“Boosters, of which there are many, argue that [San Francisco] is just as vital as it ever was. It remains, they say, the place where everybody wants to be: witness the concentration of highly-qualified residents and the decision to put a new stem-cell research institute there. San Francisco is, indeed, one of America’s most alluring and urbane spots. Next to it, every other big city in California resembles a glorified suburb. Yet Kevin Starr, the state’s premier historian and a San Francisco native, says that it should really be compared with a more distant place: Monte Carlo.”
“Google shuttles 1,200 people a day, many of them from the Mission and other trendy parts of San Francisco, to its headquarters in suburban Mountain View. Such reverse commuting helps to explain why property prices in the city barely wobbled during the dotcom crash. Although it has been flat during the past year, the housing market remains the fourth-least affordable in America, says the National Association of Home Builders.
Those prices pose the greatest threat to the city’s future as a crucible of new ideas. Talented people are not always rich, and San Francisco is in danger of losing those who are not to less fashionable places.”
∙ City in a bottle: San Francisco’s half-recovery [The Economist]
May I kindly ask, that for ONCE we not drag San Jose and Palo Alto into our justifications for why San Francisco still should reign supreme as the great pantheon of urban virtues? Could this discussion please be only about the health of the city of San Francisco? If you want to talk about the growing jobs in San Jose, then please ask the editor for a South Bay thread.
“Since 2000, indeed, the city has shed more jobs than Detroit. And the losses have not just been in the frothy high-tech world. The city’s finance and insurance industry has moved or made redundant 15% of its workers, and now employs fewer people than during the recession of the early 1990s. ”
This point should not be lost by all of the civic boosters on this site. San Francisco will continue to become more expensive, but it is no longer a “real” city. It is now a pretend place for Boho trustafarians and a shocking homeless underclass. It reminds me of a movie set for a time that took place long ago. This was the port, this was a financial district, this was where coffee, chocolate, and manufacturing took place. Now it seems our big product is tourism and luxury condominiums for buyers who collect properties in choices places around the planet. Trust me, I am in N.Y.C. this week and San Francisco is viewed as a charming weekend destination, not a “city”, which as I was recently reminded, Los Angeles “took your city’s crown decades ago.” But they went on to really drive home the point, “San Francisco would be a nice place to RETIRE!”.
That reminds me of when I was vacationing in Venice, Italy last year when Italy won the World Cup and no one seemed to be celebrating while on TV they were going wild in Rome. I asked the hotel manager why so quiet and he said: “No (Italians can afford to)live in Venice now”.
anonoldtimer, New Yorkers don’t view any other municipality on this continent as a real “city”.
Anonoldtimer – spare us your melodrama.
SF is the headquarters for 6 Fortune 500 companies – including the 16th largest and biggest health care company in the world, McKesson (which is located right on Market Street in our ‘once mighty Financial District’).
You are right to point out the scale of our tourism industry, but to list out heavy industry and manufacturing sectors that have cleared out of our city and then imply that we are simply a playground for the rich with nothing really productive taking place here is ridiculous.
San Francisco has simply moved up the food chain from industry to services like law, finance, marketing and health care.
Our city’s success is not predicated on ‘Boho trustafarians’ or retirees looking for a pied-a-terre. San Francisco, despite the best efforts of our Board of Supervisors and ageing hippies, is thriving right now.
Does anyone really think a New Yorker would prefer San Francisco over Los Angeles? Like infinitynewbee said, New Yorkers don’t view any other municipality on this continent as a real ‘city’. You could not pay me enough money to live in Los Angeles, the Valley, or the LA Basin. There is no comparison between San Francisco and Los Angeles!
Don’t forget that an important part of San Francisco’s population are the folks lucky enough to be secure in below-market-value rent controlled apartments.
Yes, Monte Carlo, Zurich by the bay. That is, if you can wade thru the homeless, street filth, and pervasive graffiti – in look-the-other-way SF. While the region IS picking up & every graduate is heading here — for a very small (worldwide) city of 800,000 with a reputation for a city of 8m people — it does seem SF is its own press machine (hello NY Times, NPR). SF based feel-good stories — whether on the economy or endless profiles of the Bay Area’s zealous quest for the good life are always a safe media bet and a happy relief from any real national or world news.
I find it interesting that most descriptions of the city, good and bad, pertain to the northern corner, maybe the northern half, plus the hip areas of the Mission. Detractors and promoters forget the thousands of families living in the Sunset, Richmond, Excelsior, Ocean View, etc. San Francisco is home to these people not just a destination, with Supervisor Ed Jew a notable exception.
When discussing the economic future of the city, whether housing or businesses, we should not be parochial and forget there is another “city” in the city. When we say “New York”, do you think of Staten Island, or Brooklyn, or the Bronx, or just Manhattan?
Jordan-
McKesson over the past decade has moved a substantial number of jobs out of one post st. to less expensive parts of the country. I think the economist is making a point (through data) that jobs have left SF and is questioning the fundamentals underlying the “boom”.
Infinitynewbee’s comment about Venice Italy is right on! The FACT is that San Francisco’s #1 employer is tourism and those are not high paying jobs. In my daughter’s condo building in Cow Hollow, only half are full time residents, and of that 50%, only two work. The building is mostly retired second homeowners from other parts of the country. Sounds like Monte Carlo to me. Everyone goes on and on about the tech. jobs, but South Park is only a satellite of the San Jose and the Peninsula.
Could we stop the comparisons with Los Angeles please! Who cares about L.A.!? For myself, the fact that this city is loosing high paying jobs is far more important that whether or not we are “prettier” than L.A. (which we are 🙂 )
P.S. Did anyone actually READ the Economist article. Those numbers are not something to brag about. Why some in this city cannot admit we may have some problems is beyond me? “But, but, the Google busses come all the way to the Marina”.
While I fundamentally agree with the article and worry about our city’s future, I have to defend our fair Yerba Buena here. Pardon me while I wax poetic here. One of the things I love most about this city is its innate ability to change, grow, and evolve.
In the grand scheme of things, we’re a fairly young city. In the last 150 years, SF morphed from a tiny fishing village into the largest city on the west coast, virtually overnight. Yes, I realize that LA outgrew us in the 50s, but bear with the allegory here. Once a center of industry and manufacturing, SF evolved into a center of banking and finance, and now into a center of tech/biotech.
This city has managed to reinvent itself many times in its short life, and remains relevant and modern despite getting leveled by an earthquake 100 years ago and badly damaged 18 years ago. San Francisco is a survivor.
So what’s happened recently? Just one person’s opinion here, but we have a concentration of narrow-minded individuals who selfishly want to stop the city’s evolution for their own benefit. Whether it’s trustafarians protecting their wealth, hippies refusing to let 1969 go, or NIMBYs concerned about their views, it’s all the same. The result is no change and no growth, which makes the city overly expensive to live and do business in, which in turn prompts people and business to leave.
