stabilized since the recession due to the boom in residential construction there during that timeframe. They get it (to some extent) - all new housing doesn't need to be affordable because just building new housing has a downward effect on price pressures no matter what kind it is.
Until that situation changes, nothing will change in SF.
I don't think SF is sustainable. I read....a lot....and I traveled there. I know you live there, but the city is dealing with a lot of problems. I don't remember streets specifically, but you know which ones they are. I saw the homeless, I saw excrement, and I saw a huge problem that SF doesn't know how to deal with. I know residents have tried different measures, that haven't worked, or the city said they weren't an option (boulders for example). I don't need to explain any more than this, as you always have a comeback for anything negative anyone says about SF. I'll just say this...for what one has to pay to live there, the city needs to figure this out, or people will take their money elsewhere. I know you'll disagree, as that's what you do, but it's certainly one of the last cities I would ever choose to live in. Parts of it are beautiful, and parts are Third World.
Yes but just so we're clear, the overwhelming majority of San Francisco streets are NOT an indication that SF is 'long-term unsustainable'. On the contrary, most of SF is fine, but there are a few areas in the urban core that need seriously to be cleaned up, yes.
Houston median home price is $289,000
Seattle is $752,000
Median Houston rent is $1,446
Seattle is $2,139
Another is fuel:
Houston average gas price is $1.99
Seattle is $2.96
The median housing amount in Houston and a lot of the other big Texas Cities are a little deceptive. Yes you can find housing in that price range but most people relocating to Houston will likely spend more than that to find a house anywhere near there job and in a good school district. Finding a single family home in a nice neighborhood in the loop for $289,000 would be almost impossible. Not saying housing is more expensive there but the median price doesn’t take into account a lot of factors. Property taxes are also high and so is home insurance. A lot of areas in Houston also get their utilities from a MUD and have to pay an additional MUD tax. Houses are also bigger on average in Houston and therefore the utility bills are also higher. Lots of neighborhoods, MPC’s, and condo associations also impose high HOA fees.
Fuel is cheaper but people in Houston drive way more. The “drive until you qualify” model comes into play. Plus car insurance is probably higher there too and a lot of the suburban areas are only accessible by toll roads.
$1,446 gets a nice 1 bedroom apartment or a small 2 bedroom apartment in an ok area in Houston.
The median housing amount in Houston and a lot of the other big Texas Cities are a little deceptive. Yes you can find housing in that price range but most people relocating to Houston will likely spend more than that to find a house anywhere near there job and in a good school district. Finding a single family home in a nice neighborhood in the loop for $289,000 would be almost impossible. Not saying housing is more expensive there but the median price doesn’t take into account a lot of factors. Property taxes are also high and so is home insurance. A lot of areas in Houston also get their utilities from a MUD and have to pay an additional MUD tax. Houses are also bigger on average in Houston and therefore the utility bills are also higher. Lots of neighborhoods, MPC’s, and condo associations also impose high HOA fees.
Fuel is cheaper but people in Houston drive way more. The “drive until you qualify” model comes into play. Plus car insurance is probably higher there too and a lot of the suburban areas are only accessible by toll roads.
$1,446 gets a nice 1 bedroom apartment or a small 2 bedroom apartment in an ok area in Houston.
What makes inside the loop the arbitrary marker? Isn’t that the most expensive part of the city? In other words Houston taxes its homeowners to death? Ironic as it’s one of the best big business states. Big businesses get off while the middle class pays more?
Yes but just so we're clear, the overwhelming majority of San Francisco streets are NOT an indication that SF is 'long-term unsustainable'. On the contrary, most of SF is fine, but there are a few areas in the urban core that need seriously to be cleaned up, yes.
Right - SF is far from Baltimore or even Oakland. Most of the city is clean and affluent. It just doesn't hide it's more visible deprived areas from tourists like Houston or Nashville. Part of the problem with SF is a vocal segment of the local population that acts like the city is so mean to the homeless and this gets spun up in news columns making it seem like an extreme place.
What makes inside the loop the arbitrary marker? Isn’t that the most expensive part of the city? In other words Houston taxes its homeowners to death? Ironic as it’s one of the best big business states. Big businesses get off while the middle class pays more?
Houston property tax in 2010 was over 3 times what we pay in Philadelphia in 2020. Texas has no income tax, which is great until you start paying a sales tax of 8.25% and a property tax that covers not only the government and city school district, but also the port, the hospital district, flood control district, community college, along with an assortment of other quasi-governmental assessments.
It takes a lot to keep our society moving. We all pay for these services one way or another, no matter where we live. Many states front load on their income tax. Texas operates largely on its property taxes.
That said, the OP link is bogus. Philadelphia (as an example), remains a more expensive place to live than Houston. Comparable housing in Philadelphia is the key factor driving this, but the day-to-day costs are somewhat higher in Philly as well. And yes, I’ve been to Houston in the last couple of years, so I still have a sense of what how the city has changed since 2010.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
