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 find comments such as yours hilarious. I live in Minneapolis, and while the weather here is bad, SF doesn't exactly have great weather either. I visited SF on vacation this past fall and was quite unimpressed. SF is incredibly overrated and not some utopia that people make it out to be. I have no idea why people pay the rents that they do to live there. Minneapolis has alot of culture/ diversity / ethnic restaurants / incredible music scene & arts scene etc. and one can buy a house here for $200,000.
The only thing I don't like about Mpls is the weather, but I loathe SF for many things. An overpriced rat race that is living of the myth of what it used to be. Someday I hope to retire and leave Mpls and should have a nice big fat nest egg saved up from living in a city that doesn't have an INSANE cost of living.
However, I have also vacationed in LA and I can see the point of paying the rents there. LA has space to park, the weather is beautiful and it feels MUCH LESS crowded than SF.
San Fran.. you can have it. I wouldn't go back for a vacation even if someone gave me free airfare.
Some of us live here because it's crowded.
Also, this post wasn't about how great San Francisco is or how it's better than your city. It's not for everyone. And only people with cars care about parking.
Last edited by NorthernCalifornia; 04-09-2008 at 05:31 PM..
Reason: typo
Considering the entire point of the thread was to cut down on the amount of discussion regarding cost of living that seems appropriate does it not?
So basically you started this thread so people can agree with you and you didn't want anyone with opposing views to comment? Wow, it must be great trying to surround yourself with only people that agree with you do so you get some false sense you are right or justified in your beliefs. The cost of living is a HUGE factor in people's lives so go ahead and try to "cut down on the amount of discussion" all you want but it's a big topic for many people here and will continue to be. You can't control what people want to discuss no matter how right you think you are.
Take a land use planning class or something instead of sitting around waiting to be told what to do and go learn about issues related to land use and growth.
What?
So you are asking ME to do the research? I thought the question was directed to you because it was YOU who seemed to shower this thread with the overconfident posts that you know there is a SOLUTION and that 'this doesn't have to be this way'.
Why don't you tell people who live in NYC, DC, Boston, Seattle, Vancouver, Toronto, Hong Kong, Moscow, London, Tokyo (shall I go on) the same: do their research and EXPECT their politicians to solve the problems of their overly expensive areas. Because if it was as simple as taking a class in a community college ... Aaaa that's what we all should do, take a class and tell our politicians, then THEY WILL fix the problems and you can leave you sunny San Diego and move right into the Pacific Heights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
-more density, which does NOT mean more high rises necessarily.
How are you planning to accomplish this without having people live on top of each other? Are there many empty lots you see in SF? Isn't the city already dense? And so are the suburbs, pretty dense AND congested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
I'm not an expert or claim to have solutions to all the Bay Area problems. But I see how its different in some aspects compared to elsewhere and how it artificially drives up the cost of living.
How about you compare SF to some other place 'comparable'. San Diego doesn't really cut it.
I don't need to do research and try to solve political problems. I AM NOT AN ACTIVIST (you seem to be though), I am a pragmatic realist who understands what it takes if I decide to live in one area vs. the other and will make my decision accordingly. That's all I need. I was asking YOU the question because I was curious to see if you could provide me some examples, perhaps, some metro areas that have done it. I also wanted to know HOW MUCH IMPACT in prices these solutions will bring.
All the things you are proposing ARE NOT going to drop the prices in SF to the level where MAJORITY of people will be able to afford it.
What will help the prices drop is the thing rightfully noted by another poster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sliverbox
Simply put, 70% of all houses bought in the Bay Area were bought using some form of exotic loan product: IO, ARM, and usually combined with a secondary jumbo loan. These loan products are now off the table and you had better have near-perfect credit to qualify. Wells Fargo now requires a 20% down payment on a house now. So that means an 800k house will require a 150k down payment minimum.So the legs have been kicked out from under the table. No buying structure exists that support the current prices. Thus that supports the latest predictions from economists that prices in the Bay Area will fall as much as 30-40%.
Bingo
Will the prices go down to the original level and will most incomes be able to afford a house in SF? I don't think so even if the prices fall they still will remain comparatively high as it's always been. In an economic downfall not only real estate prices drop, people's incomes drop too and their savings deteriorate. So even if the city will become more affordable the number of people that would be able to afford it (especially with the tightening of the lending practices) is not going to increase proportionately. Add to it the more scarce inventory and the fact that majority of foreclosures are not in the most expensive of districts, but tend to plague the ones that are more affordable.
