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 write those words not to in any way diminish the city of San Francisco. San Francisco is widely acknowledged a world class city. I remember traveling to S.F. on business in 2005 and having dinner at a Brazilian churrascaria called EspetuS on Market Street. During that visit, I recall saying that this is a pretty nice city. Overall, I liked the area. I was not impressed with the weather – a bit cooler of a climate than I expected (but I know it’s not Southern California, so I factored that in).
However, when I read that really nice homes will cost you 700K+ and that the cost of living in S.F. is 2nd to perhaps only Honolulu (even higher than New York City), I can’t help but ask the question – Is San Francisco so great – are the advantages so enormous, the city so spectacular, the lifestyle so fabulous -- that spending 55-65% of your income housing and the other inflated expenses are actually worth it (for someone like me who would not have a roommate to split expenses)? Is it worth it to stretch your money so thin when you could live in other great U.S. cities like Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, Chicago, Austin TX, or Denver at a fraction of the cost? Sure, S.F has an iconic status and very unique attractions (Golden Gate Bridge, Fisherman’s Wharf, Haight Asbury, Chinatown, The Presidio, mountains and hillsides galore – and there are many more to be sure).
But – given my acknowledgement upfront that San Francisco is a very nice city – can anyone help me rationalize why someone making $150K (in the top 1% of all Americans) would choose to stretch their income to its furthest limit in S.F. and live like someone only making $60K in another city when you could live in any of the other cities I mentioned above in relative luxury at that salary level? Help me understand and appreciate why S.F. is worth the money -- similar to how a resident who loves the city would. I want to see why, but right now I can’t.
I have a friend who grew up in San Diego who moved to Dearborn Michigan to work as a Manager with Ford Motor Company. He always talks about trying to move back to San Diego, even if it meant his money wouldn’t go as far. When I pressed him further on the topic, he said that regardless of the money, you can’t place a value on quality of life. But San Diego is a very laid back, sunny, almost tropical type of city -- almost like being on vacation everyday. I can see wanting to get back to San Diego and that lifestyle. San Francisco is very different and has a very different feel. Would my friend’s “quality of life” logic apply to those who favor living in S.F.?
Thanks in advance to all who respond. I would especially like to hear from anyone who has moved from S.F. to one of the cities I mentioned with a more reasonable cost of living and either loved the move or regretted moving out of S.F.
San Diego sucks (in my opinion), and the fact that you can understand someone sacrificing pay for quality of life there but not SF shows that you are looking at this from an entirely subjective point of view. What something is "worth" depends on what someone is willing to pay for it. I have often thought about moving back to the bay for its diversiry of people, sports teams, diverse topography, proximity to the coast, history, food - and I could go on. Some people want to feel like they are on "vacation" everyday of their life (zzzzzz), but that is not the standard for everyone. Other people want to be in what you accurately described as a world class city.
Ironically, I could transfer to San Diego tomorrow and make more money if I wanted to, but in several visits I could not convince myself I'd enjoy living there. No music, no culture, nothing interesting about it at all. Prob the mot boring major metro I've ever been to. Even the weather is the same everyday. I'd take SF 10 times out of 10, but that's just me. To each their own though.
The older I get, the less I question how people spend their money. If it is worth it to you, and it makes you happy, that is all that matters.
This is an old, but still relevant thread in my view. I think there's a piece of the economic puzzle that a lot of people leave out. The common argument is "you could live so much better somewhere cheaper." Well, yes, if you could make the same amount of money in that cheaper place. The reality is, for myself and many others, that's just not the case.
This is fine place to live. Quality of life, for those who can afford it, is excellent. I love the outdoor activities. But absent career I probably would indeed move somewhere less pricey. But career is huge - I have a career here that not only compensates me well, but that I actually enjoy, and that is worth a lot.
I write those words not to in any way diminish the city of San Francisco. San Francisco is widely acknowledged a world class city. I remember traveling to S.F. on business in 2005 and having dinner at a Brazilian churrascaria called EspetuS on Market Street. During that visit, I recall saying that this is a pretty nice city. Overall, I liked the area. I was not impressed with the weather – a bit cooler of a climate than I expected (but I know it’s not Southern California, so I factored that in).
However, when I read that really nice homes will cost you 700K+ and that the cost of living in S.F. is 2nd to perhaps only Honolulu (even higher than New York City), I can’t help but ask the question – Is San Francisco so great – are the advantages so enormous, the city so spectacular, the lifestyle so fabulous -- that spending 55-65% of your income housing and the other inflated expenses are actually worth it (for someone like me who would not have a roommate to split expenses)? Is it worth it to stretch your money so thin when you could live in other great U.S. cities like Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, Chicago, Austin TX, or Denver at a fraction of the cost? Sure, S.F has an iconic status and very unique attractions (Golden Gate Bridge, Fisherman’s Wharf, Haight Asbury, Chinatown, The Presidio, mountains and hillsides galore – and there are many more to be sure).
