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.
Neutrino, my problem lies not with housing costs to live in SF, Oakland, or SJ.
My problem lies with you can drive an hour away in any direction, have a $100k job, and your best bet is to find questionable SFH housing in bad areas.$100k is middle class I know. But everywhere else in the USA, including NYC...you can drive an hour away from the city and lead a normal middle class life with good schools and housing for your family.
Clearly you don't have children or a spouse, but shacking up a family of 4 in an original condition 1964 built 800sq ft condo with 1 bathroom just to live closer to the city isn't ideal. In fact, that's the definition of hell. My wife would divorce me if I pushed that agenda. SF is cool...but it's not that cool to do something that extreme just to be there.
And I hardly consider Scottsdale, Arizona "the middle of nowhere". It's a booming large city, hosts the world's largest golf tournament, home of the Giants and Oakland A's Spring Training, many companies relocating headquarters here, great weather, great food scene, great resorts, very nice place.Same with Vegas, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, etc. These are all also great places to live too. And most are 1hr-2hr flight away from the Bay.
Middle of nowhere is a small town of 4,000 people in rural Oklahoma.
I agree with this mostly. Although I'd mention that "Silicon Valley" isn't a city. I think you meant to say SJ .
At any rate, where the bay area falls flat when compared to other areas (and where most people seem to struggle to adjust when coming here) is that our sphere of unaffordability is very, very large. Even compared to top hitters like NYC, LA, Boston, DC, etc...the bay area compares quite poorly.
As an example, in the bay area, there is no north jersey kind of situation where you can find decent proximity to the big city and can still have decently-affordable housing.The bay area's equivalent in affordability is really the Central Valley now, unfortunately. And that's not a good thing, for obvious reasons.
This is actually one of our biggest issues facing us as a region, I believe. It's not so much an issue that the interior areas (SF, peninsula, SJ, Oak, etc) aren't affordable (just like other major cities aren't), but rather that our exterior areas aren't very cheap by comparison.
Graph out housing costs 30 mins out, 1 hr out, and 2 hrs out in SF/SJ vs. other cities, and you'll see my point. It's somewhat related to some points brought up in the OP...1 hour out and he still feels house poor.
Much of this is geographic...we have the bay and large ridges that spread out development in clumps or linear strips. But I think we should at least try to make an impact. Ultimately, we shouldn't be left with weird situations where people are traveling 60-80 miles one way to find any semblance of affordability.
That's very much not sustainable (or healthy) for the region as a whole, and I hope its addressed in a serious way.
I think that both the absence of middle class housing and the geographic restrictions are commonly overstated. Pacifica, Daly City, Redwood City, San Bruno, Millbrae, and parts of San Jose are all reasonable commute range and median income affordable--and that's just looking at the peninsula, much less east & north bay.
As far as geography goes, I'm in full agreement with the quoted poster below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
The Bay Area has pretty challenging geography but it's made worse by the fact that so many jobs are concentrated along the Peninsula, an area that has little room to expand and virtually zero desire too as well. I saw this today and it's amazing that despite the robust economy with tech employment being the highest its ever been overall its still below its peak in the South Bay and East Bay while its up 30% in SF and San Mateo counties:
SF isn't too bad as it has a lot of public transit options but even then they are straining capacity with BART. Caltrain stops well south of downtown too. But San Mateo County is so inaccessible for much of the East Bay and all of the North Bay. You only have two narrow bridges connecting to the sprawling office parks from the East Bay. Forget the North Bay with having to cross the GGB and drive through SF on surface streets.
I get the reason for wanting to be on the Peninsula but its forcing people into really crappy commutes because they can't afford to be on the other side of the bay. I honestly don't know how anyone not in tech can live in that area. It's insane that such a dull, average suburban area like Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Mountain View, etc...command prices of a city like SF or exclusive wealthy enclaves like Beverly Hills or La Jolla.
At least places like NYC and DC are relatively centralized and have better housing options within a reasonable commute of job centers.
Improved transit-oriented development would do wonders for the region. It's too bad we're catching up on 40 years of neglect.
There appear to be posters who feel as if good schools,retirement savings ,college savings for children and a stable safe home for their children are frivolous luxuries. If people move out of the area to supply these things for there families they are told about the world class entertainment and dining they will miss out on.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
I doubt Neutrino is married or has children to care for. I also highly doubt he contributes anything at all to a retirement plan. If I was making $12-14/hour at temp agencies, as he says he is, I would move out of here ASAP. The Bay Area isn't for everybody. Building a good nest egg for retirement IMO is far more important than living (in poverty) in the Bay Area. The s**t is going to hit the fan really hard for these people when they start getting old.
