This whole meme is tired. The whole south, southwest and west 3/4 of the city are family friendly, less expensive and devoid of dot commers. And for the most part, very livable.
If there were better mixed use zoning (think 3–6 story buildings and looser parking requirements) in those areas and others throughout the Bay Area, and better transit, the whole region could fit many more people and reduce the stress on overall housing supply. Plenty of folks who live in low density residential areas don’t necessarily want to drive everywhere or live a suburban lifestyle, but are stuck there by housing prices in more urban areas. There could even still be a large number of single-family houses once you get 3–4 blocks away from transit stops, and they would be cheaper than they are now, because there would be less demand on them.
The whole city (and the whole Bay Area) has absurdly priced housing, and even in the southern/western areas of the city ($1500+/month per bedroom), rents suck up a huge proportion of people’s income and middle-class folks are priced out. Young people who aren’t in the tech industry can only afford to live in the city if they cram several roommates into a tiny single-family house or flat and spend 50% of their income on rent, and many service workers in SF are commuting in from far outside the city. The middle-income people I know in SF are mostly still there through rent control, wouldn’t be able to afford it if they were just moving in, and are stuck in their current house/apartment unless they want to completely leave the city.
As someone who grew up in a suburb, my personal opinion is that suburbs may be friendly for “families” but they suck for people aged 9–25, 65+, anyone single, or anyone who can’t get around by car or doesn’t enjoy driving everywhere. Luckily the low density parts of San Francisco are still pretty navigable by bicycle, and have reasonable access to downtown, so they’re not as bad as many other suburbs.
Correct, pretty much. Everything yellow in this map is zoned 40-X, a.k.a. buildings taller than 4 stories are not welcome: http://i.imgur.com/Tn7CSTX.jpg
(You can make maps like this at http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/)
The charming parts of SF are all the bustling little neighborhoods in the northeast quarter of the city, which have easy walking access to anything you might need.
If the low-density areas of SF doubled in density (we’re talking some percentage of 4-story low-rise apartment buildings instead of exclusively single-family homes), along with a commensurate improvement in transit, almost everyone would be thrilled, and the city would be more charming, not less.
Here’s a zoning map. http://www.sf-planning.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documen...
All the parts that are zoned as one housing unit per lot, with no allowance for commercial uses (RH-1), along with similar zoning throughout the Bay Area, are the cause of our current housing crisis. The name for it is “suburban sprawl,” and it’s a crappy way to organize a society, antithetical to community and to human health. (Not to mention, they are hugely inefficient from a resource-use perspective, and are at a national and international scale causing the destruction of the planet.)
It would be lovely if some portion of those were re-zoned to RC-3 or similar.
If you can afford any of these homes, you're in the far right of the income distribution. And this is the 'less expensive' neighborhood that has lousy transit.
I left the Bay Area a decade ago because, in order to buy a four bedroom house (2 kids+home office) in a good school district, the cheapest, crappiest house would have set me back $1M. A nice house started at $1.2M or so. In the suburbs. And I just didn't want to be tied to one of those high-paying jobs. I wanted to be able to quit and do my own thing. So I left that market behind.
For Bay Area prices in general, those are typical. Period. The fact that I see a few ~$700k prices on that map means to me that yes, there are some bargains to be had in that area.
The only exception is if you have a high tolerance for run-down areas and/or poor schools; lots of cheaper houses in Oakland, for instance, even near Bart stations. THAT's where the people who can't afford San Francisco, but who work there, should be (and are!) looking. I did a San Francisco commute on Bart for nearly four years, and it's not bad. Or live in Alameda and commute on the ferry; that is an awesome commute. Did that for a year as well.
But I have a house near Boulder/Denver, Colorado now. Cost: ~$360k. Coming from the Bay Area, I had enough equity to pay cash. Transit: Short walk to two busses that could take me to different parts of Boulder or Longmont (though traffic is low here and I typically drive my Volt, charged with the solar panels on my house). Neighborhood: Short walk to a library, grocery store, about ten restaurants, and two cafes (not counting the Starbucks embedded in the grocery store). Eighteen minute drive to Boulder or Longmont or the north part of Denver.
All that and no mortgage. The recruiters who email me face an uphill battle trying to convince me that I want to live in the Bay Area again. I miss my Bay Area friends, for sure. But it would take something really compelling to make me want to return.
But finding out that it goes as far back as a 1981 NYT article is interesting in the plus ça change department.
It's true they're more family friendly, but I've heard from many that SF public schools aren't exactly top-tier. There's Lowell for high-school, and some excellent elementary schools for dual-language families, but that's about it.
The south-eastern side is still achievable for under a million, but anecdotally a friend put an offer down on a place in Bay View that was listed for $699k that had 20 competing offers and sold for $980k in cash. (a small 3 bedroom, 1 bath)
I am not saying you're wrong that this city is family friendly, but I am saying that there doesn't seem to be an end in sight for it being priced out of reach of normal middle class families. Especially considering you'll probably send your kids to private schools increasing your expenses.
I think techies just have a stronger desire to live near transit than the previous generation of San Franciscans did.
Transit-poor SF neighborhoods are the worst of both worlds.
For anyone working downtown and living in a place that itself doesn't have parking, a car is mostly a liability.
That is the definition of flyover country.