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.
Here's a selection of London housing styles. The neighborhoods of Kidbrooke, Stratford, Maida Vale, Hampstead, Hornsey, Kensington, Bow, Earl's Court (etc) included.
Picture I took while in London, these were generally the type of houses I saw in the city immediate:
And it was on a sunny day too. I mean I don't hate the building designs but personally I've never seen it as attractive. I honor its historic value, but I don't feel like its the kind of buildings that make me want to live there. It also didn't help that the climate is such garbage that all the colors (usually browns and grey) felt more muted than usual.
But even with SF having fog all the time, the housing was just much more attractive. I should also make clear that when i mentioned architecture earlier, I was referring to houses people could live in, apartments, bungalows, ect. Not offices or older non-residential buildings, mainly because when compare how a city looks I'm also envisioning a potential abode.
Your typical SF Victorians, usually for wealthier, and upper middle class, which you can imagine is quite bigger here in SF.
Apartments and houses in the Western and Southern side where it's most dense with solid middle class families.
And finally your more spacious but still dense housing in Berkeley and Oakland.
Keep in mind none of these places are extremely extravagant, all are just middle class, (with exception to the post-card SF photo Victorians and the houses over the Claremont hills in Berkeley, they're not super-elite but they are upper-class). Nonetheless, they're places and areas I reside in and past by all the time. They're not special buildings of super historic value (except maybe the Victorians at Dawn pic, I see that one on post cards a lot). But it's the colors, it's the modern-style, combined with futuristic interpretation, and historical tribute. With exception for the obvious new apartments in the East Bay, most of these houses aren't new, they've been around since the Bay Area became a financial hub in the 19th and 20th century. What it boils down to is preference obviously, but I simply don't have much of a preference for older buildings that don't stick out and remind me of a history book instead of a more Cosmopolitan future with acknowledgment of the region's past, which is why Victorians are my favorite. Anyways, it's just my opinion, if you like London housing and styles then fine, I just never understood it. Inside London they were either old, drab-castle like apartments, or contemporary apartments that were absolutely not created for their looks. And outside of London the houses look just like American suburban houses, just with less appeal.
I love the architecture of both cities. Both have stunning architecture in their own ways. But I have to say a few things about the pictures you posted above.
Now if you want to call $2.4 million, middle class then ok. SF's middle class is no different from Londons middle class in that they can afford multi-million dollar homes, BUT these are not the homes of your typical middle class Americans or British. They are middle class with 6 figure+ salaries.
This picture you posted is of homes in Daly City and more in line with what I would describe as middle class homes.
However the architecture of these is so bad, there was a song written specifically about them;
Little boxes by Malvina Reynolds
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky-tacky,
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes, all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one
They're all made out of ticky-tacky,
And they all look just the same.
Ticky-tacky" is a reference to the shoddy material used in the construction of the housing.
I wouldn't be holding these up as any shining example of SF architecture.
I live in Oakland and some of the architecture of SF and the East Bay (Oakland, Berkeley) is beautiful but the people who can afford nice 3-4 bed Victorian houses with a garden are far better off financially than your average Joe, just like in London. SF, like London has some of the most expensive real estate in the world. Your typical middle class family are more likely to be living in an apartment or in the likes of Daly City's little boxes than a grand Victorian. I think that was partially the point you were making but I wanted to clarify.
Last edited by Rozenn; 05-28-2014 at 04:28 PM..
Reason: Copyright issues
London has the British museum. Natural History museum, Science Museum, Victoria and Albert Museum (etc etc all world class and all free), The National Gallery, The Tate Modern, The Royal Albert Hall, The Tower of London 1000 years of history, St. Paul's cathedral (designed by sir Christopher Wren), Westminster Abbey, St. Martin in the fields, Oxford Street, The Strand, Picaddily Circus, Greenwich, Buckingham Palace, The South Bank, The London Eye, Trafalgar Square, Wembley Stadium. Leicester Square, The West End (the world premier theatre district, Madame Taussads, Wimbledon, Twickenham, London is home to 14 (FOURETEEN) professional football clubs let alone professional Rugby clubs, Lords, Hyde Park - I could go on! Oh yes and of course Westminster Palace and its 'clock' numerous bridges too including yes Tower Bridge!
I'm well aware, I was pointing out the absurdity of saying the only thing interesting in the Bay Area is a bridge.
