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.
The smart thing in the 60's would have been buy in Orinda when prices were cheap.
The smart thing in Oakland would have been to buy 2009-12 and sit back and see values go up 3 to 4 times in 6 years...
You act as if this price appreciation was both foreseeable and natural.
Unless you were able to predict the existence of the modern silicon valley in the 1960's, which is the central reason for the high prices, then "smart" would have had nothing to do with real estate decisions during that time.
Similarly, there would be no "smart" in Oakland in 2009. In a highly volatile market, which a fluctuating real estate market is by definition, there is no "smart". There is only gambling. And that gambling requires a price/time component to also be correct. Buying at the wrong point in the cycle, even if if prices will eventually rise over a long period, is as bad as being wrong (if you can't make the mortgage in perpetuity).
So, some people still like the place, and some don't.
It used to be that more and more people were moving TO the SF bay area.
Now? For the first time in a long time, more people are fleeing than are coming in.
Both sides.
Yes, but do you know how overcrowded it got here because of the red hot economy? It's good and white normal at this point if there is some level of net outflow. The last few years were never sustainable.
Known too many that could nearly walk to work or direct line with AC transit or like me just minutes by car who move an hour or more away... and that is on a good day each way.
The corridor through the Altamont just gets worse plus the Valley Fog in winter...
The only reason I consider my current job when I was recruited was it was minutes from home... had it been an hour I would have said no on the spot.
Life is too short to spend half 40 hours a month commuting... not to mention the vehicle expense.
Can't think of anyone that has done the long commute during commute hours for any length of time... measured in 5+ years.
Of those I know... just about all give up that commute for something closer... even if it means less pay.
One of my friends lives deep in the Santa Cruz mountains... 6 miles on a dirt road... simply spectacular with the Pacific off in the distance... 4 years was all he could stand commuting to the Livermore Lab...
Many 12 hour days away from home... with 4 hours on the road...
Finally had enough and got a job for half the money in Santa Cruz...
True. Not sure where the line is drawn, but for me a one-hour commute was acceptable given what I was gaining with the home where it was. Perhaps for a variety of reasons, I often had a nice drive to enjoy and I enjoy driving. Was also able to read both ways on BART, even do work related reading as necessary, and I also enjoy reading. That said, I've also known folks with commutes I could not do. Commuting over HWY 17 every day for example. No thanks.
Ultimately this is simply the sort of thing we all need to figure out given personal preferences that depend on viable options that are also of course a function of affordability and personal/family matters (where the spouse works, children, schools, size of house, etc.).
As for the water... I really love the Puget Sound... the climate and beauty suit me well.
That said... I look out the window and have a 5 bridge view of the SF Bay and San Francisco makes for a beautiful sunset and city lights... who would have guessed it would be cheap too... East Oakland California.
When I hear Mass Exodus... I think of shuttered and abandoned buildings... as in where did all the people go and falling rents and prices.
When I hear Mass Exodus, I think goodie! Perhaps the best way to alleviate traffic congestion...
San Jose is Silicone Valley. Who can afford to live there. I'd move too since most homes start at a million at least. Actually, I could have never afforded to move there in the first place.
Not to get too deep into the weeds here, but I often wonder what I would do if I were starting all over again...
First thing that comes to my mind is what we consider a "home" and/or "starter home." For my wife and I, it was a very modest townhome in Martinez from where I commuted to work in the City, that we bought with the assistance of an FHA loan. My wife worked in Concord, and we liked Martinez a lot, but we could have bought a less expensive condo in a lot of other cities in the area we didn't like as much, including Concord that would have made for a lesser commute for both of us.
Not sure what sort of options like that still exist today, but everyone always wants to quote the cost of housing in San Francisco, or other far more convenient locations with lesser commutes.
Gotta start somewhere, and today that somewhere can't always be so close to work, just like it wasn't for me a good many decades ago...
You act as if this price appreciation was both foreseeable and natural.
Unless you were able to predict the existence of the modern silicon valley in the 1960's, which is the central reason for the high prices, then "smart" would have had nothing to do with real estate decisions during that time.
Similarly, there would be no "smart" in Oakland in 2009. In a highly volatile market, which a fluctuating real estate market is by definition, there is no "smart". There is only gambling. And that gambling requires a price/time component to also be correct. Buying at the wrong point in the cycle, even if if prices will eventually rise over a long period, is as bad as being wrong (if you can't make the mortgage in perpetuity).
True to a point, but all my adult life I have grappled with the realization, here in California anyway, that buying sooner was better than buying later -- as a general rule -- if gaining equity was the goal, and buying in the more desirable areas always seemed to prove a better "smart" investment over buying in less desirable areas. Close as possible to the water, for example, always seemed a better "bet" than further away. Good schools in the area better than schools not so good, etc.
Lots of factors a "smart" investor must consider, and lots of luck doesn't hurt either, but you can't have the luck without making the investment. That's for sure...
Yes, but do you know how overcrowded it got here because of the red hot economy? It's good and white normal at this point if there is some level of net outflow. The last few years were never sustainable.
Maybe visit New York, or Bangkok or some of these other places that make us look like wide open space here before we determine what is sustainable and what is not. Also what better mass transit options these places have...
I suspect it's mostly due to the extremely high cost of living. It would cost me double to live in San Francisco, but my salary wouldn't double by moving there.
Maybe visit New York, or Bangkok or some of these other places that make us look like wide open space here before we determine what is sustainable and what is not. Also what better mass transit options these places have...
Definitely agree that SF can densify. And many here think it should. Such as myself.
But let's not forget that only NY is more dense than SF at the city level. And at the regional level, the Bay Area is one of the most dense in the country.
These debates largely ignore that NIMBYism is not a unique feature to SF.
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.