I doubt Neutrino is married or has children to care for. I also highly doubt he contributes anything at all to a retirement plan. If I was making $12-14/hour at temp agencies, as he says he is, I would move out of here ASAP. The Bay Area isn't for everybody. Building a good nest egg for retirement IMO is far more important than living (in poverty) in the Bay Area. The s**t is going to hit the fan really hard for these people when they start getting old.
In his defense, the Bay Area isn't a bad place to be homeless.
Just wanted to say, sorry it didn't work out. I remember chatting with you on a thread awhile back. My wife and I usually head out to Scottsdale every other year for what is typically one of our most relaxing vacations of the year. Although we go at the hottest time of the year, I do agree with you on the dry heat. I've been in the Arizona area when it's been 90 out and it was actually quite pleasant (and I never thought I'd say that with weather of that temperature). We're usually there in late July and August when it 115-118. Our friends used to think we were crazy until they found out our secret and why we love going that time of year.
I think that both the absence of middle class housing and the geographic restrictions are commonly overstated. Pacifica, Daly City, Redwood City, San Bruno, Millbrae, and parts of San Jose are all reasonable commute range and median income affordable--and that's just looking at the peninsula, much less east & north bay.
I think you're kind of missing my point.
And, in my opinion, it's not overstated...if anything, it's not talked about enough. We focus too much on SF and Oakland, or high-priced suburbs like Palo Alto, while we ignore talking about the middle class options available to middle class (not median income) workers in the Bay Area.
What's left out of this discussion is how it wouldn't matter if we had reasonably-affordable (to the middle/working class - not "median income") closer in than 30, 40, 60, or 70 miles from where the jobs are.
I'm not sure if you've spent much time in any of the cities you just listed, but most are not very affordable anymore to middle class families. Perhaps in very, very specific areas of these places (often some of the worst areas on the peninsula), but certainly not on a whole.
San Bruno's average apts and housing
Daly City's average apts and housing
Pacifica's average apts and housing
Redwood City's average apts and housing
It's not that long ago that these places were certainly good options for working class people - as an example: my girlfriend's mom (a teacher in Daly City) had to move out of SF when a family member died, and she ended up buying in San Bruno ~6 years ago. Her very modestly-sized 2br (they call it "3" but it's really 2) house has increased in price from ~500k to over a million (a house near her's, same sized, just sold for 1.1 million...).
I know people like to use the "median income is 100k! They can afford it!" argument here - but it's circular reasoning to use the median income of people already living somewhere to show that they can afford that same place. Of course they can afford it when they already live there! Sprinkle in the fact that some people have lived in their homes for years (decades sometimes), or that some people are willing to live 2 families to a single house, and you can see how some of these places still feel working class despite their high median incomes or high average housing costs.
But that's not even what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people making more traditional "working/middle class" salaries (50-80k). People in this income bracket have decent options in other big city metros in the US. Yes, even NYC blows the Bay Area away in this realm. And those "middle class" suburbs in NYC (or other big cities) are actually pretty nice - sure, not Palo Alto or Hillsborough, but certainly not East Palo Alto or the worst areas of Redwood City. And they have multiple options, not just a few select bad neighborhoods.
Here in the Bay Area, the options available to these people are comparatively very bad. And in their search for that semblance of affordability, they are often forced into ridiculous commutes that are terrible both for their health/well being, and also for the region.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
As far as geography goes, I'm in full agreement with the quoted poster below.
Improved transit-oriented development would do wonders for the region. It's too bad we're catching up on 40 years of neglect.
Yep, Sav brings up a great point. We have made a choice as a region to concentrate many of the new jobs in a difficult-to-get-to area. I can't imagine ever trying a tri-valley to peninsula commute...sounds like a nightmare.
I think we REALLY need some sort of mid-peninsula to East Bay connection beyond the SM and Dumbarton bridges. We could benefit tremendously from a BART line across the SM bridge (perhaps meeting up with the Dublin line somewhere near Hayward, and ultimately connecting to the end of the line in Milbrae).
And rebuilding and bringing back the dumbarton rail bridge would be awesome, too - creating a Caltrain connection between Redwood City/Palo Alto and Fremont.
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 08-19-2016 at 06:24 PM..
