November 20, 2007

An Annoying Anecdote Or An Actual Alternative To San Francisco?

"Ten days ago, Derek Allen donned a hard hat and walked through the newly opened models at Axis, San Jose's newest condominium tower under construction in downtown. What he saw persuaded him not to buy a condo on San Francisco's Rincon Hill, but instead put a $5,000 deposit down on a 19th-floor unit at the Axis, located on Almaden Boulevard next to the De Anza Hotel."

Downtown S.J. welcomes high rise living [San Jose Mercury News]
If This Is Old News (And You Know Even More), Then Drop Us A Line [SocketSite]

First Published: November 20, 2007 7:20 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Someone chose Axis in SJ over "anything" in SF. It must be a lie!

Or is it simply a reminder that the law of supply and demand still exists?

Posted by: sj at November 20, 2007 8:59 AM

Maybe he was swayed by San Jose's low crime rate (#3 safest city in US this year - #1 last year). Street crime seems to be all over the news in San Francisco - and the consensus view seems to be that the SFPD and DA aren't very effective in combatting it.

Posted by: FSBO at November 20, 2007 9:12 AM

Really? You mean there are people who prefer warmer weather, cheaper costs, and lower commute times to their SV jobs?

But my realtor keeps telling me SF is unique...

Posted by: Foolio at November 20, 2007 9:24 AM

More people live in San Jose than in San Francisco, so of course many people choose to live there. But mostly this is an "annoying anecdote." San Francisco and San Jose are quite far away from each other. (The last time I went to San Jose was in 1996.) Most people decide where they want to live before they start condo hunting. Few are simultaneously condo shopping in SF and in San Jose.

Posted by: Dan at November 20, 2007 9:25 AM

"Street crime seems to be all over the news in San Francisco - and the consensus view seems to be that the SFPD and DA aren't very effective in combatting it..."

Absolutely. It has been observed repeatedly that SF's crime rates are consistently far higher than what would be predicted based on its demographics and relatively high income levels. One can only conclude this is matter of poor law enforcement, because if social programs and seeking "root causes" prevented crime SF would be the safest city in the country.

Posted by: zzzzzzz at November 20, 2007 10:18 AM

If you're into Macaroni Grill, embroidered denim and Escalades, San Jose is a great call.

But this article is ultimately about nothing. It's an attempt to create friction where there is none.

Posted by: amused at November 20, 2007 10:19 AM

"If you're into Macaroni Grill, embroidered denim and Escalades, San Jose is a great call"

Geez, talk about stereotypes! "The city" really needs to get over itself, for I have heard the same trash talk about Los Angeles, which in the meantime is happy to ignore us, and continue to turn into the REAL capitol of the West Coast. I just got back from a weekend down there and had some amazing meals and a very impressive experience at the Getty Museum.

Posted by: anon at November 20, 2007 10:48 AM

Hey amused,

Walking down Chestnut lately, seems like all I see are Starbucks, Lucky Jeans, and BMWs. ..is that really so different?

Posted by: Foolio at November 20, 2007 11:11 AM

To me, it is crazy to live in SF and commute to SV, or live in SV (or east bay, or north bay) and commute to SF.

People should live close to where they work.

So, I don't even know what the article is talking about. Of course, if the buyer works in SF, that would be some story ("SJ is so much more attractive than SF, people want to live there despite long commute"), but I doubt that's the case.

Posted by: John at November 20, 2007 11:20 AM

Geez, talk about stereotypes! "The city" really needs to get over itself, for I have heard the same trash talk about Los Angeles, which in the meantime is happy to ignore us, and continue to turn into the REAL capitol of the West Coast. I just got back from a weekend down there and had some amazing meals and a very impressive experience at the Getty Museum.

Who's talking about LA? SJ is not, and never will be, anything remotely comparable to LA. I'm glad people are choosing to live in downtown SJ, but for me, it's dull and depressing. It'll always be a second class city to SF. There are lots of nice places in the Bay Area, but downtown SJ isn't one of them.

Posted by: SFmike at November 20, 2007 11:27 AM

Gotta agree with 'amused' on this one. Last year after 10 years of SF living I rented a house in San Jose just to get out of the city for a while. Believe me, I was a south bay hater of the highest order before the move. Now instead of hobnobbing with the self anointed inteligencia in SF every night (which usually means drunk in the mission), I enjoy endless sunny 80 degree days, surf in Santa Cruz on weekends, and cut my commute from 60 to 10 minutes.

