One-third of Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

[The North One]

Originally Posted by fflint

Oh noes, San Francisco is abandoned!

You're the last person who should be making this kind of comment.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by tech12

It's also different in many ways: it has a much denser core, better public transit, a much bigger population, a very different climate, very different topography, different demographics, etc.



Wait...so are there or aren't there phonies in Houston? You can't seem to make up your mind.

There are phonies in Houston just not nearly as many. People don't come to Houston so they can live the life of a reality TV star. In general anyways.

And as I said, I used to make my home in LA (Carson, close enough), so this isn't city vs. city because I know LA.

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Exactly. I'm also tired of people equating far out places like Riverside or Orange County as "LA". That's where a lot of these stereotypes stem from. The Southland =/= The City of Los Angeles. The real LA (including Weho, Beverly Hills, and Santa Monica) is incredibly dense, often very walkable, and is anything but Apple Pie America.

LA is dense now days but that wasn't always the case. It used to sprawl for miles and miles with lots of freeways just like any Sun Belt area. But as LA got more popular and more people started filling it in, all of that suburbia started moving elsewhere, especially toward Riverside and San Bernardino.

[JDRCRASH]

One HUGE difference between LA and Houston is that much of LA's original "sprawl" was in fact built on the Pacific Electric rail network (not necessarily a bad thing). It linked up older parts of town(s) and the central focus point of that network was, of course, Downtown LA. This was long before the Interstates carved up the landscape and caused modern sprawl to fill in the gaps.

You can see this when viewing the street grid patterns of the city and surrounding areas in person, but especially when using Google Earth/Maps.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Sorry but I see zero, absolutely zero, similarities between Houston and LA. Frankly they shouldn't even be in the same sentence.

I've lived in both. The similarities are there and striking. Someone mentioned there being walkable places in LA. If so, I'd imagine you'd have to be some kind of bigwig and VIP to live in such areas, though for certain public transportation has improved tremendously since the 80's and 90's. Seeing "absolutely zero [similarities]" must mean you're a person that's spent limited time in one or the other if not both whereas I lived in both for years. Just because there aren't as many palm trees and celebs in Houston doesn't mean they both aren't sprawly Sun Belt places near the coast.

---------------------

Moving on, as one of the culprits responsible for hijacking the thread, I feel a necessary responsibility to get it back on course.

San Francisco seems like a great place (it's the only Bay Area city I've never been to) but I don't see myself ever living there or anywhere in the Bay Area. What is so alluring about living there, the scenery? I'd feel better about just taking a vacation or three there every few years than to live there if it's so expensive. Is San Jose/Silicon Valley any less expensive or is it in the same stratosphere as the rest of the area?

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by strongbad635

Sadly I'm slipping into this statistic. I am moving from Los Angeles to Houston this summer. But it's for a music career opportunity, not because Houston is cheap or so glamorous.

Oh man, I am sorry to hear that. How unfortunate. Glad it is a good career opportunity though.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by dktshb

Oh man, I am sorry to hear that. How unfortunate. Glad it is a good career opportunity though.

Oh God, it's not that bad down here. You have all the big city amenities you get everywhere else except New York and LA's tourist areas, it rarely gets cold, it almost never snows and if you want to live with urbanity and walkability, it's possible even if not likely. So what no one is gonna take a casual vacation here and TV shows aren't being filmed here.

You guys must live in one of the tourist driven areas of LA to look down on Houston. There are plenty of places in LA County that are a downright pit and I know from experience.

And I apologize for hijacking the thread once again.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

One HUGE difference between LA and Houston is that much of LA's original "sprawl" was in fact built on the Pacific Electric rail network (not necessarily a bad thing). It linked up older parts of town(s) and the central focus point of that network was, of course, Downtown LA. This was long before the Interstates carved up the landscape and caused modern sprawl to fill in the gaps.

You can see this when viewing the street grid patterns of the city and surrounding areas in person, but especially when using Google Earth/Maps.

Biting my tongue on this one.......

But this isn't unique to L.A., it was just on a larger scale there.


http://offcite.org/wp-content/upload...-map-image.jpg

Back to the Bay Area, the average rent in San Francisco is $3,770 per month. The average rent in Dallas is $1,489 per month.

https://www.rentjungle.com/average-r...o-rent-trends/
https://www.rentjungle.com/average-r...s-rent-trends/

If you book two weeks out, you can get round trip flights on Southwest for around $190.00. Assuming your hotel costs aren't over the top you can live and work in Dallas, visit San Francisco literally EVERY WEEKEND, and it still costs less than actually living in San Francisco. So spending more than 25% of your waking life on vacation in the Bay Area is cheaper than living there.

I would leave too, use the money I was spending on rent to buy a house and build equity and fly to a different city every weekend.

[The North One]

Umm, that's kind of a stretch, don't you think? Just because flights are cheap doesn't mean people are going to see that as a positive to live in a particular city or even utilize it.