Moved my wife and two kids to the Bay for a work project for a year. We came from Phoenix area Arizona. A polar opposite cost of living change. I'm young and in my 30's, own my own house and a rental, am used to living in safe and nice areas, and next to top schools.
I'm not in tech so I don't make a huge salary, but I do ok for myself. We are just a normal middle class family and enjoy normal middle class things like going out to eat on weekends and a vacation here and there.
Spent a year in the East Bay. Housing even in Concord was 2X I was used to paying for my mortgage in Phoenix, for 1/2 the house and 50 years older, and in a questionable area. A huge downside in my opinion. Schools where we lived were ranked 2/10. And this to rent a home...needing $100,000 year salary yet all the other houses in the neighborhood are occupied by low income families but who have been there since 1970 so they really have little housing expense. Think about that...it took me $100,000 to live in a community full of high crime, awful housing, and neighbors where you have nothing in common for work and lifestyle. Just a weird dynamic.
The people I met in California all are the same. I'm specifically talking about middle class people. They are all literally broke because they spend all their income to RENT and have little savings. If they need new tires on their car, they are calling family members for help. Everyone I met seems to be ok with that. They just understand this is what it takes to live in CA. I just don't understand this mindset of being so financially unprepared for life. California is amazing yes, but not worth it if you struggle.
And don't get me wrong. California is amazing. The weather, the scenery, absolutely endless things to do and see. San Francisco is one of the best cities in the world.
Living there for the last year has made me want to be there more than anything.
But not like what it takes to be there. I would rather retire there. I am a 90 min flight to SF or Oakland right now. I would spend 90 min driving from SF to outer east Bay. It is just not sustainable to move A FAMILY there AND have a good home and normal middle class quality of life unless your family brings in $175k-$200k or more.
I know that Neutreno guy is gonna come in here and say he shares a bedroom in an apartment and makes $12/HR and therefore the Bay Area is doable, but that thought process does not, at all, represent the majority of families.
We are back in Phoenix now. Enjoying nice warm weather, dirt cheap housing that is 10X nicer than California, in top school districts, next to everything new and nice.
Would love to come back to California one day, but only if we can afford to OWN a decent home.
And you didn't know this or do any research before you uprooted your family?
You're like the guy who buys a house by JFK airport and than is shocked about jet noise.
I'm not sure if you've spent much time in any of the cities you just listed, but most are not very affordable anymore to middle class families.
Just as affordable as paying rent and many are already doing that
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
It's not that long ago that these places were certainly good options for working class people - as an example: my girlfriend's mom (a teacher in Daly City) had to move out of SF when a family member died, and she ended up buying in San Bruno ~6 years ago. Her very modestly-sized 2br (they call it "3" but it's really 2) house has increased in price from ~500k to over a million (a house near her's, same sized, just sold for 1.1 million...).
You could rinse and repeat that argument for the last 40 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
But that's not even what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people making more traditional "working/middle class" salaries (50-80k). People in this income bracket have decent options in other big city metros in the US.
Here in the Bay Area, the options available to these people are comparatively very bad. And in their search for that semblance of affordability, they are often forced into ridiculous commutes that are terrible both for their health/well being, and also for the region.
San Francisco has never been affordable as long as I've been here. What's your point? If we put a big fence around the Bay Area and said no one else is allowed in, are you somehow implying that the businesses would go bankrupt? They wouldn't. They wouldn't be able to grow, but that's not the worst thing since we're booming right now. Is there some harm in staying exactly as we are right now? Are you saying people would get tired of commuting and move out of the area? That doesn't seem to be the case either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
Yep, Sav brings up a great point. We have made a choice as a region to concentrate many of the new jobs in a difficult-to-get-to area. I can't imagine ever trying a tri-valley to peninsula commute...sounds like a nightmare.
I think we REALLY need some sort of mid-peninsula to East Bay connection beyond the SM and Dumbarton bridges. We could benefit tremendously from a BART line across the SM bridge (perhaps meeting up with the Dublin line somewhere near Hayward, and ultimately connecting to the end of the line in Milbrae).
And rebuilding and bringing back the dumbarton rail bridge would be awesome, too - creating a Caltrain connection between Redwood City/Palo Alto and Fremont.
Good suggestion. Not sure who "we" are though. I don't think the region made that choice. It was really more the Board of Supervisors in SF that encouraged Tech companies to move into the city. So, pretty much just the voters in the city that put them in charge.
Last edited by bodyforlife99; 08-19-2016 at 06:19 PM..
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.
.