Believe me, I was sure that I'd be back in San Francisco immediately after my lease was up. Not for everybody, but don't just blow it off because SF is 'so special'. California is a big place.

Posted by: jasper1000 at November 20, 2007 11:29 AM

I go to San Jose 3+ times a week for work. I wrote what I did because it's true. San Jose is very innovative from a technology standpoint, and is utterly boring in many other "city" regards (food, drink, fashion, art). Of course this is a generalization.

Note that I did not talk any smack about LA. I don't enjoy living there (though I did), but they do not lack world-class amenities.

As for Chestnut Street... you made my point about the Marina for me. Thanks for that.

Posted by: amused at November 20, 2007 11:29 AM

"People should live close to where they work."

It's all the newly minted millionaires of Google, VMware and the like that are going to save San Francisco's real estate market right? What happens when those buyers are presented with buildings that are closer to work and offer better design, amenities and value as compared to what's available in San Francisco?

Up until recently none of my single friends who work down in the Valley would have ever considered living anywhere but in San Francisco. Many of the same aren't "simultaneously condo shopping in SF and in San Jose"...they've stopped looking in San Francisco.

Posted by: Michael at November 20, 2007 11:46 AM

i'm surprised to hear that apparently so many SV millionaires ahve chosen to live in SF. by the time you work 9-10 hours, add in 2-3 hours on the road, each day, it doesn't leave you much time to actually enjoy the city life on weekdays does it? seems like you'd be going straight home to eat, shower and sleep.

Posted by: condoshopper at November 20, 2007 12:13 PM

Funny, how people are debating b/n SF and SJ. I lived in NY before moving down to SF. I felt SF is boring compared to NY, nothing happens in the city during the week, and seems like administration left the city to itself (may be they thought they don't need to spend money anymore). I stayed in SJ couple of times, and I don't see that much difference b/n SJ and SF(apart from golden gate/twin peaks/alcatraz/tourists/homeless). May be there are some nuances which peeps from SF can see.....Not me...

Posted by: anon at November 20, 2007 12:15 PM

"Up until recently none of my single friends who work down in the Valley would have ever considered living anywhere but in San Francisco."

See, that's a problem with our society.

To me, if they want to live in SF, they should either
1. Find a job in SF
2. Purchase their company to open an office in SF.

As condoshopper said, it is pointless to live in SF, then spend so much time commuting that you don't have any time to enjoy the city.

Posted by: John at November 20, 2007 12:32 PM

Typo - should be "Persuade their company..."

Posted by: John at November 20, 2007 12:33 PM

I stayed in SJ couple of times, and I don't see that much difference b/n SJ and SF(apart from golden gate/twin peaks/alcatraz/tourists/homeless). May be there are some nuances which peeps from SF can see.....Not me...

Besides one being primarily urban and the other primarily suburban? I would gladly live in San Jose if several hundred more of these condo buildings get built and it at least has an "urban" area to it - walkable streets, etc. Right now it doesn't, so I'm not interested, but I wish them the best!

To John - many Silicon Valley companies don't force their workers to come to an office every day. I technically work in Silicon Valley, but I only end up actually driving there two to three times a week. Telecommuting rules, because it allows us to live where we WANT to, not where our jobs are.

Posted by: anon checker at November 20, 2007 1:27 PM

"Walking down Chestnut lately, seems like all I see are Starbucks, Lucky Jeans, and BMWs. ..is that really so different?"

And you failed to mention, hot women running on the Marina green, with the GGB in the background.

It's San Jose people, it's made for Intel and Cisco and Google programmers, not people from SF. Jeez.

Posted by: gh at November 20, 2007 1:41 PM

Give me a break! If you want to live in San Jose -great. Anyone who chooses DT SJ over SF wasnt really interested in SF to begin with.
And, for the person who felt there was no difference between SF and SJ... As a native NY'er living in SF for the past 10 years.. ARE YOU BLIND?

Posted by: Joe at November 20, 2007 2:23 PM

Differemt people like places for different reasons.

I think SF has a lot more to offer for me but I can't say that for everyone. I have friends that think SJ has more to offer to them. How can anyone argue that?

Posted by: anonosaur at November 20, 2007 2:33 PM

"Anyone who chooses DT SJ over SF wasnt really interested in SF to begin with."