Luckily, as the article mentions, many of these blocking groups are childless and aging. So eventually they’ll die out and the next generation will hopefully be a better custodian of the city. I optimistically believe that will happen. Not sure if this stat is accurate, but I heard that SF has built more housing in the last 5 years than it did in the previous 20. So keep hope alive.
I don’t care about San Francisco’s economic virtues. All I care about is that I am happier living in San Francisco than I’ve been living anywhere else. That’s all that matters …. happiness. I’m the happiest I’ve ever been, and I’m not about to make out a list of the reasons why.
It’s funny. If this is a place that is losing all of our jobs, why do we see stories like this?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/17/BUGEFR1DT821.DTL&hw=downtown+rents&sn=001&sc=1000
Jamie, do you have a trust fund? Some of us need to work or are in professions that require a dynamic economy. When I go to Paris, they will lecture you for hours about their city’s problems, but they can because they know their city is beautiful. I look forward to the day when we can discuss our citys problems without any fear that we may not still be beautiful and “world class”.
Trust fund? Ha! My father went to school barefoot in Appalachia. What was your question again? 🙂
I spent the first 30 odd years of my life in Michigan saving 20%+ of my paycheck instead of blowing it all. I never bought stuff I couldn’t afford. I qualified for the Mayor’s Office of Housing programs, so that should tell you I’m hardly a high paid anything.
I’m happy – it doesn’t take millions of dollars to be happy. It only takes satisfaction with your accomplishments and the day-to-day experiences that add up in a positive way. That’s my 2 cents … the book on living a happy life by Jamie will be coming out soon! Just kidding.
Brutus –
We are losing something else as well….
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/09/MNGPBP56A51.DTL
The divide between the rich and poor continues. We are losing our diversity as a city.
I would have to say that I absolutely love living in SF. Being in professional services, I find that there are adequate opportunities here in SF (although not on the same scale as Chicago or NYC). However, if I am to move back into an industry role in the future, I see the number of acceptable positions here in the city relatively small and dwindling. Most of the real options for me in the bay area down in the Silicon Valley, with a few scattered around the Peninsula. I really don’t want to move down there, but I also don’t want to be spending 3 hours of my day commuting either. I don’t really see this trend reversing and it may cause many highly skilled, highly educated young professionals like myself to leave the city in the coming years.
Well to “the cities” credit, there are at 3 high rise office projects in the work and one under construction. Also isn’t Barclays finishing its large office at Foundry Square.
Personally (and i have noted this on another post) I always thought the best comparison to Monte Carlo in California is Santa Barbara. Although they are both close to large population centers, they still tend to be thought of as regions onto themselves. It could be argued that SF is the same, but I think “The city ” is much more integrated into the region that surrounds it than those two places, and is still psychologically at the center of the region.
As a european counter part I still say Amsterdam (Although I know nothing of its economy). I do wonder how we compare with places that like Boston and Amsterdam which share similar populations and physical restraints.
I guess it should be also noted that those office projects don’t yet have anyone secured to lease (at least to my recollection).
Also I remember there being an article which studied commuters within major urban regions of the U.S. If memory serves me well L.A. and S.F. both had a balanced amount of people who commuted in and out.( The California Disease) While Chicago and N.Y. were far more centralized. Apparently Philadelphia had a large amount of people reverse commuting, but this is completely going off my memory. What does this prove, I dunno, it just seemed relevant. I’d try to dig up the article but I just cant be bothered. Sorry Friends.
All I know is that SF is a beautiful city, and is so much cheaper than any major city in Asia and Europe while incomes are high, if not higher.
Explains why prices continue to be on the rise to many’s dismay. Anybody who actually has a job knows the economy is booming.
Well, I wear a different pair of specs because I am in biotech/pharma– this is one of three regions in the country where it makes sense for me to live. Yes, the big companies mostly have offices in South San Francisco or in the East Bay– but these companies need labs, which can’t easily be retrofitted into a gigantic downtown office building. Look at the lack of biotech in New York– it doesn’t make any *sense* to put research space in a downtown high-rise. The overall health of the industry aside, we really are a leader for the biological sciences– which is about as far from tourism as you can get.
I like the succint descriptions of “scruffy” Oakland and “notoriously dull and cheap” Sacramento. Ouch!
I wish there was someone credible running against Newsom. He’s been riding on his gay marriage good will for too long. The real issues for SF residents are not getting any better: Muni, crime and chronic homelessness. It’s not surprising SF always ranks highly then for tourists and part-time residents in expensive pieds-a-terres.
Are we becoming? If you’re asking that question, you’re already too late.
We already are. All we’re missing is for some faux-Indian tribe to claim Golden Gate Park as their own territory to put up a huge casino, and then we’re set.
Only kink (ha!) in this scenario is that with the anti-small business laws enacted, the restaurant scene will soon die off as well, leaving only high-end restaurants (who can pay the benefits) and small family joints (under the employee count limit).
One thing the article brought up that I have noticed is that there are not nearly the amount of under 30 year olds in this city that you used to see in times past. I thought about this while on a recent trip. This city does not nearly have the “life” that it did when it was cheap. The Haight, Folsom, Castro, Grant Street, North Beach, they are all now living off of their colorful past, but the present seems quite dull. Cities are interesting to me when they are not just “pretty”, but also dynamic places with affordable housing available for young people to move into. As David Letterman said after doing his show here, “San Francisco is suprisingly boring”. Carmel was an artsy Bohemian town, it may be more expensive now, and it may be pretty, but it is BORING.
I’m reminded of Kevin Starr’s oft-quoted observation: San Francisco has become a hybrid of Carmel and Calcutta. In fact, given the filth and degradation you see now even in very expensive neighborhoods, I’d say the Calcutta description is more apt.
I liked the quote “Alameda County, which includes scruffy Oakland, attracted 40,000 people with bachelors degrees between 2000 and 2005, according to the census—three times as many as San Francisco.”
Alameda County has ~1.5M people and SF County has 0.75M, so on a per capita basis Alameda County attracted 27/1000 degree holders, while SF 18/1000; or 1.5X more not 3X. It is a shame when a publication like the Economist uses skewed statistics to bolster their “argument”
anonymous @ 11:18 – I was thinking the same thing. I also wonder what the numbers would look like if we were comparing those moving into the different counties with graduate degrees.
Regarding under 30s in the City – yes, it’s quite striking that there are fewer young people here than there used to be. However, recenty apartment hunting has demonstrated why – it’s very, very difficult to find shared housing that is in the price range affordable to young people just starting out. My partner and I just finished looking for a two-bedroom. He’s a typical under-30 just starting on a creative career as a video editor making about 40K a year, plus a bit extra on contract work. He can afford, on his own, about $700 in rent. Fortunately, I make over double his salary, and so together we can afford a two-bedroom in an upper price range – we just settled on one on Diamond and 20th for $2400. However, if you take a group of people in my partner’s position who are looking for housing, say to split a two or three bedroom, there’s nothing available. I lived in shared situations in other cities well into my early 30s, and was usually able to find something affordable in okay neighborhoods. When I talk to younger people now, especially those who are NOT in traditional high-income careers like law or medicine, what I usually hear is that they have real difficulty finding affordable shared housing, and what they can find is often under such deplorable conditions that they’re ready to leave for Seattle, Portland, Oakland, or points east after only a couple years.