But – given my acknowledgement upfront that San Francisco is a very nice city – can anyone help me rationalize why someone making $150K (in the top 1% of all Americans) would choose to stretch their income to its furthest limit in S.F. and live like someone only making $60K in another city when you could live in any of the other cities I mentioned above in relative luxury at that salary level? Help me understand and appreciate why S.F. is worth the money -- similar to how a resident who loves the city would. I want to see why, but right now I can’t.
I have a friend who grew up in San Diego who moved to Dearborn Michigan to work as a Manager with Ford Motor Company. He always talks about trying to move back to San Diego, even if it meant his money wouldn’t go as far. When I pressed him further on the topic, he said that regardless of the money, you can’t place a value on quality of life. But San Diego is a very laid back, sunny, almost tropical type of city -- almost like being on vacation everyday. I can see wanting to get back to San Diego and that lifestyle. San Francisco is very different and has a very different feel. Would my friend’s “quality of life” logic apply to those who favor living in S.F.?
Thanks in advance to all who respond. I would especially like to hear from anyone who has moved from S.F. to one of the cities I mentioned with a more reasonable cost of living and either loved the move or regretted moving out of S.F.
I've lived here for 14 years now and have moved temporarily twice (Chicago in 2010 and LA in 2012) and both experiences in other cities were far more rewarding from a financial and cultural standpoint. I guess it really depends on what you personally consider to be worth it. If you don't enjoy spending alot and getting little, SF might be for you. If you want to live alone and not in a crappy neighborhood, your credit will need to be sterling and it's going to hit around 2500-3000 for something small and rundown. Now this won't include a parking spot so you will either need to pay for a space or run the risk of tickets (starting around 200) or even worse having your car in the clutches of Autoreturn (which will cost you about 700-1000 to get out). The cost of goods and services are also going to be much higher than you are used to by 15-25%, maybe more. There are so many other factors that depend on your personal lifestyle but whatever your flavor is, it's going to cost you. EVERYTHING in SF is heavily monetized.
The SF you recall from 2005 is not the SF of 2014. As someone who lives here, my honest opinion is no. If you are only making 150k and would like to live a lifestyle that reflects that but still stack back for the future you'd do better to move anywhere else.
Espetus is ridiculous. That parmesan encrusted pork followed by a piece of that grilled pineapple is one of the most delicious things Ive ever tasted.
This is an old, but still relevant thread in my view. I think there's a piece of the economic puzzle that a lot of people leave out. The common argument is "you could live so much better somewhere cheaper." Well, yes, if you could make the same amount of money in that cheaper place. The reality is, for myself and many others, that's just not the case.
This is fine place to live. Quality of life, for those who can afford it, is excellent. I love the outdoor activities. But absent career I probably would indeed move somewhere less pricey. But career is huge - I have a career here that not only compensates me well, but that I actually enjoy, and that is worth a lot.
Your point about career opportunities is very true, especially with the amount of capital flooding into the region now.
Quality of life is definitely good if you can afford it and manage it. The trouble is that there is a ragtag anti-growth constituency that has restricted regional housing supply for decades, and that restriction is allowing prices to grow out of control with the local economic boom. We could retain our high quality of life and ease pressure on housing prices through transit-oriented development, but the fractured local and regional politics make that prospect vanishingly unlikely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corleon3
I've lived here for 14 years now and have moved temporarily twice (Chicago in 2010 and LA in 2012) and both experiences in other cities were far more rewarding from a financial and cultural standpoint. I guess it really depends on what you personally consider to be worth it. If you don't enjoy spending alot and getting little, SF might be for you. If you want to live alone and not in a crappy neighborhood, your credit will need to be sterling and it's going to hit around 2500-3000 for something small and rundown. Now this won't include a parking spot so you will either need to pay for a space or run the risk of tickets (starting around 200) or even worse having your car in the clutches of Autoreturn (which will cost you about 700-1000 to get out). The cost of goods and services are also going to be much higher than you are used to by 15-25%, maybe more. There are so many other factors that depend on your personal lifestyle but whatever your flavor is, it's going to cost you. EVERYTHING in SF is heavily monetized.
The SF you recall from 2005 is not the SF of 2014. As someone who lives here, my honest opinion is no. If you are only making 150k and would like to live a lifestyle that reflects that but still stack back for the future you'd do better to move anywhere else.
Espetus is ridiculous. That parmesan encrusted pork followed by a piece of that grilled pineapple is one of the most delicious things Ive ever tasted.
It is an expensive city, certainly, but let's not go crazy. If you are making 150k, you can live quite comfortably here. The one cost that is unquestionably higher than other major US cities is housing, and housing is in bad shape and getting worse. Transportation, food, nightlife, etc., are comparable to other large cities. It's expensive to go to Espetus, but there are tons of inexpensive and moderately-priced restaurants available. Many people don't need to own cars in SF proper--transit is adequate for the work week, while a rental or car share for getting out of SF on the weekend is easily cheaper than paying for parking and tickets (and more convenient than driving around and looking for parking).
As for housing, decades of development failure has finally caught up to SF, and we are not likely to see relief soon. You can do it or you can't, and if you can, you've got to decide if it's worth it.
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.
