Sure, but then you have to live in St. Louis, Missouri.
I'm sure I could move to a third world country and have an even lower cost of living. As though it were otherwise equivalent to living in a top US city.
SF is a tech echo-chamber with terrible public transit and rental market that probably wouldn't be so expensive if anyone were allowed to build anything. On top of all that it has managed to attract more douchebags ("tech gold rush") per capita than Manhattan.
I'm not sure the density of craft cocktails bars and farm-to-table restaurants, or the fact that it never gets too hot makes up for the drawbacks.
I actually understand the attraction of the Bay area in terms of climate, access to mountains and oceans and redwood forests, and the overall vibe of the place. If I were interested in moving somewhere else (which I'm not), and someone wanted to give me a really big pile of money, I'd definitely consider moving there especially if I didn't have to commute.
That said, I definitely get your comments. Aspects of the Silicon Valley mindset can get to be a bit much after a while. Much of the actual valley is suburban sprawl with awful traffic and I find SF itself something of a mixed bag even if it has a lot of positives.
SF is def way more than just those things you cherry picked. Also, the "more douchebags per capita than Manhattan" -- you're going to need a citation for that.
Personally, I like the people here - both counter cultural, and also scientific. Very friendly to us aspy-leaning folks. A place where someone can say "I quit my job and am doing {teaching yoga, making the aforementioned craft cocktails, etc}" without judgement. A place where, quite literally, the core of our technological world is being invented. The weather is a bonus, and the accessibility to the great American west.
I've yet to meet someone who feels this way who's actually tried getting out of their house beyond going to the aforementioned cocktail bars. If you're an uninteresting person and uninterested in exploring, the city you're in isn't going to magically be interesting the second you step out the door. But hey no complaints here, that just means the fun parts of sf are all the less crowded.
Complaints about the rent and transit are obviously legitimate, though you may be overestimating the quality of transit in most other cities.
I've visited SF and the outlying areas. It's nice. But with all the car traffic to get anywhere outside the mass-transit grid (and the West Coast sprawl that's a side-effect of having enough land to sprawl onto), it's not nearly nice enough to justify the outsized cost of living.
Maybe in the future my attitude will change, but as of right now you literally could not pay me enough to move to the SF / MTV area.
Mountain View is a typical upper-middle class suburb that exist in every US city with >100k population. It's single family houses with strip malls and horrible commute from anywhere. Really nothing to boast about. Minority of employees live in SF and waste 2.5 hours of their life on commute.
Speaking as someone who lives in a developing world tax haven, I'd almost rather live here than in SF, even if they cost the same. But it's not even close. I told the Google recruiter that they can't afford me, so please stop emailing me. They can't pay me enough to make up for the difference in cost of living.
Sure, but then you have to live in St. Louis, Missouri.
Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Austin, Minneapolis, and Boston are more affordable than the Bay Area, and generally considered to be good places to live. (I won't say anything either way about St. Louis, because I don't know anything about it. I was there about 12 years ago and will probably be there this year for Strange Loop, but that's it.) There isn't a lack of affordable, good places to live in the U.S. There isn't even a lack of affordable, good places to live in cities: Chicago is still the Second City, culturally. L.A. is just a company town for the entertainment industry and way too spread out.
New York is expensive but actually worth it in terms of urban amenity (unlike SF). There really isn't anywhere in the U.S. that has that urban density, so if that's what you want, NYC provides it. San Francisco, on the other hand, wouldn't be on the map except for the VC industry. It has more of a one-dimensional economy than Los Angeles.
pyrophane|10 years ago
I'm not sure the density of craft cocktails bars and farm-to-table restaurants, or the fact that it never gets too hot makes up for the drawbacks.
ghaff|10 years ago
That said, I definitely get your comments. Aspects of the Silicon Valley mindset can get to be a bit much after a while. Much of the actual valley is suburban sprawl with awful traffic and I find SF itself something of a mixed bag even if it has a lot of positives.
ryanobjc|10 years ago
Personally, I like the people here - both counter cultural, and also scientific. Very friendly to us aspy-leaning folks. A place where someone can say "I quit my job and am doing {teaching yoga, making the aforementioned craft cocktails, etc}" without judgement. A place where, quite literally, the core of our technological world is being invented. The weather is a bonus, and the accessibility to the great American west.
So yea, quit knocking my town!
wutbrodo|10 years ago
Complaints about the rent and transit are obviously legitimate, though you may be overestimating the quality of transit in most other cities.
fixermark|10 years ago
Maybe in the future my attitude will change, but as of right now you literally could not pay me enough to move to the SF / MTV area.
smm2000|10 years ago
eloff|10 years ago
xirdstl|10 years ago
jsolson|10 years ago
michaelochurch|10 years ago
Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Austin, Minneapolis, and Boston are more affordable than the Bay Area, and generally considered to be good places to live. (I won't say anything either way about St. Louis, because I don't know anything about it. I was there about 12 years ago and will probably be there this year for Strange Loop, but that's it.) There isn't a lack of affordable, good places to live in the U.S. There isn't even a lack of affordable, good places to live in cities: Chicago is still the Second City, culturally. L.A. is just a company town for the entertainment industry and way too spread out.
New York is expensive but actually worth it in terms of urban amenity (unlike SF). There really isn't anywhere in the U.S. that has that urban density, so if that's what you want, NYC provides it. San Francisco, on the other hand, wouldn't be on the map except for the VC industry. It has more of a one-dimensional economy than Los Angeles.
unknown|10 years ago
[deleted]