Phil your post makes me very sad. I somehow feel so guilty because I got to enjoy this city when it was so easy to move and live here. When I got out of college, I could rent a one bedroom in Pacific Heights on a waiter’s salary. After I got a job in my profession, I bought a two bedroom in Cow Hollow with almost no struggle. I now live in Marin, but if you were young in the 80’s everyone had their own place. I know that in my firm, most of the interns have three or four roomates, and we try to start interns at around 38,000 to 42,000 a year. What a city!
anon3:
I too share your sense of guilt, but it is mixed with dis-belief that anyone under 30 would still try to move here who wasn’t headed straight into a six figure career right out of college.
Although San Francisco has always been considered expensive, the difference has grown to be absurd.
When I first arrived from Oregon in 1979, I would explain to friends back home that SF was the same as Eugene, except there was an envelope pinned to the wall by your front door and you had to put a $20 bill in it when you went out each morning. That $600 a month was all the difference (to me) between the cost of living in Eugene and San Francisco.
It is scary to remember, but in the early ’80’s on $500 a week I had a season ticket to the Opera.
If you want to see whether people are moving in or out, pick another city and run the U-haul rates to and from that city. They try to adjust the rates to ensure that the number of trucks coming in equals the number of trucks going out. A 2 to 1 ratio of costs to take a truck in vs costs to take a truck out is pretty ugly: it means way more people are moving out than moving in.
I just ran the numbers. I used Atlanta as the other city. Cost to rent out of SF to Atlanta: $3340. Cost to rent the other direction: $1241. In the ten years I’ve been doing this, I’ve never seen the ratio that high.
Cost to rent
You guys again are forgetting how expensive it is in THE REST OF the Bay Area. The entire area is expensive, it’s not just a SF problem. Try finding a decent two bedroom in San Mateo County or a decent area of Santa Clara County for a decent price – it’s just as hard. And if you live down there, you certainly need a car (and money for gas) to drive everywhere. I know many people who spend MORE on housing + transportation in SM and SC counties than I do here.
You are right Brutus, the entire “inner” Bay Area is expensive. This is partially due to the wealth and high incomes here, and also due to the lack of good housing construction. I know it would be impossible for me to pay employees enough money so that they could afford the lifestyle I had here in the 80’s. I would have to pay my assistant $120,000 a year so that she could have a one bedroom in Pacific Heights (I lived on Jackson), a car, and enough money for food, entertainment and travel. BTW, I shared opera tickets myself back then with a neighbor who was a school teacher! IMAGINE, a school teacher having money for opera and her own apartment in Pacific Heights. Where do the San Francisco teachers live now I can’t imagine. It was a different city then, and if I were 25 now, I would not be moving here unless the offer started at $200,000 a year.
Consider me as a datapoint– without a bias of having lived in the city.
Us: We’re a married couple in our late twenties (no kids) who got tired of midwesternness of our own town and are looking for jobs in SF.
Jobs: I am in financial services looking for a managerial job; I can assure you that there are very slim pickings on any recruiting websites for that area(the reasons might be though that I am not local and don’t know the best places to look.)
My husband is in high-tech and it looks like he will end up commuting out of the city (which sucks since he currently drives 20 miles one way to his job and is tired of it.)
Housing: we’re leaving behind our downtown condo that we will be able to rent out at a profit. We will rent, of course, and the rent will be about twice as much as our current mortgage is (plus, I have horrible time finding any pet-friendly properties in SF, what’s up with that?)
I absolutely love San Francisco and have been dreaming about moving over there for at least 5 years. Still, I find myself on this and other websites trying to make sure that my choice is right, that getting 30% more on a paycheck and paying 100% more in living expenses is justified by all the added nice weather days, culture, food, community, and something je ne sais pas quoi.
I have been to NY, Chicago, and SF all in the past 2 months (on business) and while Chicago looks more and more like a little Manhattan (which can be a good or a bad thing), SF leaves me with mixed feelings.
First, the obvious– it was 91 degrees and humid in downtown Chicago. Never underestimate the externalities– I am a runner and cannot wait to run outside year-round. While in SF, we walked from Outer Sunset through Castro and Mission all the way to SOMA and the other water. The biggest impression– how patchy the city is. A nice neighborhood turns into abandoned buildings with graffiti in a matter of blocks and then back to nice office buildings or homes. Another thing: outside of the financial district and Union St, there’s almost nobody on the streets! Don’t quite get that either. And yes, the homeless, but I don’t need to explain that. Unfortunately, our local public transit is even worse, so we loved the convenience of MUNI.
What’s the short of it? I really hope I am making the right decision– we’re still moving.
Brutus makes a good point…
as a region we have done a great job at protecting so much land from development, and this is something to be proud of, yet at the same time we have failed miserably when it comes to land use planning or any sort of comprehensive regional planning. We put Bart in the middle of nowhere, and we build office parks next to freeways and in many areas people simply write zoning to keep others out. Part of it is selfishness (the Marin mentality) and part of it is ignorance
Though we are lacking in regional planning (and it is killing us as a region) the lines of demarcation in San Francisco are completely arbitrary and the economy is regional. This is why I don’t accept the Monte Carlo or Venice comparisons. I think we simply have polcy problems
I moved here 10 years ago and thought housing was expensive then. I have my own place now, but the City is quite different. I do notice that younger people are not as common and some of the more colorful characters that I used to run into in the Castro and Golden Gate Park seem to have moved away. Yes, my property is now worth alot of money, and I’m doing OK, but while I still love this City, the diversity that I found so appealing seems to have been replaced by a very elite class. Obviously, when so many posts do not seem to find a negative with $1,000 per square foot, it is telling of who is new to the City and who has left. Still would’nt live anywhere else, just hope San Francisco does not change into Monte Carlo, NY or any other place.
runner’s high,
What route did you take from the Outer Sunset. Pedestrian traffic here is concentrated on the retail/restaurant streets, with pretty limited traffic on the residential streets. From the Outer Sunset, if you had taken Judah or Irving to Cole, walked a couple blocks to Haight, taken that to Fillmore, walked along Fillmore/Church to 16th, then taken that to 3rd, you would have seen a freaking ton of people.