In the context of supply and demand, does it really matter if someone was interested in SF to begin with or not? The point is they now have a choice. The new buildings in San Jose will end up pulling between 1 and 4500 potential buyers out of the San Francisco market. I am 100% certain that it's not going to be 4500, but I am also 100% certain that it's going to be a lot more than 1.

Posted by: Michael at November 20, 2007 2:39 PM

i disagree michael. nobody that buys in san jose was ever really serious about buying in the city.

Posted by: james at November 20, 2007 2:44 PM

For the sake of the region, the enviroment a congestion we really do need San Jose and places in between to become more appealing

Posted by: zig at November 20, 2007 3:01 PM

all the posters that feel SF is the superior place to live, do you raise families here, and if not, would you still feel the same about staying in SF if you were raising families?

Posted by: condoshopper at November 20, 2007 3:37 PM

i'm doing it now. just picked a pre-school. what's your point?

Posted by: james at November 20, 2007 3:39 PM

costs of living, crime, etc. i understand how the city is appealing for singles (myself), but thought if i was raising a family, the cons outweigh the pros.

Posted by: condoshopper at November 20, 2007 3:43 PM

but then i have to add, i'm not in that 200K average socketsite salary bracket.

Posted by: condoshopper at November 20, 2007 3:45 PM

Isn't San Jose in Costa Rica?

Posted by: Spencer at November 20, 2007 3:51 PM

San Jose'r here, but looking to move up to the city because of work. I'm kinda laughing at all the negative comments about San Jose. The power of stereotype, I suppose. San Jose definitely has tons of upside, and if people open their eyes a bit, there's quite a bit going on. And the huge upside is outdoor life. I bike to work regularly...and on most weekdays, swing up to either hills flanking the valley is about 15 minutes and get some good mountain biking or climbing in.

That said, it's an entirely different beast from SF. It's nowhere near as urban, but then, don't confuse it for a Costco/Walmart/Applebee's wasteland.

I'm indeed looking forward to my move to the city, but I am dreading a few things. One of which is the "city elitists" and the cold weather. Commute time trumps all though...but I am hoping to meet more "open" people....especially since I'm not in the "$200K bracket"

Posted by: ZapBrannigan at November 20, 2007 5:01 PM

"but I am dreading a few things. One of which is the "city elitists""

Amen! Nothing makes me more angry than observing fellow San Franciscan's put down my out of town guests as if this is their first experience with scenic beauty or urban culture. If they are from Europe, they are made to agree that San Francisco is VERY European. If they are from Chicago, Boston, etc. they are immediatly taken pity on, followed by predictions of how much they will savor our "better" architecture, restaurants and museums. If this city had a little humility it would be a far better place.

Posted by: anonandon at November 20, 2007 5:10 PM

Joe,

We actually prefer "snobbery-impaired," but "blind" works too. ;-)

Obviously the two towns are different, but my point in responding to amused's post was to identify that, much like the "uniform" he offered for San Jose--Escalades and embroidered denim--we too have our own form of uniform.

But stepping back from all the "San Francisco is great, San Jose is the pits" talk, this story (while anecdotal) isn't just about San Francisco vs. San Jose. It's (arguably) about San Francisco vs. any number of different possible residential options outside of the City. While, ceteris paribus, very few of us would choose San Jose, San Mateo, Berkeley, or Rockridge, over living in the City, all things certainly are not held equal. Costs in those outlying areas continue to drop, and, as many have pointed out, there are even some (gasp!) facets in which those areas may offer superior benefits to living in the City (weather, crime, education, commuting to Silicon Valley, etc.). Indeed, this same formula may even be replicated *within* the city limits, as people opt for safer and more cost-effective options in, say, the Sunset or the Richmond than in the tonier parts of San Francisco.

P.S. As someone who moved here 10 years ago (as did I), do you like the City more or less now than you did then? And I'm not asking that rhetorically, I'm actually curious. Because, I gotta say, this isn't the San Francisco I fell in love with in 1997. It's become dirtier, more expensive, cruder in its contrasts between haves and have nots, gaudier in its displays of conspicuous consumption, and frankly it just seems all around meaner than it was back then. Or perhaps I'm just getting older. Sigh.

Posted by: Foolio at November 20, 2007 5:19 PM

great post foolio. i think we are all getting bitter just like new yorkers as we deal with the daily grind of city life and of an unresponsive and ass backward priority out of city hall, ie. pro homeless and drug policies while we can't get a cab or to work on time on muni. no focus on the basics.

