I had friends who were artists and graphic designers that lived in a 2-floor 4 bedroom apartment in Noe Valley with incredible views of the Bay. They were paying $3200/month combined, so $800/month each.
That time was probably one of the best in my life. There was always something to do in SF, we would go out every weekend, go to bars, clubs. Golden Gate park for sports, free outdoor concerts like Hardly Strictly Bluegrass, I saw Robin Williams perform comedy one year for free and most importantly it wasn't crowded. People didn't think that their social media life depended on them going to an event or a restaurant and posting about it.
It started getting worse because of the 7x7 list and lines grew longer because people wanted to follow that list like sheep. Then more and more tech workers drove up the prices until all my friends that I used to hang out with moved out of SF to other parts of the country. DC, LA, Denver. All their apartments got replaced by tech workers. SF is now a mono-culture and pretty destroyed if you ask me. Everything is overcrowded, unaffordable and overhyped. It's a real disappointment to see one of the most beautiful cities in the world rot from the inside.
I was told that there are rent-subsidy programs that allow people making relatively low wages to pay e.g. $300-800/mo for a 1-bedroom apartment
My thought after hearing that is that, unless you're making north of $300-400k, it's probably better to make around $50-60k and collect subsidies + benefits. The middle income group gets shafted.
I lived in the Bay Area for 17 years. Enjoyed the time but it’s “for a season”. It’s common for folks in the Bay Area to look at other locations as “lesser”. In reality, it’s about tradeoffs.
That's a lot of independence.
I’ve apparently been overlooking all of them!
If not, Seattle/Bellevue are a great option. Or Portland even.
I don't think Bellevue fits the bill here, but certain Seattle neighborhoods do.
Portland I’ll admit haven’t explored well, so not going to give a judgement.
Ballard, Capitol Hill, Alki, University, Sunset Hill... The list goes on. Every single one of those neighborhoods has a completely different vibe (many of them used to be different cities). Incredible restaurants if you put in the slightest amount of effort to finding them. Tons of fun and interesting activities. The city is on a hill above the ocean (JUST like SF), the views are hard to avoid. Year round running weather. It may be that you just like SF more, and that's fine.
Sure it’s okay, not as nice for running as SF or Vancouver but yeah far better than Phoenix and SoCal cities.
Maybe I went to the wrong areas, but it sounds like I was supposed to get to the sprawling suburbs?
You are allowed to personally like one city over the other. It just seems silly to base your opinion on living in one and a few days in another, and then argue when people point out that it seems like you haven't really done or gone to the places that make a place interesting.
No compromise needed on those points, the compromise is living in a smaller apartment, but it’s okay since now my backyard is Golden Gate Park.
More traffic, fewer families, faster pace of life, etc.
The Bay Area has its pros and cons.
So yes I compromise on apartment/house size because I value walkability, local activity density, and year round running. Guess that makes me part of the “very narrow demographic” in USA.
The fact that you think SF is the only city in America with these three things and the flippant, sarcastic "guess that makes me part of the very narrow demographic" quip tells me you aren't really approaching this discussion with an open mind.
No city on the planet is perfect. You are making tradeoffs by living where you do, same as I do living where I am.
Why does this idea seem like a personal attack to you? Every single reply you've made in this thread has the subtext "no, nope, not my experience, you're wrong".
Again, you like SF. That's great! It's not for everyone. That's not an assault on your personage.
Denver is very much the same as Seattle (although I'd argue its got less going on culturally than Seattle).
There are a number of cities where yes, you'll make less objectively, but the cost of living is low enough that that's a wash. You'll have less prestige and maybe work on less important projects. But if that's important to you, why are you pinning your cards to someone else's mast instead of striking out on your own?
Whenever someone suggests a specific alternative city here we always get a lot of lame complaints that the proposed alternative is unacceptable due to weather / jobs / transportation / politics / food / family ties / blah blah blah. I think a lot of people just prefer to complain instead of taking action to improve their situation.
But anyway if you want a specific location then try Cleveland. It's a nice place to live.
NYC is an infinitely larger, more varied, interesting, and multi-cultural city than SF. Better transit and more affordable too, while reaching similar salaries. Anyone who's not drinking the tech-bro kool-aid but still wants to be part of the industry at the highest levels should be there.
I deeply regret moving here from California over a decade ago and am eagerly awaiting to one day return soon.
(:
Whiteface and Killington are about the same drive as Tahoe from SF, with vertical on par (3k+). Catskills even closer. There's no Yosemite obviously, but upstate NY/Vermont is as good as it gets east of the Rockies.
There’s a lot of nostalgia. Both for what the city used to be and what I potentially can (but most likely won’t) become. The delusion is so rampant that it’s really what causes people to vote you (and me) down. Like objectively speaking sf is a terrible city and many people agree. At best you can like the city but you cannot ignore the fact that there are some pretty horrible downsides for living here and that many many people hate the city.
I will say if you work in tech or are a liberal extremist or you’re gay then it may be worth it to live here but I wouldn’t call it wonderful. You can’t make the city better if you don’t admit the faults.