Brutus, if you love San Francisco now, imagine how much you would have loved it when it was affordable? Imagine lofts filled with “real” artists, clubs where the average age was about 26, easy parking on clean streets you could walk in safety even in the middle of the night. This was the most amazing city on the planet, and although all of us may still love it here, it is not the same city. I am not sure if any mayor could fix things in less than 12 years. I am thankful I got to enjoy this city when it was at its best.
anon at 1:59–
you’re probably right: not being local, we didn’t know which streets to take in our little city-shopping experience. We did walk along Irving and it got pretty busy once we got closer to the center of the city (and I also enjoyed a $4.95 omelet for breakfast that was not Perkins! Now, that’s cheap 🙂
My 2 cents – it’s simple, SF is a different version of Manhattan or the LA Westside…it’s a high end, superstar economy, and that will not change anytime in the forseeable future. None of the above are “real” – though I like them all.
If you’re not earning a lot of money, it’s not worth it. And I will put my money where my mouth is: I have certain income bogeys I want to hit in the next 5 years, or else I will leave. I think I can pull it off, but how many can?
anon4sf,
I would have liked that – but I don’t see that coming back anytime soon, do you? And it’s not entirely a bad leadership/government/laws thing – even if we built 100,000 more units in SF, we couldn’t significantly add to the number of SFH’s in the City, nor would that many homes make this city as affordable as it was 15 years ago. Easy parking? When was that? 1925? As everyone who has traveled around the world knows – “Every place worth it’s salt has a parking problem.”
Oh, and I also firmly positively believe that the US and yes, the bay area will see a 10 year real estate decline, with inflation adjusted home values plunging at least 30%, probably closer to 45%. Yes, in SF. Yes, in Marin. Yes, in _____.
won’t change much re: demographics.
Here’s a way to put wealth in perspective in SF:
1) There are lots of mid 30s couples in SF that make the median household income of around $240K of the average socketsite readership.
2) There are plenty of mid 30s couples in SF that make 240K AND have inherited their homes in SF, free and clear
3) And finally, there are plenty of mid 30s couples in SF that make 240K, have inherited their homes, AND are trust fund babies (meaning they don’t even have to work …. and that 240K is just gravy spending ca$h)
So the problem is when folks like these decide they want to move and buy different houses in SF. They have a huge built in advantage. There’s no way that average joes like you and I can compete! Even if we had a ginormous income that exceeded the socketsite median income by 2x or even 3x, it would be very difficult to compete against people in tier 3! These types of folks can come up with millions at the drop of a hat.
Of course, none of this takes into account the .com and Google noveau-riche.
Also… and I hate to say this… but my husband and I don’t make *that* much money (under $150K annually combined), and yet we managed to buy a lovely 2-bedroom apartment in a great neighborhood in june. How? Yes, our families ponied up about 60% of our 20% down payment– but we saved the other 40% in about 2 years. And we didn’t eat ramen. And we can still save on top of paying our mortgage. There is *still* some price elasticity in this market.
For those of you saying that the housing is soooo expensive that the average joe couldn’t possibly afford it, I agree with you– the average SFer doesn’t make that much money. But lots of non-trustafarians can afford to buy. We were lucky to have folks who can help, but we could have done it without them if it had been required.
I am finding it harder and harder to stomach some of the lack of empathy for working people in this city. Too bad they are not “economic superstars”, but what does it say about us all with the Calcutta like homeless problem surrounding some of the wealthiest people in the country? Now, before I am picked on also, I am quite comfortable, own investment property as well as my own home (paid off loan two years ago), but still, I will go down fighting for people who have less than myself. There is more to life than a large investment portfolio, and some of the most interesting people I know in this city make less than $50,000 a year. I am beginning to think the materialism here is WORSE than what I used to see growing up on the Westside of Los Angeles.
I don’t know that is so much a lack of empathy for folks who are not in a position buy a home. I fell in love with San Francisco when I first visited my college roommate living here in 1995, but I didn’t move here until 2004. Why? Even in 1995, I knew I would know be able to pay for housing and stash cash for a home and retirement some day.
It is a little agitating that folks expect to inherit the earth TODAY without making any real sacrifice (saving money instead of pissing away their money on STUFF). My point of view is that I had a goal, and I spent 9 years putting up with Michigan’s lack of tolerance and other appeals to achieve that goal. Don’t lump me into the Trust Fund whatever sack or I’ll kick you with my 7 years old pair of shoes.
one of the major reasons for the huge homeless population here is because of the amount of services we provide. Perhaps if we spent that money smarter ($6.06 billion budget next year and we have 6000 homeless people here!?) we could actually see some results. Once you show results, people are much more willing to dig further into their own pockets, either through increased taxes or otherwise, to contribute even more. It is the lack of leadership in this city that has led to many of the negative aspects of life here reflected in the above posts. I live in the Mission, and it is certainly a lively and diverse place, with lots of families living along side all of those hiptsters. Perhaps Pac Heights or Russian Hill may be full of half empty condo buildings and trustafarians, but there are other parts of the city that are thriving with a new generation of younger homeowners and families trying to make a go of it in the City.
Sorry Jamie, my post was not directed at anyone in particular, instead I was commenting on the current economic climate here in San Francisco. I agree one needs to work hard and sacrifice to live in this beautiful place, BUT, this city has become FAR more materialistic than I would have ever imagined. Who would have ever thought this city would be polluted with “staged” homes. There was a time when I would look forward to invitations to view the unusual interiors of this city’s lofts and homes. Not one of them looked like another. Each home had it’s own unique creative style that reflected owners who were as individualistic as this city used to be. Now every time I step into someone’s home, it is “Wallpaper” magazine, with the standard audi or BMW with the Prius on the side “just to show we care”.
I didn’t take it personally … 🙂 I understand where you’re coming from. I have too many of the public comments at last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting from that 3400 Caesar Chavez thing circling my mind right now – so many folks wanting to have their cake and eat it too (at this second).
Sorry for my lack of editing my grammar on that last post… yikes.
anonoldtimer,
You have to remember too – more than two thirds of the people here are renters. It is certainly no longer a city where any joe can BUY a place, but those buying staged homes are still very, very much in the minority of the people in this city.
anonoldtimer,
I agree that the huge majority of residents can not really afford the kinds of staged properties we like to look at here at Socketsite.
But my own realization that we had a bubble thing happening and that it was peaking was when several friends who really shouldn’t bought into this market. Goodbye 401K, goodbye savings, goodbye Italy. The kind of friend that calls you out of the blue at 10 PM and ask if they can borrow $15K because they close next week.
It is amazing that being a tourist city becomes a negative thing here.
Being and tourist city and being expensive are the result of the being a desirable city. That’s the cause and effect. What’s the problem with being a tourist city when you can? Given the same parameter of the city, when one industry prospers, it naturally will replace some of the existing industries.
And from some of the posts, it would appear half of SF’s residents are part-time retirees. That cannot be farther from the truth. It may appear so with some of the new condo developments, but the city’s 700K or 800K has not change significantly over th years. It is not at the peak, but it is certainly not dropping through the floor either.
Regarding the aging of the population – yes, it is aging, but that’s a problem with the whole United States (and all developed countries), not just this city.
