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.
Depends on what you prefer as we get older we began to realize that money is not everything, bigger is not always better. We as americans have a culture of over consumerism winch does nothing to improve our overall well being. Living in an expensive city makes you look at things a different way you began to realize that having a 5000 sq ft home in suburbs does nothing for your overall well-being, and you would be just as good if not better with a small home in walking distance to many amenities.
Small homes (near) downtown or the hip urban areas (i.e. places in walking distance to amenities) are the ones I was thinking about. They are not affordable in SF. Sure you could rent/lease an apartment/loft in one of these areas but paying +2k a month (at the low end) on rent for (often) significantly less than 1000 sq ft also falls into my personal definition of not getting what you pay for. Not to mention raising a family, bigger than 3 or 4, in small apartment.
So no I am not talking about being able to afford a huge Mcmansion in the suburbs with a plot of land.
My problem with SF is, that it is one of those cities (places) you don't really get what you pay for.
If you still have to struggle owning a home and/or supporting a small sized family, while making a 6 figure salary annually, then IMHO you simply don't get what you pay for.
For alot of those people living in a place like SF vs Houston is getting a return on investment. Its not as tangible as extra sqft for your 3 seater vs a 2 seater sofa but for alot of folks the city that you choose to live in itself has a value . If roi was only based on size of home etc. everyone would pack up and move to a cheaper city.
For alot of those people living in a place like SF vs Houston is getting a return on investment. Its not as tangible as extra sqft for your 3 seater vs a 2 seater sofa but for alot of folks the city that you choose to live in itself has a value.
Again, as I already mentioned to another poster, I'm not necessarily talking about extra sqft real estate.
Again, as I already mentioned to another poster, I'm not necessarily talking about extra sqft real estate.
What about the big city amenities available via walking or public transit? not to mention weather. I'll be looking to see how Houston grows in the future they are in the position of unlimited prairiland, but who knows.
Again, as I already mentioned to another poster, I'm not necessarily talking about extra sqft real estate.
Yes but SF is a unique experience wn the US that clearly enough people are willing to shell out $ for... I used to live there and owned property and thought it was well worth what I paid. Perhaps SF's amenities and characteristics just dont appeal to you as much.
What about the big city amenities available via walking or public transit? not to mention weather. I'll be looking to see how Houston grows in the future they are in the position of unlimited prairiland, but who knows.
What about it? As I mentioned, if one lives in an area that affords these amenities as you describe them it becomes VERY expansive in SF. Which goes back to my initial point. You don't get what you pay for in SF.
If you make 100K in SF and have a family of 4 and want to live downtown in a let's say 2 bedroom apartment, because forget about buying a house, you could wind up paying around 5K a month for rent. 60K a year just to house yourself and family in a nice urban area or downtown with easy access to all the amenities in walking distance.
Again, just my subjective opinion of course, but that is not worth it. Actually it would be impossible with 100K.
That's why my opinion remains, unless you are rich or perhaps single in SF you won't get what you pay for.
BTW you can get big city amenities in basically every big city across the US.
Also I will admit, scenery and weather wise SF is hard to beat.
Yes but SF is a unique experience wn the US that clearly enough people are willing to shell out $ for... I used to live there and owned property and thought it was well worth what I paid. Perhaps SF's amenities and characteristics just dont appeal to you as much.
SF appeals to me just fine. It is a cool and especially gorgeous place with great weather. I just differ in the believe that is is worth the money it requires to live there at a level I would consider comfortable or better preferably. Now of course that in part is my own fault so to say, if would make 200K I might think differently, although on the other hand money like that one could anywhere in the world.
I voted Houston because I'd hate both, but at least in Houston I'm paying far less money to be miserable and would have more money to travel to places that make me happy.
I voted Houston because I'd hate both, but at least in Houston I'm paying far less money to be miserable and would have more money to travel to places that make me happy.
Many of the people I know make this point at least they are not spending that much money.
I recently moved to SF from Houston. Yes, SF is expensive. Yes, it's worth it (to me, anyway).
These two cities are about as incomparable as it gets. I love them both, but very differently. The most obvious: SF is more what I think of as an urban lifestyle, where Houston is more like a huge suburb.That said, each has its place and each is desirable to different people for different reasons. I have found each to be comfortable and satisfying in its own right.
I now greatly prefer SF, though I admit, that preference is driven by the fact that I can afford to live here very comfortably. I don't have a family, though. If I did, I'd probably prefer Houston.
One other thing--the argument about not being able to afford to raise a family of four downtown is moot. That's trying to project Houston thinking onto SF. People don't do that in Houston either, by the way. They live in neighborhoods that are very suburban in style--even inside "The Loop". Houston does not, in any way, offer an urban lifestyle like SF's, but there are suburban areas of the Bay Area that do approximate Houston-style living, though still at a much higher price.
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.