Posted by: james at November 20, 2007 5:50 PM

Foolio -

I disagree with almost everything in your post.

First and most importantly, I was very careful to focus my disparagement on San Jose. Someone else brought up LA, but I wouldn't bite. Neither did I bring up Berkeley, Rockridge or San Mateo. Those are courtesy of you. Neither did anyone bring up Woodside or Bolinas, for example, which are wonderful.

It was (and is) San Jose that invites my ire. San Jose is a hellhole where art, commerce and culture go to die. It is Modesto with a better tax base. As for the "raising a family" angle, what a terrible thing to do to a child.

San Francisco, for its part, is fine. No better, no worse. It's where I've lived for 12+ years. I harbor no delusions about it. I don't buy the "it's the most magical place on earth" orthodoxy. It's dysfunctional and backward. (Ironically, this is due to "progressive" policies.) Neither do I buy that it has suddenly turned crass and lost its appeal. I have as much fun here now as I did 12 years ago. Different fun, for sure. But still fun.

I am most certainly a "city elitist", but in no way is this specific to SF. Anybody who spends all of their time talking about how SF is superior to other places has got to be a huge bore.

... unless they're talking about San Jose. Because San Jose sucks.

Posted by: amused at November 20, 2007 6:02 PM

SF is a freak magnet and SJ is a drone magnet, so there's your crime differential right there. Condos for everyone! These units are about as nice as other downtown models that sold for just over hunner-kay back in ni'een niney five. Times have been good, but not that good and Correction Clouds are gathering.

Posted by: Mole Man at November 20, 2007 6:21 PM

"P.S. As someone who moved here 10 years ago (as did I), do you like the City more or less now than you did then? And I'm not asking that rhetorically, I'm actually curious. Because, I gotta say, this isn't the San Francisco I fell in love with in 1997. It's become dirtier, more expensive, cruder in its contrasts between haves and have nots, gaudier in its displays of conspicuous consumption, and frankly it just seems all around meaner than it was back then. Or perhaps I'm just getting older. Sigh."


I also moved here in 97 and completely agree with you. There are more homeless now, the city is dirtier, the crime is worse and the people aren't as friendly.

Posted by: spencer at November 20, 2007 6:30 PM

Moved here in '95. Some thoughts:

1. More vagrants, yes
2. Mission is better
3. Potrero is better
4. SoMa is better
5. Glen Park is better
6. Bernal is better
7. Embarcadero is better
8. South Beach... um, exists?
9. Mission Bay is better
10. Dogpatch is better
11. People are no less friendly
12. Crime is worse (see #1)
13. Old guard 'hoods largely unchanged
14. I'm 12 years older
15. San Jose still sucks

Posted by: amused at November 20, 2007 7:15 PM

What's hilarious is how many people can basically agree that:

A) Any part of San Jose is horrible and

B) Mint Plaza in SF is up and coming and people should pay $1000 psf to live there.

Posted by: Tipster at November 20, 2007 8:20 PM

Well I guess this makes me 'Olde' but I moved here in 1980. Cheap housing - whee! Share rentals for $100/month. Abandoned store fronts: the Upper Haight was half abandoned.

But I liked SF in the 1980's. It was So Much More Funky, yet fewer homeless. I have to say though, that if you weren't a doctor or lawyer, it was hard to make any money in this town.

Then the 90's rolled around and eventually SF got incredibly crowded and expensive and there were lots of jobs that paid real money. Lots of newbies tripping through the Mission tipping and tippling.

It's such a mixed bag. I like it that there are good jobs and great food and the houses are fixed up and the city looks great. I also mourn the more casual, less pressured, less expensive, more hippyish/punkish city that was. I grew up in a city with a more stable and prosperous Black community and the Black community here is not in good shape - a sign that SF's progressive character is something of an affectation.

Posted by: dissent at November 20, 2007 9:53 PM

I moved to San Francisco in 1991. In one way it is a more difficult city now-- the cost of living is higher. But it wasn't cheap even back then, at least compared to other cities.

Otherwise, the city is not that different.

The homeless problem is more or less the same now as in 1991. Anyone remember the homeless tent city that drove Agnos from office? Or Frank Jordan's Matrix program?

