Work in SF, live in San Jose area? (San Francisco, Oakland: apartment complex, lease)

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man

And this is why San Jose and Oakland are not taken seriously. Even their residents defer to SF. And in the case of San Jose, it's even worse, as SF is a much smaller city than us.

I don't see Baltimore defering to DC, even though they're only an hour away and Baltimore is much smaller than DC. It's time we in San Jose be proud of our city and stop revering our neighbor.

While all these folks in SJ and Oakland are dropping their pants for SF, SF residents continuously look down on us. Why are we giving them their due when all they do is denigrate our cities?

Our mentalities and attitudes need to change. And it starts with referring to SF as "SF" instead of "The Sh!tty".

We can do it, San Joseans!

Trying to change the nomenclature is an uphill battle. San Jose will have to feel more citylike before it becomes a real city. That means more density, better transit, etc. Same deal with Oakland. Oakland, like so many CA cities fights new housing tooth and nail and then wrings its hands about the plight of the poor and middle class, when they should be densifying and adding a lot more population than they are.

[capoeira]

Originally Posted by BellevueNative

- Comfort. I'm used to living in smaller cities and burbs, I'm not a big partier, and I feel like the city is more activity, noise and stress than I need. I like working in the city but being able to go home to relax in quiet at the end of the day. I also like being able to easily drive to places outside of my immediate neighborhood; I feel like city living is great for walkability to places nearby, but almost prohibitive for expanding horizons outside of the walkable area.

If you plan on driving to work San Mateo is a great choice. Caltrain is the problem with San Mateo or Redwood City. Suppose you work a little late and just barely miss the 6:33 pm train. You have to wait until 7:30 pm to get another train to San Mateo. But you could get a train to Redwood City at 6:56 pm. Suppose you want to have a nice dinner in SF after work. You get back to the Caltrain station at 8:41 pm and just miss the 8:40 pm train. Bring a book to read since you will be waiting until 9:40 pm for the next train going south.

Weekday Timetable

I recommend Plan C - live in one of the nice apartment complexes by Tanforan Mall in San Bruno and take Bart to work. Its a 25 minute ride on Bart from San Bruno Bart to Powell St. in downtown SF. The caveat with this plan is possible airport noise in San Bruno.

I would consider Plan D - live in a place like the Avalon apartments right next to Union City Bart. One can get a luxury apartment there for ~$2300/month which is probably about $600 cheaper than Avalon San Bruno. Its a 41 minute ride to Embacadero Station from Union City. Union City is also a closer drive to the South Bay for weekend activites with your friends. The problem with this Bart line is that the train is very crowded at rush hour.

https://www.bart.gov/schedules/byline

[bobby_guz_man]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Trying to change the nomenclature is an uphill battle. San Jose will have to feel more citylike before it becomes a real city. That means more density, better transit, etc. Same deal with Oakland. Oakland, like so many CA cities fights new housing tooth and nail and then wrings its hands about the plight of the poor and middle class, when they should be densifying and adding a lot more population so than they are.

So mysty, San Jose is a "fake city"? Please elaborate on the "fakeness". I truly did not expect this perception of San Jose from you, but will be interesting to hear your view.

As to the housing issue: we all know San Jose has a bad job-to-housing ratio. It is imperative we increase the job numbers first before talking about housing. Adding housing without adding jobs leads to poor city services, and that would be irresponsible.

[BellevueNative]

Originally Posted by sn63

Fly down for a weekend, explore the Peninsula and let us know how it goes.

That's my plan, in the next month or two. Like I said, I've spent a lot of time down there - in San Jose and SF proper mostly, with a spattering of East Bay - but never with commuting in mind before. Visiting is a little different from the day to day reality, so I wanted an honest take.

I have a friend who commutes daily from San Jose, but he works in a different part of SF than I'd be headed to, and that apparently makes a bit of a difference with the Caltrain. An hour or so commute each way doesn't freak me out - that is a regular occurrence in Seattle, and in fact it usually takes me longer than that each way home-to-office now. San Jose would certainly give me more - and slightly cheaper - housing options from what I can tell...just don't know if the cost savings on rent would make up for the lost sanity in my commute?