Regarding attracting educated young people – well, SF’s education level is quite high – 55% of the population have bachelor or graduate degrees. Compare that to 40% in Oakland, 50% Alameda or Fremont, 40% in Emilyville or Castro Valley (just some samples in Alameda Country). It is harder from a city/country with already high education level to get even more educated people, simply because a balanced city require a variety of jobs, including food industry, auto mechanics etc. BTW, Seattle and Santa Clara’s numbers are about 50% both.
(All data from Redfin/onboardllc.com)
BTW, saying no Italian live in Venice is also absurd. Do you really think the tourists cook, serve the food, and man the boats themselves? The lack of celebration for the World Cup is probably more because of a lack of local major soccer club and fan base (the local team is in division 4) than lack of Italians.
I am not saying the city doesn’t have problems, but use some perspective. Comparing to the sillicon valley, I will have to say SF is NOT expensive, whether you decide to rent or own, and IMHO, it is much more fun to live in the city than to live in the valley if commuting is not a consideration.
What is with all the complaining about how expensive SF is now compared to the ’80s?
If I remember my anecdotal stories correctly, SF (like most big cities at the time) sucked big time. Lots of crime, grime and a significantly worse off city. SOMA and Rincon Hill were no-mans land and the Embarcadero freeway choked off views of our waterfront. And if you think crime is high now, think about how much better you have it now compared to then!
That SF has gotten so expensive is merely testament to how much better things have gotten here. So enough with the bitching, just be happy that you get to live in this jewel of a city while it is at its peak.
New Orleans is also a tourist city. Lots of Hollywood stars and others own places there (but don’t live there full-time.) How is that a “real” city then? French Quarter real estate holds its own, but it doesn’t mean that the city is thriving.
I’m a 30-something former SF’er who left because of housing prices. My fellow 30-something friends stayed. Here is their dilemma. They all bought houses several years ago when they were childless (in the east bay predominantly- forget about the city.) Now they have kids. Their homes have doubled in value but they can’t afford to move “up” and into the better school system because those homes are now over $1 million with high taxes, insurance etc.
They make over $200,000 a year and are facing the prospect of private schools or yucky public schools and homes that are 1300 square feet with one bathroom (with 3 kids.) And for what? The weather?
The jobs don’t justify the costs. The service sector jobs you all crow about (lawyers, financial etc.) all pay the same in other cities- where the cost of living is much lower. There is no salary premium for living in SF now.
I remember during the dot-com boom when the artists were being forced out of their lofts in the Mission. They left the city (some to Oakland but others to other areas) and never came back.
I recently moved from SF to Manhattan and then back to SF. One common point between NYC and SF is that, if you’re not independently wealthy, you need a good reason to live here. I moved to New York for grad school; when school was done, my wife and I left. No sane person lives in Manhattan on less than lawyer’s wages unless the city has something that they need personally or professionally. If you’re trying to make it in fashion or publishing, you move to New York and live with three other people. Otherwise, you can’t live in the enclave.
I work in genetic research, so that means that starting out a career there are only a few locations in the country that offer me a wide variety of academic and industry job opportunities. Boston and the Bay area are the main choices. My wife think’s we’re chumps for paying so much rent, but I’m here because this is where the work is. However, I’ve got a kid on the way. If I double my salary in two years we might be able to stick around, but maybe not. Otherwise, it’s off to Madison or Minneapolis. I’ll miss it here.
David:
come to Minneapolis. It’s a great city. I moved here for exactly the reasons you delineated.
most of my educated friends are moving from SF. In fact, I’d say over half have moved on.
SF is a great place to be young and poor and living life.
But then you grow up, look around, and realize that there are more important things than mild weather.
So we moved. I used to long to move back, but it is simply not feasible. We did a job search 2 years ago to see about moving back. We’d make $150,000/year less in SF compared to Mpls- and housing is double/triple the price. So we endure the cold winters, but it’s a great place to live (I love living here).
Most of my doctor/lawyer friends are also thinking of making the move.
I certainly didn’t work my butt off and do everything right to live check to check!
even the google millionaires: My BIL is a now ex-google employee… cashed in his options, and now looks like he will leave the city as soon as his girlfriend’s options vest. Many others will too. And the latest round of google hires don’t get the $$$ that the early employees did…
GLBT folks who have lost faith in their home states elsewhere in the Country over the past few election cycles courtesy many spineless Democrats and changes to state Constitutions to block or take away rights have a huge incentive to do whatever it takes to live in San Francisco – Freedom.
Jamie, if you are YOUNG and part of the GLBT community, would you REALLY want to move to San Francisco? I see them all flocking to West Hollywood (talk about “freedom”), Palm Springs if they are older, Miami, NYC, and even Chicago which has a HUGE gay population mostly under 35 years old. The Castro to me feels more like a historic stage front where one can recall what it was like when Harvey Milk was alive and the clubs were still open and FUN. Believe me, there was a time in this city when on Saturday night the Castro and Folsom were so packed with people, cars could not even drive down the streets. It was a different city, I am sorry some of you will never know how magical it was then. It still is a great city, but , it is a different city, and no longer young.
I agree… lots of other cities have come up to speed as far as passing local laws to inject some equality for the GLBT community and advocating for GLBT tourists or residents. If I was still in my 20s and wanted to blow my paycheck every week dancing and drinking instead of thinking about the future (most common among 20somethings these days it seems), yeah … those other cities you mentioned would probably have more appeal.
From a standpoint of being a big influence in the City/County and, to a lesser degree but still prominent, state politics, San Francisco (and Oakland) are hard to beat. Flip SFGTV on some day for a Police Commission meeting, and observe the only transgender President of the police commission for a big city that I’m aware of.
These darn young whippersnappers don’t know what they missed out on! Everything was clearly better in the past! I mean, back in my day, everyone in the city knew each others name and everyone got free cake on Tuesdays…and Fridays…and every other day of the week. Ah, if we could only go back to times where everything was perfect…
ex-SFer,
I lived in Minneapolis for four years after school, so I know exactly what I’m missing. My wife’s family is out in the suburbs out there. I love that town; I just want to relocate it to somewhere where the winter AND summer isn’t so punishing. That’s what no one mentions about those midwestern cities; not only do you suffer through 5 months of winter, but the three months of summer are just as awful as what I grew up with in Baltimore.
What do you expect from a city that is not only in love with its past, but markets it as part of its “charm”. San Francisco’s past is one of its greatest assets along with spectacular views, since it no longer is the financial center of the West. (It is also no longer the media, trade, port, or manufacturing capitol of the west either) But now we are the slow food capitol of the west along with cult coffee, porn and expensive real estate.
You forgot cult cabs, gourmet organic dog bakeries, and homeless schizophrenics. Give credit where credit is due.
@David:
Yeah, summers can be hot, but I love it.
As a born and raised SFer, I love temperate weather, but I also love HOT, so I can handle it here in summer.
That said, I hate MN for 3 months: Dec 1 thru Mar 1, Forgettaboutit. Hate it. But bring on the summers.