I love the architecture of both cities. Both have stunning architecture in their own ways. But I have to say a few things about the pictures you posted above.
This picture is of the famous painted ladies in Alamo square. They ARE of Historic Value. One of these came up for sale recently
Now if you want to call $2.4 million, middle class then ok. SF's middle class is no different from Londons middle class in that they can afford multi-million dollar homes, BUT these are not the homes of your typical middle class Americans or British. They are middle class with 6 figure+ salaries.
This picture you posted is of homes in Daly City and more in line with what I would describe as middle class homes.
However the architecture of these is so bad, there was a song written specifically about them;
Little boxes by Malvina Reynolds
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky-tacky,
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes, all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one
They're all made out of ticky-tacky,
And they all look just the same.
Ticky-tacky" is a reference to the shoddy material used in the construction of the housing.
I wouldn't be holding these up as any shining example of SF architecture.
I live in Oakland and some of the architecture of SF and the East Bay (Oakland, Berkeley) is beautiful but the people who can afford nice 3-4 bed Victorian houses with a garden are far better off financially than your average Joe, just like in London. SF, like London has some of the most expensive real estate in the world. Your typiclal middle class family are more likely to be living in an apartment in the likes of Daly City's little boxes than a grand Victorian. I think that was the partially point you were making but I wanted to clarify.
Certainly not, but its what average people who are middle class in Western SF and lower towards Daly City live in. Although is that image in Daly City? I thought it was the Sunset? Nonetheless, I always thought they had a kind of iconic city/suburban thing about them. As for the Victorians, they're not that expensive. The one in the photo is, its a famous shot. But firstly, 6-figure incomes in the Bay Area--especially for Tech workers--are not that hard to come by, especially if they're married or with room mates. I and many others with good investment can get a mortgage on some near Duboce park for example. Secondly there's tons of Victorians in West Oakland, and they're really inexpensive. I think I posted an image of one.
Certainly not, but its what average people who are middle class in Western SF and lower towards Daly City live in. Although is that image in Daly City? I thought it was the Sunset? Nonetheless, I always thought they had a kind of iconic city/suburban thing about them. As for the Victorians, they're not that expensive. The one in the photo is, its a famous shot. But firstly, 6-figure incomes in the Bay Area--especially for Tech workers--are not that hard to come by, especially if they're married or with room mates. I and many others with good investment can get a mortgage on some near Duboce park for example. Secondly there's tons of Victorians in West Oakland, and they're really inexpensive. I think I posted an image of one.
True, the real issue here is available inventory. It's excruciatingly low.
When we talk about affordability, the problem is not finding people to afford the units available. There are more qualified people looking to buy then there are homes for sale, which makes it even worse for those who aspire to buy in the future. The longer they wait, the more unattainable the possibility of buying seems.
One way to solve the affordability issue is to get married.
The average family income in the Bay Area for a dual-income couple where both spouses work is over $150,000, that's about Oakland's average too, which is much higher than the median income stats we read about when looking at affordability.
I'll shoot some photos of my neighborhoods and daily routes (mostly Berkeley and S.F. stuff). I'm really interested in Silicon Valley architecture, it's mostly new age and tech-y I imagine. Montclair you live the South Bay right? (Your user name is my bus route in the East Bay, btw.)
True, the real issue here is available inventory. It's excruciatingly low.
When we talk about affordability, the problem is not finding people to afford the units available. There are more qualified people looking to buy then there are homes for sale, which makes it even worse for those who aspire to buy in the future. The longer they wait, the more unattainable the possibility of buying seems.
One way to solve the affordability issue is to get married.
The average family income in the Bay Area for a dual-income couple where both spouses work is over $150,000, that's about Oakland's average too, which is much higher than the median income stats we read about when looking at affordability.
Yes, San Francisco has been very strange on it's permits to build in the city. But it's understandable considering how dense it is. Almost makes me wish the Western neighborhoods were high rise apartments, but then we wouldn't have the nice views we do. It should also be noted that sense the Bay as a whole deviates away from places like San Francisco and Silicon Valley and averages out with smaller places like Contra Costa or Gilroy that the real average San Jose-Oakland-San Francisco is likely higher.
Yes living in the most diverse county in the world in the most diverse city of the world is devoid of culture...
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.
