Ask HN: What's it like to live in San Francisco? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: What's it like to live in San Francisco?

62 points_dxnt95 comments

How are the people and what's the current attitude like?

I lived there for 3 years and left a year ago. I lived in Nob Hill, Mission, Noe, and Castro.

When I was first there, I felt a strong disgust towards tech. People protesting shuttles, hateful graffiti, news articles about it. Tech workers were moving in troves and driving up rent and people getting displaced. I felt like part of the problem.

Market Street is a mix of insanely wealthy and insanely poor people. Other cities around California send their homeless people to SF, so there are thousands of them and SF can't support them all. It's not uncommon to see shouting, needles, and human feces. Every time I walked down that street I felt awful I couldn't do something to help.

Meanwhile, you step inside a tech office, and you'll see luxurious decor, free lunch, Macbook Pros, and many people making top 1% income for their age. The contrast is staggering.

People I've met in tech vary from the most passionate about work I've ever met, to just there to make a great living and enjoy the nature/weather. Nothing wrong with either lifestyle. San Francisco is a beautiful little hilly city with plenty to do nearby.

It did feel like a hard place to have non-liberal values, but I think people just mean well and are passionate about improvement.

Everything is expensive. Coffee is $4-6 plus tax and tip. Groceries are double where I'm from (Seattle suburbs). Rent is crazy. Office space is crazy.

Hope that helps!

+1 I’d just add one thing, would you pay $1 million for a studio in the middle of all that? You could live right next to your office and enjoy everything (mentioned above) that the city has to offer while writting code all day. Sounds like a healthy and dreamy life.

Re: homeless, panhandling income is surprisingly tightly tied to general wages. A tech bro making $300k has much more money to give than a blue-collar worker making $30k.

Cost of living (on the street) is pretty similar everywhere, so it makes sense to have the homeless populations migrate to areas with the highest-paying jobs.

There are many different neighborhoods with pretty different feels, but generally speaking I would say this:

The city is dirty, there are many homeless people, public infrastructure is not great (bad roads, questionable public transit), and it is the most expensive rent in the world. Culturally, it is much less "gay" and "hippie" nowadays, and almost entirely "tech," at least in my own experiences. If you're a software engineer, there are plenty of jobs and you will never have issue finding work. The pay, in general, is excellent. If you're NOT a software engineer, I'm not sure.

> Culturally, it is much less "gay" and "hippie" nowadays, and almost entirely "tech," at least in my own experiences.

It's interesting how many tech people dislike the company of their own kind.

Isn't that a neutral statement by the OP? It seems objectively true, at least from my own limited experiences visiting SF twenty+ years ago and then again a few years past.

gay and hippie are cultures, tech is just a job

Hippie is a culture. You're right about tech tho.

Tech is also a culture. Tech people are generally rational, open to innovation, individualistic. HN is a good representation of the tech culture.

I don't think it's disliking tech people so much as disliking a monoculture.

True, but a city of "artists" is also a monoculture.

Less so, because in reality most "artists" actually end up doing normal jobs to make a living in a variety of fields and just keep art as a side interest. A city of hobbyist programmers wouldn't necessarily be a monoculture either.

In current realities that's probably true. I've read about a city (town) of artists in post WWI France, which was dominated by Americans who moved there to pursue their artistic interests (painting). They were regular American folks, but thanks to the wealth disparity between USA and France at the time, they were basically wealthy by French standards, which allowed them to live a life of leisure and do nothing but paint. In that city, there were the dominant part of the population.

In practice, it becomes an artist/yuppie duoculture within a decade :)

Speaking for myself I enjoy the company in limited doses. HN is fun to visit, but fuck me if I’d live here. There’s a big world full of perspectives and ways of thinking that would be concern trolled and rules lawyered to death by a group of techies. As monocultures go, tech isn’t terrible, but it’s still undesirable IMO. I do find the tech culture easier to swallow outside of the specific manifestation of SF/VC tech culture though. The more people over 40 around, the less it feels like a cult gone horribly wrong.