The only things I’d change about SF are
1. the cost of living
2. the limited green space
3. the lack of any decent bike trails (I’m a biker)
4. no hot season (end september/early october are alright, but I wish there were more days of hot)
I cried when I had to move from SF. I cried every winter I was in MN at first too. But then I started enjoying MN for what it is- a beautiful green liberal city with tons to do, all affordable and accessible.
And whenever I think about moving back, I simply look at three things: my paycheck, the salary offer I got in SF, and zephyr realty’s website. Suddenly, I lose that urge.
SF just might be one of the most beautiful cities on earth, but (to me) the cost isn’t justifiable. Like a Rolex. They are one of the premier watches, and I’m sure they’re worth $X,000, but not to me.
If/when I win the lottery I will have homes in SF, Minneapolis, Puerto Vallarta, and Paris. Until that time… ce n’est qu’une reve. (it is but a dream!)
I think that few people are giving younger people credit for their flexibility nor are people remembering how different your standards were in your early twenties. It may not be easy to live here on 35K, 40K a year but it is absolutely doable until your requirements change. If you want to be here, you just make it happen.
I went to school in DC and returned home to the Bay Area and shared a three bedroom apartment with two roommates in an old building in PacHeights for two years paying just under 1K a month and loved every moment of it. Not owning a car easily saved me $400 dollars a month.
I am now 24 and decided to invest in a condo with my 26 year old brother this year and we bought a two bedroom condo in Jack London Square. So yeah, I didn’t get to buy in the Marina, and JLS and Oakland aren’t perfect, but its way better than the majority of the rest of the country and not absurdly priced (I am a public school teacher and my brother in tech). I can get to most parts of the City that I want to on public transit within 30 minutes, which is the same time it took me in DC to walk places or take transit, and I still don’t need a car. I think that SF’s geographic limitations make comparisons to NY or Chicago absurd. The city is incredibly small after all and neighborhoods that would otherwise be part of the city itself in NY or Chicago (re: the inner East Bay) and are connected just as well by trasit yet are considered so far flung.
I moved to SF over 4 years ago, only because I got a pretty good job that would let us barely afford it. We went house hunting on my interview trip, and my wife cried when we got back home. We had to adjust our expectations around cost and quantity of housing…from a nice big house in the suburbs to a small apartment in the city, and way more expenisve. Despite the issues, we enjoy it here, but if the job dries up, we’ll need to move back away. Got a kid to feed, after all.
I’ve got some friends who decided that they wanted to own, and it would never happen here, despite the fact that they both have good career-type jobs. So they packed up and left for Austin, TX (no snide comments please, unless you’ve actually been. you may be surprised if you go), and are looking for jobs there.
When I see the working poor struggling here, I wonder why they don’t all do that. Poverty sucks, and the poverty line here would make you middle-class somewhere else. Of course, the city would be screwed then.
runner’s high: you’re making the WRONG decision. Run away. Run away. One word – fog. When I lived in the Richmond, I’d anxiously hop the bus home to get out into the beautiful sunlight for a nice jog. By the time I’d reach home, half the city would be covered in fog and freezing. Now, I live in the incredibly hilly and always sunny Eureka Valley. The first hill is exilerating, the second kicks my butt, and then I go home.
Jamie: I’m always amused by your love of SF. Thanks for letting us know you only moved here in 2004. You sound like I did in my first few years. I moved here in 1994. Although it wasn’t the 70s or 80s that some people are reminiscing here (oh, to have lived the Tales of the City life!), it was still an AMAZING place in those days. Wow, nightlife like you couldn’t believe – I used to park in center field of PacBell Park to go to Club Universe! Halloweens in the Castro (back when 7 people DIDN’T get shot). Plenty of parking and almost no traffic on the bridge (my boyfriend used to leave for work from Twin Peaks to downtown Oakland with 5 minutes to spare – okay, he was usually late, but not by more than 3 minutes!). Some people owned, some rented, there wasn’t much difference and no one really cared which one you were. There was diversity, there was culture, there was still character to neighborhoods. Now, everything is a staged home.
jeccat: trying to justify that buying isn’t difficult when YOUR family gave you 60% is laughable. How much was that 60%? Like, $100k? Well, I’m not a statistician, but I’d venture a guess that 99.9% of families in the world don’t have $100k (or even 1/10 that) to lend. The second BIG question is – how much of that salary is going to your mortgage payments? I’d venture a guess that it’s more than the recommended 35%.
Brutus: Had to respond to your “every place worth it’s salt has a parking problem” comment. Have you ever driven in NYC? There is no parking problem because there are parking garages all over the place! You drive around for a few blocks scouting prices, pull in, and you’ve parked! Rome NEVER had any parking problems (everyone drives Vespas!). I was absolutely stunned last year when I was back. It seems that now everyone wants to be “American” and has bought an SUV! Car’s for as far as the eye could see – on the medians, on the grass, on the sidewalks! Chicago has this funky little urban planning scheme called the “alley” or “service road” or “jitty”. While the street in front of your house may have some empty spaces, if you live there, you drive in from behind, where you have a driveway or GARAGE. The NERVE of them! I lived in Boston and always parked there (except that Bostonians are bad drivers). LA is a breeze and you valet everywhere for about $3, compared to SF’s $20 average.
I guess the big question that I have for all commenter is: what are we all going to do to fix this “divide” that housing prices have created? I, for one, just plain REFUSE to buy here if I’m going to have to pay these prices. It’s just not worth it. Lumber and drywall is just not worth that much money whichever beautiful landscape it’s in. Now, if everyone could just STOP BUYING at these prices, maybe we could drive out the opportunists and developers and reclaim this city.
RG, I always look forward to your posts, even if reading them from thousands of miles away on a business trip stuck in an airport. You really reminded me of something that I had forgot which was…..
“Some people owned, some rented, there wasn’t much difference and no one really cared which one you were. ”
It seems that now it is one of the first questions asked at parties. Do you own?
You also picked up on something I have noticed myself which is for people who have recently moved to the city, they have had to sacrifice so much because of the costs here, there seems to be a need to almost religiously campaign about how superior and “beautiful” the city is.
As author Joe Queenan wrote about why he stopped visiting San Francisco in a book I downloaded from Amazon:
“My problem with San Francisco is that it cannot behave like an adult. San Francisco is a big city, but there is something unseemly about a city that needs to constantly sell itself. Truly great cities take their stature for granted. Nobody in London harangues visitors with facts and figures proving London is more livable than Rome. People in Paris and London and New York and Chicago belong to an exclusive club and don’t need to trot out the Louvre or the Empire State Building to prove it. People in truly great cities don’t worry about who’s No. 1. That’s the kind of thing they do in absurd synthetic municipalities like Raleigh-Durham.”
“Basically , it’s a city that needs to stop pounding its chest. It’s a city that needs to start acting like a great city. ”
“Isn’t this the most beautiful city you have ever visited?”.