The city became safer through the '90's, especially neighborhoods like the Mission and Hayes Valley. Great restaurants sprung up in the Mission, Bernal Heights, and elsewhere. Homes were fixed up across the city. Some of the scariest projects were rebuilt, and became (somewhat) less scary.

But seems like the city is, at best, treading water lately. It seems less safe now than it was just 3 or 4 years ago.

For the guy moving from San Jose, I wouldn't worry about SF "elitists." There are all kinds of people, good and bad, everywhere. Overall, if I had to generalize, I think San Franciscans are pretty decent people.

Posted by: Dan at November 20, 2007 10:05 PM

The problem with the so-called downtown San Jose and why it will never have a chance to evolve into a better downtown is: it's right under the airport flight path. It's LOUD from 6am until midnight every day with the jet engines blasting overhead every 5 or 10 minutes.

Posted by: cati at November 20, 2007 10:49 PM

San Jose's entertainment district is three blocks long. I think that says a lot.

Posted by: EH at November 21, 2007 12:32 AM

Really there are only three types of places in this country rural, suburban, and urban. Most of the cities in this country are really defacto suburban such as San Jose. Some people like suburban life, some people like urban life. If you like going out on the town to restaurants, shows, bars, clubs, walking in the city, San Francisco has a lot to offer. If you like a different pace of life, then San Jose might before you. Although, I think there are much nicer towns surrounding San Jose, so why not live there.

There is nothing wrong with San Jose besides being unremarkable.

As for San Francisco snobbery, try a different neighborhood.

Posted by: Byron at November 21, 2007 12:44 AM

Downtown San Jose is much, much nice than downtown little prick to the north(San Francisco). SF, the city, is tiny campared San Jose. San Jose downtown is much cleaner, safer and more inviting the San Francisco's. Get over it! You San Franciscans are so ignorant! Just hang out in Tenderloin/Sixth St. which is the heart of downtown SF. That's why people prefer living in downtown SJ. San Francisco is a dump.

Posted by: Steve Vessle at November 21, 2007 12:52 AM

We recently left SF, our "dream" destination, for Florida. The primary reason was value, which I believe is the basis for the SJ vs SF discusiion.
For us, there is little doubt SF is preferable to SJ for some of the reasons others have made. Still, SF at $1000/sqft makes SJ more alluring (Though not as alluring as Florida. Today a 4,000 sqft home in a premium Miami Beach location was reduced from $1.5M to $1.0M! The bank now owns it.)

Cary

Posted by: Cary at November 21, 2007 6:44 AM

Cary - I left Florida a few years ago to come to SF. I agree with most all of the comments about SF - good and bad. SF is still strongly alluring to us - the people, the culture, the neighborhoods, and geography. The politics are a little whacky here and the crime is troubling - but the prices are just totally outrageous. We have the highest of everything - housing prices, gasoline prices, electricity rates, sales tax rates, highest marginal state income tax rate, high SF business taxes, insurance, even most food items are way more here than in FL. How can they build decent quality in FL at $100 per sq ft (or less) when it costs 2 to 4 times that here? How do FL and its cities get by with such low budgets that they don't need a state income tax or high business taxes? If CA is the largest consumer of gasoline in the world, why doesn't our purchasing power get us the lowest prices instead of the absolute highest prices? Why does food grown in CA sell for less in FL than here? Same with most CA wines.

Seems pretty crazy to have moved here, but we're staying (at least for a while).

Posted by: ex-FL-er at November 21, 2007 7:42 AM

How can they build decent quality in FL at $100 per sq ft (or less) when it costs 2 to 4 times that here? How do FL and its cities get by with such low budgets that they don't need a state income tax or high business taxes? If CA is the largest consumer of gasoline in the world, why doesn't our purchasing power get us the lowest prices instead of the absolute highest prices? Why does food grown in CA sell for less in FL than here? Same with most CA wines.

Because people are willing to pay. If there wasn't the demand, prices would fall. If everyone can sell it for more here, why wouldn't they - from the dude selling lumber to the refinery selling gas to the winery selling wine to the farmer selling avocados?

Posted by: anon at November 21, 2007 8:23 AM

collusion? i have always heard gas prices are where they are for a few simple reasons. we don't let gas trucks drive on any bridges so it's really expensive to get it to the city. the real estate for the station is expensive. the supply, refinery, is almost non-existent.