Seriously though, that city is SO dirty and smelly. The public infrastructure is not only bad and falling apart, but politics is sufficiently broken that very little is likely to be done about it. (Same for housing and homelessness: politics is completely broken, don't expect much to improve in this department.)

And yes, it's a huge techie bubble. In a bad way - most people there are completely detached from any "normal life" perspective. But then again, the same can be said for those in politics in SF.

> If you're a software engineer, there are plenty of jobs and you will never have issue finding work.

Even over 40? I am genuinely curious.

I'm not there yet, myself, but articles seem to indicate that it's tougher. I would imagine that the problem is possibly even exaggerated here, though, where tech is as much of a trend and culture as it is a job, and people feel like they need to be on the cutting edge, new, and cool.

> Even over 40? I am genuinely curious.

It'll be tougher, especially if you are a white or asian male, but there are plenty of software jobs out there. You are less likely to be getting choice projects, raises, promotions, etc. And you are on the top of the list come lay off time, but you won't be on bread lines anytime soon as a software developer. But you will be marginalized as you get older and even more so if you are part of the overrepresented group in the industry.

Any age, as long as your skills are current. The demand here is savage enough to overcome most prejudice. There are many times more older engineers in the bay area than anywhere else I’ve worked.

I am kind of worried about this myself. On the other hand, everyone I know over 40 in tech is making enough money to retire in less than a decade assuming some decent personal finance skills. It could be survivorship bias, but I think you’re fine. Even if you have trouble getting hired in 5 years, you’ll have a million+ in the bank to fall back on and retrain in something else.

From 2005-2010 the city had a very positive vibe: we're the most European city in America, we love good food, we have a balance of artists and people who support the arts. Now it's overcrowded, overvalued and overcapitalized. Rather than being welcomed, you will be resented and perceived as pushing other people out. Oakland has a more friendly and creative feel these days, if you can deal with the pervasive criminal element and left-wing monoculture. Plan to make your money and get out.

> we're the most European city in America

New York?

Montreal?

When Americans say the singular "America" they mean USA.

That's probably true for Americans from the USA, not so sure about Americans from other American countries.

My fellow Canadians routinely say "my friend moved to America" and similar.

Context matters. You're essentially reading "my favorite football team is the Eagles" and responding "well Eagles are actually a type of bird".

As a European who has been a few times to both NY and SF, SF seems a lot more European to me. But couldn't tell you why exactly. I guess SF is more relaxed in many ways and NY is way too intense (which I love, but it's not something one finds in Europe).

I don't know, I find SF very Californian - people are enthusiastic about everything, even if they aren't being genuine.

NY feels more real - as in London, Berlin or Paris, someone will tell you if something's shit. NY also obviously has a comparable arts scene. Apparently there's a SF Fashion Week but it's sure isn't in international calendars. People from NY seem to have travelled more than people from SF too.

Maybe SF is more like, say, one of the Spanish cities in terms of being relaxed?

The fairly obvious difference with New York and European cities is the grid system. There's Canary Wharf in London that is a bit similar to NY, but Canary Wharf isn't really like the rest of London.

As much as I appreciate the sentiment, Boston is probably the most European city in America stemming from the fact that it was originally built as one.

I’m european and have been to both cities. I agree with this statement.

Having just returned from a trip to 5 European cities in different countries, what does the most European city mean? I also haven't been to Boston, but there were many ethnic enclaves in other American cities that I was reminded of during my time in Europe. But as a whole, the cities were each so distinct, I found many American cities comparable to them than they were to each other.