[mossly]

Originally Posted by BellevueNative

...just don't know if the cost savings on rent would make up for the lost sanity in my commute?

This is a really hard question to answer for somebody else.

For me personally at this stage in my life, it's important to live as close to work as I can possibly afford. Mostly because I have young children at home and time spent commuting is time away from them above and beyond the regular workday.

But 15 years ago, before I had kids, I gladly commuted 65 miles each way every single day. At that point, the cost savings were worth more to me than the convenience of getting home earlier.

And for me, this has all always depended on the availability of train service. I didn't mind waiting for a train as long as I'd get one eventually. But having to drive a long distance with traffic....that was a whole other thing, and I hated it.

Other people, though, are okay with long drives in order to save housing money, and prefer having the flexibility to leave on their schedule rather than the train's schedule. Other people are never okay with a long commute, period. Other people would never consider living in a very urban place. Other people hate the suburbs above all.

So figure out what's most important to you. That will make your decision in the end. But if you're asking is it, in general, feasible and tolerable to live somewhere else and commute to SF? Yes, absolutely - a ton of people do it.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by BellevueNative

Weather actually has nothing to do with the potential move. I'll miss the rain and occasional snow...the four seasons. And Seattle is a truly beautiful place. Not that northern Calif. isn't...but it's a different kind of beauty.

So...Redwood City and San Mateo...which is the nicer of the two? I get the impression Redwood City is kinda office park-bland wasteland? Does San Mateo have any sort of downtown? Are both places safe for a single female - and yes, living alone?

Redwood City is definitely not office park bland. It runs the gamut.. you've got blue collar areas with heavy Hispanic influence all the way up to multi-million dollar spreads bordering Woodside. The downtown area has seen a lot of recent development and has shaken off its bad reputation. It's somewhat a similar story to San Mateo except that they have had their downtown firmly established for a long time, as well as the Hillsdale mall which flanks its major train station.

[Wintermomma]

I would definitely live as close to work as you safely can. See your friends in your off time. If you don't want to be in "The City" for other reasons, I agree with Redwood City, San Mateo. Daly City isn't very nice, not sure about the others. Check out www.crimereports.com.

[AtlasTraveler]

Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man

I'm not sure what do you mean by "the city"? Do you mean New York City? That's the only universal acceptance of "The City" moniker that I have heard used throughout the US.

We have three cities in the Bay Area: San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco, which one are you referring to? I'm going to assume that you mean the City of San Francisco since your title says so.

If that's the case, then yes, it is crazy. Live somewhere close to work. Make new friends around where you live. I'd look into South SF or Daly City instead, even San Mateo or San Bruno. The furthest I would go is to the mid peninsula area, Mountain View or Sunnyvale would be the furthest, and even then it's a stretch.

Everyone knows SF is THE CITY. The future is literally being created here in the Bay. You can't say that for New York City. It's only purpose is to finance the risk, intellect, exuberance, weirdness, innovation and creativity of SF, Oakland, SV, surrounding areas. And this function is quickly being disrupted by fin-tech, so basically NYC is a cold relic from last century full of uptight type As adding no real value to society besides a bank account for the genius of The Bay. THE CITY of San Francisco is, of course, the heart and soul of this region.

[treedroppings]

Why not pacifica?!! Lol

[cardinal2007]

I would recommend Fremont, it might be a little more expensive than San Jose, but it is still less expensive than the peninsula, the commute by BART from Fremont to Market St in SF is probably about 45 mins, on Caltrain unless OP works near the ball park they have another 15-20 mins walking or taking Muni. Granted this is speculating on where OP works in SF, but it makes a big difference, if OP works near the ballpark or Mission Bay then Caltrain is more convenient than BART, and I would suggest Redwood City.