Prices are falling all over the country, so relatively speaking SF will never cost as much as let's say Plano, TX or be as affordable as Portland, OR. Perhaps, after some major natural disaster or economic downfall so significant the entire world would shudder. But then the prices in Plano, TX would also fall and the droves of people would still be complaining about the cost of living in the Bay Area in comparison with the 'rest of the country'.
Do I think SF is overpriced? I do, I look at the difference of renting a place and paying the mortgage on it. If the rent is much cheaper than the mortgage(after 20% downpayment) then the place is intrinsically overpriced (within itself so to say). But is it overpriced with relation to other cheaper places? That's up to a person making a choice to decide and everyone is different when it comes to their quality of life.
So basically you started this thread so people can agree with you and you didn't want anyone with opposing views to comment? Wow, it must be great trying to surround yourself with only people that agree with you do so you get some false sense you are right or justified in your beliefs. The cost of living is a HUGE factor in people's lives so go ahead and try to "cut down on the amount of discussion" all you want but it's a big topic for many people here and will continue to be. You can't control what people want to discuss no matter how right you think you are.
What is there to oppose? I'm saying that cost of housing isn't the only thing in the world and offered suggestions about how to mitigate it.
Are you saying that the price of real estate is the only thing that matters and there is nothing, NOTHING, anyone can do to enjoy their life as long as there are places they like but can't afford?
I've lived here for eight years. So far, I fail to see how this supposed virtuous culture that many seem to so highly prize. If anything, the culture is largely diluted and generic since by and large, most of the original SF and California locals moved away from the area long ago for various reasons. As a Southerner, I like the idea of preserving local tradition and dialect. When I visit my family, I often feel very comfortable because many there have been in the area for 200 years or more and have an attachment to the land. There is a sense of history there. That sense of history- or 'culture' as it is referred to here is non-existent in the Bay Area.Other parts of California 9aka more affordable areas) still have a degree of culture and historic identity.
What's more, if what you mean by culture is that there are various ethnic groups here, well as long as I've lived here, the various groups tend to live separate, segregated lives: the African Americans live in one area, the Hispanics in another, the Chinese in another, and so on. What's more is that there is a separation of classes. I'd say that SF shares some of the same class warfare traits as you'd find maybe in the UK. Secondly, there is no middle class here. When that happens, you get social unrest, which is why so many in this area gripe and complain because they are unhappy that the cost of living is beyond their best economic efforts.
So I'm not sure what this vague cultural thing is supposed to be all about. I've lived in it for years and so far, I don't find it to be such a redeeming quality that I'd put the Bay Area on a pedestal over any other large major metro.
well put! I was born and raised here and still don't get it totally; it's a great place but doesn't deserve to be put on a pedestal. Having gone to New Orleans a few times I think the culture is much more interesting and unique in places like that. The people there had real manners and just seemed more interesting and had more depth compared to Californians, in part I think b/c of the strong local roots. That place doesn't seem like an easy place to live at all but people love it to death. I think in CA a lot of what makes it great is weather and geography, things people didn't create. In places like NOLA it's food, music, and traditions which are things the people created. The views and setting of SF are amazing but it can only go so far. It's kind of funny that a lot of natives here talk about how its the best place to live and they could never imagine living anywhere else despite the fact they have never lived outside of the Bay Area or Northern CA.
I thought the question was directed to you because it was YOU who seemed to shower this thread with the overconfident posts that you know there is a SOLUTION and that 'this doesn't have to be this way'. .
overconfident posts?!? okay, if thats how you want to interpret then then that's your deal. Never claimed I knew all the solutions and you're reading too much into things as well.
Quote:
How are you planning to accomplish this without having people live on top of each other? Are there many empty lots you see in SF? Isn't the city already dense? And so are the suburbs, pretty dense AND congested.
Ever head of a mid-rise or low-rise? Ever notice how dense European cities are even though they aren't filled with high rises? Suburbs may me relatively dense compared to other american suburbs but not that dense.
Quote:
That's all I need. I was asking YOU the question because I was curious to see if you could provide me some examples, perhaps, some metro areas that have done it. I also wanted to know HOW MUCH IMPACT in prices these solutions will bring.
All the things you are proposing ARE NOT going to drop the prices in SF to the level where MAJORITY of people will be able to afford it.