For one: no grid, walkable streets and bars and restaurants with terasses

The idea of SF as "culturally European" was largely a piece of self-mythologizing, rather than a legitimate comparison. SF saw the rest of the US as the homeland of mindless consumerism (with the exception of their leftist intellectual conception of New York City, ironically; this being before the 2008 financial crisis and Occupy Wall Street), and the residents liked to identify with the Europe they imagined as an Epicurean socialist Utopia. It's similar to the mindset that Austin has in distinguishing themselves from the rest of Texas. Of course many of SF's culturally distinctive qualities, like the noted California-style phony overenthusiasm, are actually very anti-European.

Hard to say if SF is the most "European city in America".

Is it that case in terms of culture, philosophy/values, architecture, demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, marriage status, etc), economy? In my opinion: no.

Also happens to be one of the most geographically distant cities to Europe.

Since everyone is chiming in on your "most European city in America" statement I figured I'd give it a go. The reason I love visiting Europe is for the cities as the variety of cultures offer a staggering number of varieties. I don't think anyone would say London and SF are similar, but maybe London and NYC.

I'd also like to throw New Orleans into the mix, and agree with Montreal as well even though it is in Canada. I'd really like to see Vancouver but have never been.

So in one way I think NYC because you can find cross sections of the cultures of many European cities there, but maybe SF more relaxed way of life is more similar to some. I however do not find the people of Lisbon where I am now (rapidly becoming a very multicultural center as more people move for the cheap prices and beautiful weather) to be quite so relaxed as the people of California (as awesome and friendly as they are), however I've only been to California a few times and never for any extended period of time and have only been in Lisbon a week and a half and NYC for ~5 years.

So I guess what I'm saying is... what do I know? I guess maybe Boston's another good city from the comments, beautiful, nicely paced, definitely didn't notice any feces or needles last time I was there.

Maybe it's P = NP problem. Some google searching places New Orleans at the top of 21 followed by Venice Beach, CA. Then there's a list of seven dominated by smaller cities (towns?) with the big one I've heard of being Kansas City. Never been there, would never have thought of it. I have however read about Peoria (sp?) Iowa which does indeed sound quite European. And of course Quebec City comes up which is a great choice.

It probably really depends (for both continents) where you've been, what you've done, when you've done it, and on and on.

So we get nowhere, eh?

Are you a lifelong resident? How did it compare to say 2000-2005?

I visited SF prior to 2005 and had a general impression it was very Bohemian with a strong underground scene. To some extent I consider the city today a capitalist parody of this former self, where you can stand in line at "Ramen Underground" and shop at the "Renegade Craft Fair".

> To some extent I consider the city today a capitalist parody of this former self

What do you think the people who lived there in the 60s say about your assessment of 2005 SF being "very Bohemian with a strong underground scene"?

Jerry Rubin as far back as his 1970 book "Do It!" criticized the capitalists co-opting his image of the counterculture (a "revolution" in toilet paper!). I do think there was another wave of interesting people in the 90's with the Cacophony Society and original Burners, and there are still radical "scenes" happening today, most of which I'm probably too old to know about. The main structural impediment is just that it's too expensive for the kind of casual under-employment that enables these scenes to thrive.

So to recap:

It's always worse than it was but people think it was still good when they got there but got much worse shortly thereafter.

No. Culture moves in waves. You hit the right part of the wave and it's a great ride. Time it just wrong and you wash out, but you might still have fun, especially if it's your first time out and you don't know what a good wave feels like. I don't agree with the sentiment that every time and place is equivalent to every other time and place, and that comparing them is a meaningless exercise in nostalgia, if that's what you're implying.

What year(s) did you live in SF or spend significant time there?

I'm curious if you want to make a substantive point, please go ahead and do so without waiting for my complete biographical details.

The timeline you've laid out:

Pre 2005 - "general impression it was very Bohemian with a strong underground scene" 2005-2010 - "the city had a very positive vibe" Post 2010 - "overcrowded, overvalued and overcapitalized" "a capitalist parody of this former self"

My guess is that you likely moved to SF around 2005 and the city fortunately managed to maintain its "very positive vibe." Yet someone who moved there in the mid 80s would likely have a very different opinion of the same era. Similarly some tech bro who moved there in 2010 would likely have a more rose-colored take on the 2010-2018 era.