“Don’t you love our fabulous weather?”
“Wouldn’t you agree that the quality of life here is higher than in places like New York and Los Angeles?”
“NO”, I reply, “beacause when I measure the quality of life, I tend to calibrate how much my fellow citizens annoy me, and no on is more annoying than the residents of San Francisco!”
My god, I have never seen so much spite directed at a city. Does everyone on Socketsite despise San Francisco?
I just want to note a couple of things:
1. San Francisco’s tourist economy is big because it’s visited by a lot of tourists. Not because we’re a bunch of losers who can’t get any other jobs. Honolulu also has a large tourist economy, but I doubt there are economist articles bemoaning this fact.
2. San Francisco remains the major job and government center in the West. No other city in California has as many fortune 500 companies (Wells Fargo, McKesson, etc.), no other CA city is home to so many large private companies (VISA Card, Bechtel, Barclays Global Investors, etc.), so many major government agencies (9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 12th District Federal Reserve, US Mint, CA Supreme Court). And this leaves out the hundreds and hundreds of non-profits and small tech companies that are littered throughout the city.
3. San Francisco does not have “limited” Green Space. San Francisco has a higher percentage of it’s land devoted to Park land than any other major city. It can be easy to forget that San Francisco county is by far the smallest county in California (47 Sq Miles. Compare that to, say, Santa Clara, which is 1291 Sq. Miles. Or LA County which is 4,061 Sq. Miles – larger than the entire SF / Oakland Metro Area).
4. The city is expensive, it’s true. But this cost does not exist in a vacuum. It’s expensive because people are willing to pay.
Anyway, I could go on and on and on, but I’ll just stop there.
I have to admit it to you guys– this discussion is making me re-consider my relocation plans (even though I have interviews lined up already.)
We live in Minneapolis and don’t like it — it’s a nice city but…
1. far away from everything (closest city– Chicago, 8 hours by car.)
2. weather (I promise I will stop talking about the darn weather! BUT, it’s going to be 90 degrees here this weekend and I will be doing my 10 mile run on a treadmill)
3. no much job-wise for the specific areas my husband and I are in
4. Not very vegetarian-friendly
5. very Midwestern mentality (don’t want to offend people, so will not expand on this topic)
So, we’re set on moving somewhere. Where? Chicago is gorgeous with improvements on #1 and #3 on my list but it’s too close to Minneapolis on the rest of the counts. East Coast? Maybe. Definitely cannot afford New York, Boston is neat but weather is horrible and real estate almost as bad… SF is a big NO according to this board. What’s left? Seattle?
Runner’s high-
Like you, I once lived in a more affordable city. I lived in Phoenix and decided to move to SF to years ago, for a multitude of reasons. It was a relatively tough decision. I could’ve taken a good, stable job in Phoenix and would’ve been able to afford a nice 3 bedroom house in a good neighborhood (on my own).
Instead, I chose to sacrifice this to move to SF for several reasons, including better job opportunities (I’m still convinced that this will put me ahead in the long term), more culture, better year-round weather (although Phoenix does have its moments in from Oct-April, more recreational choices, a much more educated populous, etc.
Although I still can’t afford to buy a place, I may be able to in the future (on a dual income). There is no guarantee that I’ll stay here for the rest of my life, but as of now, I’m glad that I moved here and I definitely have no regrets.
Runner’s High-
If you are a serious runner (I am), you are going to love it here. There is no better city in the country for a running climate. Plenty of other places have pretty trails, etc., but there is no other place where you can run year-round and you don’t burn up, drip miserably from humidity, or freeze. Yes, you have to run in the rain a few days a month in the winter, and you get some wind if you run in the afternoon, but I travel a lot and have run in dozens of cities around the U.S., and nothing beats SF (including San Diego) temperature-wise for an outdoor workout. Neither too hot or too cold and almost always dry.
Runner’s High,
If you’re considering moving here, don’t let rg talk you out of it. His posts are so full of half-truths and all outr lies that it’s hard to read them – Parking wasn’t a problem in 1994? Are you kidding me? Driving to downtown Oakland from the Castro in 5 minutes? Are you kidding me? Even if there was no traffic it wouldn’t be possible – you’d have to average somewhere around 140mph to make it in that time. Comparing parking in Manhattan to parking here? Do you have a problem finding a parking spot downtown, rg? No, because there are plenty of parking garages. Try parking in Brooklyn sometime (which has a density closer the most SF neighborhoods), it ain’t easy.
Guys, being expensive is NOT a SF thing. The whole bay area is expensive.
The question is not really whether you want to move to SF, it is whether you want to move to/live in bay area.
Brutus, just curious. Do you own a car?
Also, why are you so anti-auto? I imagine within 25 years most cars will be non-polluting and some type of hybrid technology with quiet engines. Personal Transportation is here to stay. Some of us like the freedom of being able to go to Tahoe, Mt.Tam., and Napa. BTW, RG is right about parking in other cities. There are garages throughout Manhattan (much to my suprise), and the center of Chicago as well as Lincoln Park and environs has a density you could only dream of and there is plenty of parking. Instead of fighting cars, they have garages.
beep beep,
I am not anti-car. Looking to limit the amount of excessive parking is not anti-car. I don’t care if you have a car or not. However, building excessive parking induces demand and causes more congestion. Manhattan may have a lot of parking garages, but they also have a law (yes, a law – egads!) that limits parking built in new buildings to one spot per five new units. Also, MYC is currently looking to implement congestion charges (passed the NY legislature yesterday) similar to London within Manhattan.
Yes, I don’t have a car. I spend my money on other things, but I rent cars (and carshare) whenever I need to. Last weekend I was in Tahoe, the weekend before in Santa Cruz. Not having a car does not mean that you don’t have access to personal transportation or freedom.
You want easier parking? There is an easy way to do that – market-priced meters and neighborhood parking permits.
“My god, I have never seen so much spite directed at a city. Does everyone on Socketsite despise San Francisco?”
It’s every urbanite’s inalienable right to rant about their city. Most New Yorkers are sharply sarcastic about the many eccentricities of life in their city, and Bostonians – they’re some of the wittiest people in the world. Check out craigslist’s “best of” for proof.
I think most of us love this city and love living here, but it’s not without problems. San Francisco is becoming less of a city for San Franciscans, and more of a city for tourists and wealthy foreigners. Our local government is a running joke that only exacerbates the problem because they fight for special interests and inadvertantly alienate the middle class (what’s left of us).
That being said, I still can’t imagine living anywhere else. Maybe I’m foolish, but I’m optimistic that the cost of living will come down over the next few years to restore the balance for those of us who don’t make $500K a year or don’t have $500K of pre-bubble equity to roll.
We’re part of the aging demographic — you know … the folks from the ‘burbs who moved back to the city after the kids left home. The house we sold in Silicon Valley was more expensive than the place we bought on the east side of Telegraph Hill. And larger, far larger. We gave up an acre of dirt for a shady patch of city-owned right-of-way. No pool. No nuthin.