Posted by: james at November 21, 2007 8:33 AM

does anyone posting here actually live in sj? i go to school in sf but have lived in sj for half my life. if you know where to look, sj has some good things to offer that sf never could. my favorite is the summertime garage sales. my mom and i go visit different blocks around the city in the summer and we can spend an entire day walking from garage sale to garage sale. this is something i feel sf is too urban for. or someone mentioned the outdoors. sj has loads of bike/hiking trails... i know of about two in sf. and maye its just because san jose is home, but i never feel like i can relax as much as when im in sj. theres always something going on in sf, so i feel like we're always doing something. visiting sj i feel like i can finally take a load off.

Posted by: ashley at November 21, 2007 9:43 AM

Thanks to everyone for sharing their San Francisco stories...from those who feel like I do and wanted, albeit briefly, to vent about it, to those who see the City as the same as it ever was, and that's pretty d*mn good. It helps to hear both sides.

Here's hoping we'll all look back 10 more years from now and see the 2007-2017 as a great time for the City.

Posted by: Foolio at November 21, 2007 10:09 AM

ashley,

I think you sum up best my feelings about the two cities. SF is a place to visit, SJ is a place to live. As for all of SF's supposed culture, it's only a 45 min Caltrain ride away. I've spent 45 min looking for parking in the city before!

Posted by: ZapBrannigan at November 21, 2007 10:17 AM

"SF is a place to visit, SJ is a place to live. As for all of SF's supposed culture, it's only a 45 min Caltrain ride away. I've spent 45 min looking for parking in the city before!"

Zap-- then why are you planning to move from SJ to SF?

Posted by: Dan at November 21, 2007 10:41 AM

I moved to SF in 94 from Santa Cruz. Before I moved here I would come up to the city once or twice a month with friends, we would only go to San Jose once or twice a year.

Visited the city for the first time in 89 and was scared walking from the transbay terminal to union square, it seemed such a dirty city filled with vagrants. So to me I don't feel like there are more homeless people today or that the city is dirtier then it used to be.

Posted by: Rillion at November 21, 2007 12:59 PM

I moved here in 91, and definitely feel the vagrant situation was MUCH worse back then.

Posted by: missionite at November 21, 2007 1:37 PM

exFLer,

Why does......."Seems pretty crazy to have moved here, but we're staying (at least for a while)."

I think you answered your own question. We felt not enough value to stay and you feel there's too much to leave. That's what makes the world go 'round.

I hope your life is well in SF.

Cary

Posted by: Cary at November 21, 2007 3:52 PM

this just in....

san jose has been officially renamed 'little saigon'

Posted by: james at November 21, 2007 4:19 PM

Thoughts on differences/similarities in The City over the last 10+ years from a 5th generation native:
Homeless situation is no worse and probably a little better. Dan brought up "Camp Agnos" at the Civic Center. I remember it well, anyone who was around then will.
A lot more glitz and glam now everywhere. Downtown is a lot less scruffy, but I do miss the Woolworths at Powell.
City in the late '70s and '80s was much funkier and probably cheaper (never SEEMED cheap, though). My first flat was a share with 2 roomies at $140/month (a nice place in Duboce Triangle that has since been brutally TICed). Most of my friends worked part-time or minimum wage jobs and had lots of time to enjoy books, the park, movies and just hanging out while surviving on meals of ramen and burritos.
No one seemed to work too much and there was much more of a true "slacker" aesthetic, at least amongst my crowd (most of whom are still very much alive and slacking right here, thanks to rent control.) We are tucked away in the dusty corners of this beautiful, crazy place, enjoying life and, despite the greed and googlers and rapid real estate speculators, we are not going anywhere (perhaps to Colma...eventually, but NEVER San Jose).

Posted by: foggydogsf at November 24, 2007 12:38 AM

san jose, where bad slackers go to die

lol

Posted by: james at November 24, 2007 12:01 PM

To steal my own thoughts from another post, just go ahead and move away for a few years - like we did - thinking we could do better for ourselves - have a better life - have a bigger house, for less money - it was a huge mistake, and made us realize how much we took for granted living in San Francisco, or the Bay Area for that matter - we love this crazy, dirty, beautiful, wonderful city, and will pay any price to live here. For those of us that get it, and love it, we will never think of living anywhere else.

Posted by: movingback at November 24, 2007 10:43 PM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Copper (And Wood) Clad And Coming Semi-Soon At 17th And Clayton | HOME | New Designs For Dwellings (And Retail) At Market And Sanchez »