I guess my substantive point is that people like to think they were there when it was good no matter when they were there.

I got that from your previous comment. I don't think it means the city is the same in 2018 as it was in 2005 or 1985. I'm talking about specific structural differences that don't have anything to do with when I got here (e.g rent).

No but it calls into question your assessment of the city.

I'm well aware of potential cognitive biases based on the arc of personal experience and I think I've accounted for that above. Meanwhile you've addressed zero of my objective points. You're a troll.

I have no idea what your objective points are. All you’ve said is, “the city used to be good now it isn’t.”

European cities have buildings over 3 stories.

Shots fired (European cites don’t have shots fired)

I interned there in 2012. My roommate and I got super lucky his family friend hooked us up with $1200/month for a condo at the top of Lombard St in Russian Hill. So my experience is slightly biased since I miraculously avoided the ludicrous rent. I don’t know what we would have done had we not secured that place.

In general, I really liked it. My favorite part was feeling like I was living in the future, since every new app launches in SF first. For example, back then Uber was quite new and I used it for the first time there. My least favorite part was the monoculture of tech (that’s not even considering the political monoculture). While there are a lot of interesting non-tech people in SF, you have to go out of your way to meet them. Otherwise the default is to be surrounded 24/7 by clones of yourself.

I interned in SF, Seattle and Houston. After school I lived in NYC for a year. Now I’m in the UK, but if I had to choose between those cities I would pick New York every time.

New York has plenty of problems but a monoculture is not one of them; it’s still fairly homogenous, but far less than SF simply because the NYC economy is more diversified. In SF, tech is the dominant and basically only industry. In NYC, tech is one of many industries in a city dominated by finance and law.

Put another way, of all my friends in college, 100% of them living in SF are in tech. But many of them live in NYC, and of those people, only some are in tech and the rest are in finance/law/school (nyc has top schools in the city proper unlike SF). I much prefer living near friends in other fields, because the last thing I want to talk about when I get home from work is work.

Coming from Northern Europe, I still find SF a place it would be hard to leave. If you're in tech, there is no better place to be, in terms of learning, career progression and the overall interest. Think about any technology you're interest in, and you're probably a coffee shop away to talk people who work on it or lead the work. In Europe, I'd often feel how lacking and not interesting the environment is in many ways. People don't have much experience and don't often have high ambitions (since there isn't many good examples).

Salaries and equity options are probably higher than anywhere, and its more likely here that those options actually turns something in worthwhile. While rents are expensive, it can be still potentially financially better.

Restaurants, places to go, nature and travel is pretty great overall, there is lot to do.

The quality of living is not really on the same level as in Europe. Lot of the city is quite dirty, not all of it though. If you have a family, its likely to be much more costly in everything. Houses are expensive, and probably there isn't anything to fix that in the near future. I think the protesting against tech has somewhat subdued, you don't really hear about it.

Overall, after living here for a while, you get jaded about all the startup stuff. Its not what you need to do all the time, but it can be still quite interesting to see and hear everyone around you to try new ideas.

People are leaving, but not really seeing that the area is slowing down. There are more great companies now than there was 10 years ago.

Sometimes, I think about moving back to Europe or somewhere else, and don't really feel excited about the job prospects or the overall work environment. It would be hard to find anything remotely similar roles that I've been able to do here.

As Northern European with ambitions to move to a US tech hub one day, I am interested in knowing a bit of your background. Did you go to school in the US? How did you acquire your visa? Were you sponsored by an employer or did you go through the lottery? etc.

Our company got accepted YC which made us to move here during YC and then just stayed. I had visited the Bay Area few times in previous here.

