Moved to the Bay for 1 year from out of state, moved back. My review of it. (San Jose: prebuilt, lease)

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by WithDisp

Theater, Art, Music, Museums, History, Restaurants, Hotels- New York justifies it's pricetag.

Obviously, most of us who are from here feel that the price of the Bay Area is justified, or we wouldn't stay. I specifically enjoy the Bay Area, and have no interest in moving to BodyOdor, Arizona, just to own a single family home. New York City would also be a good place to live, but the cost of living is about the same, and it isn't where I grew up, so I'll stay here. New York is a good place to visit, too, though.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by likealady

You love to bash SFHs, but please tell me how much of SF is actually SFH? All large scale building here in the city has been condos. I'm even seeing townhomes or condo communities being built down in Foster City, so it's not like density isn't on people's minds.

Even a townhome isn't really what I'm talking about. That's still single family, and therefore a waste of space and resources, in my opinion. I'm talking about DENSE housing. One building houses hundreds of families, at market rate. Even if you reduced the population of San Francisco by 20%, the housing would still be very expensive, and you still could not fit all families into their own townhome. There is a limit to how much space there is to do that. You just have to keep building more and more dense residential structures.

Companies here really need to space out. I noticed the other day just how crowded the city is compared to a few years ago.

Crowded is good. I like to be where people are and things are happening. Plus it makes transportation easier when you don't have a car. Companies might be more densely placed in Silicon Valley; as I said, riding up north first on light rail, one passes dozens of tech companies.

Which makes the 1% figure, for the percentage of residents who use the light rail, surprise me. If you live on the light rail and your employer is on the light rail, that's the perfect case. Just ride the light rail instead of driving. I do it because I have no choice. I live far enough in the suburbs that it takes me an hour to get to downtown San Jose on transit, and then another hour to get to where I work, in most cases.

It doesn't stress me out because I'm not driving. But in some cases it is logistically difficult. My current assignment with the temp agency pays more than the last -- $14/hr -- but I have to get up at 0400 (4 am) to arrive by 0800 (8 am). I leave the apartment at 0508 in order to get to the first bus and leave myself enough time to pick up coffee, food etc at 7-Eleven. The first bus is 0540. So it's a two hour trip, arriving at 0740.

But if the Bay Area wasn't crowded, with densely placed businesses, it would be a lot harder. Things need to get a lot more dense.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by WithDisp

Comparing New York's Cultural Base to San Francisco's is not even close.

Not even remotely close.

Bay Area's greatest up on New York is the Weather (minus SF/Daly City/Pacifica/HMB)
and livable/workable suburbs.

Theater, Art, Music, Museums, History, Restaurants, Hotels- New York justifies it's pricetag.

NYC has more to do, but the Bay Area hits pretty hard for its size.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by jade408

NYC has more to do, but the Bay Area hits pretty hard for its size.

This. When you compare the Bay Area to Seattle, the comparison comes out very differently than when you compare it to NYC. Suddenly, the Bay Area looks a lot like NYC in terms of quality & variety of entertainment/culture. Yeah, NYC's museums are awesome!

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by WithDisp

Comparing New York's Cultural Base to San Francisco's is not even close.

Not even remotely close.

Bay Area's greatest up on New York is the Weather (minus SF/Daly City/Pacifica/HMB)
and livable/workable suburbs.

Theater, Art, Music, Museums, History, Restaurants, Hotels- New York justifies it's pricetag.

All of this is irrelevant. Housing prices are driven by the market and what people are willing to pay. Chicago has amenities that rival SF and LA has more, but both cost less than SF.

[WanderingFar]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

All of this is irrelevant. Housing prices are driven by the market and what people are willing to pay. Chicago has amenities that rival SF and LA has more, but both cost less than SF.

Exactly. NY isn't expensive because it has the best "amenities." It's expensive because it's a major economic engine, and more to the point, the home of hedge funds and investment bankers who get six and seven figure bonuses every Christmas. It's also the site of robust international investment (perhaps less so now that the dollar is strengthening.)

SF has always been more expensive than average because it's more desirable than average -- same as NY. But the tipping point came with the first dot-com bubble and affordabity came crashing down with the second dot com wave. And it's not just tech, but the lawyers and consultants and VC firms that serve tech companies. Even outside of tech, there's upward pressure on salaries in order to entice people to live here.

That's why these arguments about SF vs. NY are so ridiculous. It doesn't matter which city is better. If you're an engineer and see this as the land of opportunity, then you're going to move here, even for a few years, to try to get a big tech company on your resume. If you want to be in entertainment, you're going to move to LA. If you want to work in government, you'll cut your teeth in DC. For many Millennials, it's that simple.

On the other hand, if you're like the OP and want to live somewhere where you can feel like a Big Dog on only $100k, in a gated community with a stay at home spouse, then the Bay Area is not the place for you.

[livinfairfax]

neutrino - what online community do you belong to?

[WizardOfRadical]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

All of this is irrelevant. Housing prices are driven by the market and what people are willing to pay. Chicago has amenities that rival SF and LA has more, but both cost less than SF.

That's because Chicago and to a lesser extent La, do not constrict the supply to the level of the Bay Area. People pay high prices because the market is manipulated, not because they want to.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical

That's because Chicago and to a lesser extent La, do not constrict the supply to the level of the Bay Area. People pay high prices because the market is manipulated, not because they want to.

No, it isn't the market being manipulated. Chicago is less desirable to people in highly compensated fields. Los Angeles is also very expensive. People come here and make a lot of money in the tech field and pay prices that others could never afford to get a house in a certain area. That is what drives the price upward.

The Bay Area is an awesome place to live. Any of the nine counties are great by themselves and even better because they are close to the others. This leads to a high price.

[WizardOfRadical]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

No, it isn't the market being manipulated. Chicago is less desirable to people in highly compensated fields. Los Angeles is also very expensive. People come here and make a lot of money in the tech field and pay prices that others could never afford to get a house in a certain area. That is what drives the price upward.

The Bay Area is an awesome place to live. Any of the nine counties are great by themselves and even better because they are close to the others. This leads to a high price.

You live with your parents and makr minimum wage. Stay out of the conversation and let the grown ups discuss the issue.