But we like it here. He was born here and is happy to be back to a place with the Exploratorium and the symphony, Valencia and Clement, DeeVine Wines at Pier 19 and Borderland Books.
We walk everywhere or take public transit. The city is our oyster: we can get from here to the $2.50 Monday night beers at the Beach Chalet and spots in between without a car. Can you do that in Saratoga? East San Jose? I think not.
The car? He uses the car for twice-a-week runs to the job in Campbell. If the company moves where it’s thinking of moving, within walking distance of a train station, we won’t need the car for much else besides Costco runs. We’ll probably go the carshare route eventually.
This city has something for everyone. I’m surprised at people who are unhappy here. Why pay the price it costs to live here if you get no joy? Naperville, IL, is calling …
Brutus – I always love how much you hate my posts and are willing to discredit me. You even go as far as telling me that I don’t go to planning meetings, when you have no idea of how involved/not involved in SF planning I am. But now I’m simply laughing uncontrollably, because your comments on parking are such bulls**t – YOU DON’T EVEN OWN A CAR!!! You are one of those TYPICAL SFers who want to stick their nose in everyone else’s life! I drive, I have to drive in order to get to my various projects all over SF and the Bay. I do however, try to walk everywhere else. Not because I want to save the environment, but I try to save $$ on gas because it’s SO expensive to live here. Did you even live here in 1994 or do you just want to make a point? If you did, did you own a car then? (Oh, and by the way, when I was 19 and living in the East Bay, I used to love seeing how fast I could get up to on that straight-away on the Bay Bridge! 120 mph, baby! Some days there simply was no other cars to contend with. Aww, and then I remember when they were rebuilding the Mandela and traffic would be at a standstill on the eastbay portion from 2am to like 5am. All the young people driving home from the clubs used to talk out their car windows to strangers, dance in the street – it was an awesome time!)
You are so “anti-parking” that you don’t even pay attention to the facts! NYC can have a 1:5 ratio because over 75% of Manhattan residents DON’T own a car already. They don’t need one. Your belief in “induced demand” is unfounded, some believe it increases congestion, many don’t. I, personally, don’t believe in it. People make their OWN decisions whether they need/want to drive or not. An empty parking space in front of their apartment bldg. isn’t going to “inspire” them to head out and buy an $80k Cayenne! SF’s real problem is that public transportation is so lacking and unreliable that it forces many to seek other options. SF also needs to realize that it just isn’t geologically suited to walking for everyone. You remind me of the architects in the 60s who used to believe that if you made public housing more beautiful, you’d INSPIRE welfare mothers to strive to make a better life! Architecture can’t make people work harder to improve their life, and restricting parking can’t make people give up their cars.
rg,
Yes, I owned a car. And I sold it because of how much it cost compared to how much I used it.
You admit that land-use is what causes people to need cars (through your Manhattan comment), yet don’t see the connection that making more space for cars instead of people will cause less of a walkable city – and in turn – the need for more cars? You’re probably also one of those people that believes that the best way to fix freeway congestion is to add more lanes and build more freeways – “I know it didn’t work those other 417 times, but this new lane will fix everything!” Show me any credible source that doesn’t “believe” in induced demand, and I’ll give you some credit.
I beleive you go to plenty of planning meetings – as an architect. Architects plan and design individual buildings, not neighborhoods. You were the one that thought that Octavia was six lanes plus the outside lanes!
Isn’t it weird that vehicle counts on the Bay Bridge aren’t significantly higher today than in the “wide open” days of 1994 that rg keeps talking about?
Ooo, Brutus, I’m a loser because I said that Octavia was 6 lanes! Ya know, I don’t use Octavia ever since the morning that I was stuck between two blocks for 25 minutes, so I don’t really pay attention to whether it’s 1 lane or 10 lanes, it still doesn’t work and has no contextual relationship with the neighborhood. Are you even in the design/planning field? I’m sure a lot of architects on this site would take offense to your comment on us knowing nothing about planning. Planning is a standard part of most architecture programs. I am not only very interested in and knowledgable about planning, but studied under some of the best city planners in the country. You may also want to look up city plans from such famous Architects as Daniel Burnham (who’s plan for SF is still revered, and who is responsible for the planning of downtown Chicago and many other cities) and Le Corbusier.
“Making more space for cars” has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with creating a LESS walkable city! How does your anti-car brain make that connection? The fact that there may be more cars parked along the sidewalk doesn’t make the sidewalk harder to use! I suggested a parking GARAGE here and there saying that having less cars parked DIRECTLY ON the streets may make neighborhoods LOOK a little nicer – aesthetics only. Sorry, but just because there IS a place to park, doesn’t mean that more people are going to run out and buy a car! Buying a car depends on your need for one, your own personal feelings, AND if you have an extra $50k in your pocket! Nothing can “induce” the purchase of an expensive piece of metal that only depreciates except for your own mind. The urban planners that you listen to just think that they’re sociologists. Very slippery slope. SF is not a very walkable city because the density is too low and the geology of the land makes it hard for many people to get around (hills). There are also HUGE gaps in the areas conveniently accessible by public transportation. For instance, I always wonder why we don’t extend trolley service out along the Marina Green? That IS where tourists should be able to get quickly to see the GG Bridge. This could be a huge boost to the Chestnut Street/Warming Hut/Exploratorium/etc. economy. When I worked downtown and had a direct bus route from Union St, I always took muni. But Potrero Hill I have to drive to. Bryant and 25th I have to drive to – but if there was a subway under Van Ness and out under the Mission – I’d take it. We could build vibrant, high density, commercial corridors all the way out Geary, along Lombard, Van Ness, etc. – but if there isn’t transportation to get people there easily, businesses are just going to fail. I think it was “runner’s high” that said it- you can walk a few blocks in SF, but then all of a sudden the neighborhood turns very bad and deserted. THIS is what makes SF un-walkable, not cars. Fix THAT and you’ll get people to give up their autos.
Anon @ 1:34 – if you lived here in 1994, then you know there was less traffic congestion. Numbers don’t always answer all the questions. SFOBB traffic counts didn’t go up drastically during the dotcom days either, but no commuter is going to tell you that it wasn’t significantly worse traffic. You sound like a SF Planner that zones SF from a trip to Chicago instead of spending time out on the streets of Rincon Hill!
Mr. RG at July 22, 2007 1:55 PM.
You are my hero. I have been reading the drivel posted about anti parking by Mr Brutus for several days.
Finally, someone with a professional background has addressed the issue.
Great post. Looking forward to more of your comments. Hope to see you at the Terminal presentation on August 6th.
Frederick
I agree, RG your posts are great! As a fellow architect I hope we meet up sometime. I work between offices in Sausalito and Chicago, and going between these two urban regions helps me to have a perspective that I believe is similar to yours. Keep up the good fight.