The YC didn't really help or matter much for the visas, it just meant that we had a reason to be here, and our company in US that could sponsor us our visas. As a company owner, you cannot really do H1B easily, so we (2 Finnish founders) applied for O1 visa. We both had some previous projects and background, including the startup, that we could use to make our case for the O1. For O1 you need public evidence: press articles, conference talks, mentoring, lectures etc to prove that you have specific expertise in some category. I actually didn't even graduate, it didn't matter. A year ago, I upgraded my status to green card.

I would recommend signing up for the green card lottery each year, since its pretty easy and good probability to get one in the Nordics. Secondly, I would just visit here couple times, try to get know people and how things work. Then you can start building your "resume". Resume here often means actual visible projects you built, interests etc. European schools or companies doesn't matter much in interviewing for jobs. What matters is your skills, how you can show them and how well you can sell them.

One route is also taking a job in a company that has office in Europe, and then after a year, try to ask for a transfer to US HQ.

The place is geographically incredible, great climate, beautiful scenery, lots to do and many diverse activities are a relatively short drive away.

Having said that, living there can be kind of awful. It's become quite a monoculture of tech people, which brings with it the same gender imbalance you find in the tech workplace. It's very expensive, dirty, poorly maintained, not the safest city and it's not uncommon to have your vehicle windows smashed or otherwise broken into.

There's also significant tension from the gentrification when I was last there ~6 months ago, depending on the neighborhood. If you're visibly a part of that gentrification force (e.g. a white male yuppy with a backpack), don't be surprised if some drunk mexican in the mission starts a fight with you for no apparent reason. This happened to me on two separate occasions, completely unprovoked, and I didn't even spend that much time in the mission.

I had the same experience in the Mission my first time there.

SF used to be a very diverse and culturally interesting city. That city has died. It’s become a monoculture around tech to a fault.

Other cities with highly successful and growing tech scenes (like NYC) have a much more diverse economy that, IMO, keeps things far more dynamic and interesting. NYC for example has finance, law, diplomacy, tv/film, theatre, music, fashion, and many other big industries that have a strong presence.

SF and the region is just becoming tech tech tech at the expense of everything else. Its one time greatest strength is rapidly becoming its greatest weakness.

The wealth inequality is acute, visible and disturbing.

Is it more visible than London, for example? I know people talk about it a lot but you see some extreme wealth inequality in many big cities.

(Just genuinely curious, it's not a trick question)

Definitely more visible than in London. Been living in London for few years and spent few days in SF last year - I have never seen so many homeless people. It also feels like people are more evenly distributed on the curve in LND. Here you encounter people of every level while in SF it seems like lower-middle class is pretty rare.

I've been there only for a few days in only a few neighbourhoods so keep this in mind.

I live in London, visited LA (not SF but kind of similar?)

The wealth inequality was massively more visible in LA. Far more homeless people. Neighbourhoods were either rich or poor, there wasn't any mixing. OFC London has similar problems, you're going to see more luxury cars than homeless people in Chelsea and vise versa in Brixton, but LA felt like it had gone a lot further. The projects in LA are also far more run down than council estates in London, at least from outward appearances. Agree with what the other comment says too: there isn't really much of a middle ground, it all felt like everyone either has a six figure trust fund or is almost homeless.

I've been saying this in various places for a while, but the predominant difference between the UK and the US is the size. Since it's a much bigger country and they have more space, everything is spread out far more. In London I live in a mainly working class (stabby) neighbourhood, but I walk ten minutes and I'm surrounded by houses all worth £1m+. Same thing in every flat I've had in London. In American cities you walk ten minutes and you're still on the same street. It leads to huge buildups of either run down or expensive neighbourhoods which keep themselves very, very isolated from each other and it shows. SF is a bit more walkable from what I've heard but the general problem is still there.

Another difference between the UK and the USA besides size is wealth of the country; see: https://www.greanvillepost.com/2011/08/12/generation-fcked-h... "British children have the most miserable upbringing in the developed world. Is it a coincidence that the US and Britain are now the two developed nations with the most savage and cynical capitalism and deepest class fissures? ... “The reason our children’s lives are the worst among economically advanced countries is because we are a poor version of the USA,” he said. “So the USA comes second from bottom and we follow behind. The age of neo-liberalism, even with the human face that New Labour has given it, cannot stem the tide of the social recession capitalism creates.”"