Flying to other cities for day trips is an incredible hassle and isn't really a thing people do regularly. I can get a flight to NYC for $80 on Spirit, I could be there in less than 2 hours and yet I've still never visited. (Although I did hear a commercial here about an airline advertising "day trips" to NY so maybe it happens more often than I think )

I get the point you were making about cost of living though.

[Jonesy55]

This is quite a common phenomenon I think in very expensive, large cities. Look at NYC, London, Paris etc they all lose population year after year to other parts of their respective countries as residents move out in search of a cheaper life/better lifestyle.

They all gain population overall though as international migrants more than make up for that domestic population loss as those kind of international cities are much easier places to start a new life in a new country than the arguably more comfortable/better quality of life small towns and cities that the natives are moving to because as a newcomer you need networks that only exist in such international cities.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

This is quite a common phenomenon I think in very expensive, large cities. Look at NYC, London, Paris etc they all lose population year after year to other parts of their respective countries as residents move out in search of a cheaper life/better lifestyle.

They all gain population overall though as international migrants more than make up for that domestic population loss as those kind of international cities are much easier places to start a new life in a new country than the arguably more comfortable/better quality of life small towns and cities that the natives are moving to because as a newcomer you need networks that only exist in such international cities.

It's only common in cities which heavily restrict development. Tokyo doesn't face this problem.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

Biting my tongue on this one.......

But this isn't unique to L.A., it was just on a larger scale there.

No. There is absolutely no comparison (as far as the type of rail service and how it affected urbanization) between the map you posted and this (1925):


Source: LACMTA Archives


A more apt comparison with that map you posted would be the Yellow Car streetcar network:


Source: Old Imprints

Not trying to talk down on Houston, just clarifying the differences.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

No. There is absolutely no comparison (as far as the type of rail service and how it affected urbanization) between the map you posted and this (1925):


Source: LACMTA Archives


A more apt comparison with that map you posted would be the Yellow Car streetcar network:


Source: Old Imprints

Not trying to talk down on Houston, just clarifying the differences.

It sounds like you are because I specifically said that the scale of the streetcar networks were NOT comparable. Streetcars were common in many American cities in the 1920's, my relatives rode them in Cleveland to get to school. I bet there is even a thread on that somewhere. Keep "clarifying" those "differences" though.

My point was that the opportunity cost of RENTING in the bay area is huge. When someone is young, it's a great and fun place to be, but unless you land something lucrative in the first 5-10 years, living there for too long without being a native ends up being an economic handicap and only gives you bragging rights about scenery and a sense that you can be condescending toward people who live east of Mt. Diablo. It's just becoming a country club for aging hippies and that douchebag from Instagram who ties money to balloons for fun.

[mhays]

Well, you also get to live in an excellent urban environment that's not available in most metros.

[ThePhun1]

If you live in San Francisco or directly along the Bay. Otherwise, it's a pretty steep price to pay.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by mhays

Well, you also get to live in an excellent urban environment that's not available in most metros.

The thing is the cost of living in all urban environments in the U.S. have resin.
Urban areas have been priced far above what they're actually worth. Sure it's nice to live in one but when you come back home to a shack and can hardly put food on the table it's evident that your standard of living overall sucks.

[Crawford]

If you want to live in the Western U.S., and want a walkable/transit oriented environment, it's basically the only option. SF has an urban core that, while small, is at least arguably/plausibly second best in the U.S. and no worse than Top 5 or so.

I know that isn't the main reason why it's expensive (the sprawly parts of the Bay are predominant and are often more expensive than the urban parts), but I think it's relevant.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If you want to live in the Western U.S., and want a walkable/transit oriented environment, it's basically the only option. SF has an urban core that, while small, is at least arguably/plausibly second best in the U.S. and no worse than Top 5 or so.

I know that isn't the main reason why it's expensive (the sprawly parts of the Bay are predominant and are often more expensive than the urban parts), but I think it's relevant.

and let's not forget, the "sprawly" parts of the bay area have fantastic weather, great schools, the hottest job markets in the country, are a reasonable drive from beaches, skiing, national parks, and the more traditional urban environment of san francisco, etc etc.

you get what you pay for in all things, including real estate. will cost of living increases slow or even turn around for a while - probably, and hopefully. wil there be a fundamental, structural change that causes the bay area to cease being one of the most desirable places to live in america? unlikely.

[The North One]

^lmfao, you people love to talk in circles, huh?

There's a bubble, there's not doubt about it. It has nothing to do with "getting what you pay for".

The fundamental change is already happening.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by The North One

^lmfao, you people love to talk in circles, huh?

There's a bubble, there's not doubt about it. It has nothing to do with "getting what you pay for".

The fundamental change is already happening.

Oh really? I for one doubt theres a "bubble." SF housing prices seem perfectly rational to me.

[mhays]

Prices are based on what people will pay. Future prices are based on the same thing plus factors that will be added, such as new supply, an invasion of ant-people, etc.

None of this points to a SF bubble.

As for putting food on the table, what makes you (North One) think that the people paying these high prices aren't doing that? They're scratching and clawing, sure, like some are paying 60% of their income for housing, or living with five roommates, but they're doing it. Sure it doesn't work for everyone, but prices are this high despite that.