Good god, what the hell do you want? I'm supposed to produce some quantitative report detailing exactly how much cheaper my ideas would make it? Amazing you seem to want all that but make the assertion that my ideas wouldn't make much a difference based of off who knows what. Go look at metro areas with good job growth that have a much cheaper cost of living and see how their public policies differ from the Bay Area's. Mainly with regulations, ordinances, property taxes, other taxes, fees, ect.... Even with the god awful Prop 13 present everywhere in CA, places like San Diego have much lower taxes and fees in other areas, bridge tolls being an example of that. It may not bring affordability down to a level to where it used to be but it helps. There are too many taxes, fees, and regulations here and they continue to try to add more.
What is there to oppose? I'm saying that cost of housing isn't the only thing in the world and offered suggestions about how to mitigate it.
Are you saying that the price of real estate is the only thing that matters and there is nothing, NOTHING, anyone can do to enjoy their life as long as there are places they like but can't afford?
I had to go back and see how this all even started b/c I forgot. NO I am not saying housing prices is the only thing that matters but it's a pretty important aspect for most people. But my original statement/point/opinion or whatever is that it's more expensive than it has to be b/c of unnecessary fees, taxes, regulations, bad public policy, ect....things that aren't that hard to change by just voting. That's all that I was saying, nothing more. What works for you doesn't necessarily work or is viable for others, so try to understand that. I don't know what the else I can say or defend with this thread and can't believe how far it's even gone. The Bay Area is a great place to live but was a much better place to live before; it's overpriced and thus overrated for what it is. Didn't always used to be this way either. You and others will disagree and thats fine.
Wow, how did this thread get crazy so fast?! I swear it was only 2 pages yesterday, LOL. Anyway, please calm down everyone or I'll have to use my moderator red pen... Haven't had a chance to read all the posts yet, but you can report anything that seems out-of-line & I'll review it.
I find comments such as yours hilarious. I live in Minneapolis, and while the weather here is bad, SF doesn't exactly have great weather either. I visited SF on vacation this past fall and was quite unimpressed. SF is incredibly overrated and not some utopia that people make it out to be. I have no idea why people pay the rents that they do to live there. Minneapolis has alot of culture/ diversity / ethnic restaurants / incredible music scene & arts scene etc. and one can buy a house here for $200,000.
The only thing I don't like about Mpls is the weather, but I loathe SF for many things. An overpriced rat race that is living of the myth of what it used to be. Someday I hope to retire and leave Mpls and should have a nice big fat nest egg saved up from living in a city that doesn't have an INSANE cost of living.
However, I have also vacationed in LA and I can see the point of paying the rents there. LA has space to park, the weather is beautiful and it feels MUCH LESS crowded than SF.
San Fran.. you can have it. I wouldn't go back for a vacation even if someone gave me free airfare.
I actually laughed at a few of your comments, which goes to show that everything is relative... L.A. a better place to live than San Francisco?? Bwahahahahaha!!! But just because I laugh hysterically at the thought, I wouldn't call somebody nuts for loving it down there. As for myself, I HATE their warm/dry weather that never changes, that HORRIBLE smog that gives me asthma attacks, constant fires, urban sprawl, materialism, etc. - and while they might have parking, that's probably because 90% of the cars are parked in bumper-to-bumper traffic on their incredibly congested freeways. We have traffic too, but I can go 40 miles in 30 minutes at rush-hour on certain freeways/routes, which can't be said for any part of L.A. Oh well, to each his own, and I'm quite happy paying the cost to live in this wonderful city.
Btw, I've never been to Minneapolis, so can't really compare it to here... I've heard it's a very nice place to live, but way too far from home (my loved ones & where I am comfortable) to be worth the money I'd save. And about the weather, have you visited SF in the dead of summer or winter? Our fall weather isn't anything special, in fact it's usually our foggiest & coldest time of year - but the summer and winter would put any midwestern town to shame. Can you stroll on the beach in December, or wear jeans and a light sweater in August? Call me crazy, but I love our strange weather!!
Last edited by gizmo980; 04-09-2008 at 07:49 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.
or economic downfall so significant the entire world would shudder. But then the prices in Plano, TX would also fall and the droves of people would still be complaining about the cost of living in the Bay Area in comparison with the 'rest of the country'. 
huh?
But just because I laugh hysterically at the thought, I wouldn't call somebody nuts for loving it down there. As for myself, I HATE their warm/dry weather that never changes, that HORRIBLE smog that gives me asthma attacks, constant fires, urban sprawl, materialism, etc. - and while they might have parking, that's probably because 90% of the cars are parked in bumper-to-bumper traffic on their incredibly congested freeways. 