As I suggest here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY alternatives include some culturally appropriate mix of:

* improved subsistence through developing and distributing better tools and know-how for off-grid living like solar panels, 3D printers, mobile microhouses, composting toilets, and gardening robots

* expand the gift economy for both physical and digital goods

* soften capitalism's exchange-based social harshness with a basic income

* better democratic planning to insure public infrastructure to meet everyone's needs (e.g. convert prisons to artist dorms; ensure free food and water is available eveywhere; better automated clean public bathrooms; expanded libraries and health services)

Grew up in LA, living in South London now.

Homelessness and inequality is much more of a problem in LA. Skid row is a modern Hoover/shanty town, and it’s impossible to walk along the beach or any tourist area without coming across clearly mentally unstable homeless people with no support network/help.

In London a lot of homeless sit outside of tube stations or grocery stores selling big issue magazines. There are some tents along the canal, but nothing on the scale of LA. It’s rare to see

Inequality is obvious in both cities (nice cars, insanely expensive housing) but it’s more concentrated in London. Everyone is rich in central. Huge wealth in LA, but it’s outside the center and not serviced by any public transit - Beverly Hills, Malibu, Brentwood, etc.

Police culture is a huge factor. Police in UK are helpers, while police in US are enforcers.

I've been a bunch in SF and currently live in London. I’d say London has very few homeless compared to a city like Paris. I think it’s impossible to compare it to SF though, I’ve never seen as many homeless people in my life as in SF.

The current attitude is tech and homelessness and everything in between.

All the artist and musicians have moved to Oakland instead of living in the mission.

Its a sunny 70 degrees year round, except for in the summer its foggy by the ocean everyday.

Unemployment rate is extremely low (2.2%), but the rent is extremely high.

If you thinking of moving here, just do it. Everyone here is from somewhere else and came to chase a dream that they feel that SF can fulfill. And its true, dreams do come true in SF if you work hard enough towards your goals. But thats true with anywhere. Just in SF, if you don't have your ish together, you'll be homeless and booted out real quick. At least you got to have time in SF though.

  Its a sunny 70 degrees year round

No, it isn't. In fact, it's May and it hasn't been over 61 in over 2 days. And it's not usually sunny except September-November.

>If you thinking of moving here, just do it. Everyone here is from somewhere else and came to chase a dream that they feel that SF can fulfill. And its true, dreams do come true in SF if you work hard enough towards your goals.

This reminds of me of some movie I saw where it starts or ends with something like "Welcome to Hollywood" ... and then something about dreams.

You mean 55-60 and sunny.

Could you ask a more general question please?

Oh, what the heck, I'll give you a general answer, you may get some benefit from it.

San Francisco, i.e. The City (NOT Frisco), never changes once you're in a neighborhood, everyone is different, some people are friendly, some not, just like any large city.

The time I spent there was fantastic, walking to the store, great neighborhood restaurants, friendly shop owners, amazing art and always interesting graffiti.

The Castro is still fun to walk through if you're not a homophobe and one of the best kept secret hard to find restaurants is there, Orphan Andy's, real comfort food 24 hours a day.

The public transportation is totally adequate and one can get around town without too many transfers.

Despite the hills, it's a very walk-able town, I walked all over the place, it was nice seeing all the different neighborhoods on foot.

Like any location, you get out of it what you put in.

I hear it's way expensive to live there now, even my sister who lived there for 40 years sold her Bernal Heights house and moved North to Santa Rosa.

That's right.

- Right: San Francisco, SF or "The City".

- Wrong: "Frisco", "San Fran", "415".

If you want to act "friscan" people get pretty upset very fast.

I seem to remember "Frisco" being used in Western novels I read as a kid, though.

Probably can find a copy of https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Call-Frisco-Herb-Caen/dp/B002IAO... at your local library, worth a read?

Thanks, will check it out.

I went on holiday there for one week, an as a person from Western Europe, the manifestation of wealth inequality was abhorrent sometimes. So many homeless people that are not taken care of, generally dirty, expensive public transit that not really good on top of it, obsession with tech and just generally a bit too stiff.

Mission district was fun, though.

To answer your question without complaining too much about SF I’d say that people are either new to SF (haven’t experienced the real deal described by everyone here), or holding onto something that used to be a dream a few years back, like a great position at a hot startup waiting for it to go public or a 1 bd apartment bought at $700k a few years back versus +$1 million today. Really not about the city by the Bay anymore.. So, as you may guess the attitude in 2018 here is extremely materialistic, which sounds weird when you think about hippies right? :) either my home equity or my stocks.

People who want to become entrepreneurs these days would rather stop by to create some connections and operate from a remote location. Last but not least, tourists on a weekend trip to SF from all around the World. They want to see the bridge and jump on a boat to Alcatraz

I used to live there between '98 to '02, so my view is outdated. It's interesting to read current outlooks. I'm not American. Back then I found the city to be very European and very accepting. I was part of a fairly large music scene there so although I was in tech, the crowd I hang with was more music people. There was a LOT of tech back then and it was expensive. I remember if you wanted to rent a flat, you'd be there early morning with 20 other people willing to outbid you for the rent. Lots of homeless people, though I don't remember it being dirty. Great food. 4 seasons in a day but generally pleasant weather. Some streets were wind tunnels (Van Ness in particular). Best Burritos in the Galaxy (Mission/24th El Faralito hot damn). Beautiful city. I left a piece of my heart there (but it grew back).

Reading all of these replies is making me nostalgic for my youth in California.

I spent a lot of time in Santa Cruz between '95 and '98 and used to head to SF pretty regularly. As a young art student before any real involvement in tech, I loved the vibe of the city. Great food and bars, welcoming people. Nice climate.

At the time I did notice lots of homeless people but they didn't seem that threatening. Out of all the places I've visited, it's one of the few places where I would consider moving to, out of the UK.

Someone once told me the reason for all the homelessness is a mental institution closing during the Reagan era in the 80s and many patients were just left out in the streets. I've never found them intimidating as well. They were 'just there'.

Not in SF but I lived in East Bay for past two years. Since good tech meetups were mostly happening around Mission I'd be in SF downtown once or twice a week. One night I missed last BART and had to spend my rest of the night until 4am in a 711 near 2nd St which changed my view towards homeless people in SF. I wonder why they're not welcomed by the job market. One guy said the city, SF is beta testing ground for Silicon Valley. Overall I loved being part of the city. But as others here have commented recently Oakland seems more happening.

In NYC, certainly seems like there is a fresh influx of former SF residents. Many around crypto / fintech as all large banks are here.

Refrain I often hear is that "street culture" is dead in SF. Tech workers just stay in and order Seamless and tinker on their respective inventions all night long. Although nowhere what it was at peak in 80s and 90s. NYC nightlife is still popping ;)

I'd also be interested to hear about life in the Peninsula. Hills above Palo Alto, San Mateo, even South SF. Family and friends seem to love it despite chilly nights in the summer...

It can be very attractive in the beginning, but in the long term:

- Prices are high (rent, groceries, services, you name it).

- Transport: public transport is meh, driving/parking sucks, non-recreational cycling experience is mediocre and unsafe.

Unless you make enough money (after expenses) it is not worth it.

I found that the tech “scene” barely existed, as such. People who work in tech there are super siloed - they go to work, they work too much, they go home. People don’t really go to meetups and user groups like they do in other cities.

Background:

Born in Russia, grew up in NC, live in SF currently, moving to NYC next week. Incredibly excited to leave SF, to say the least.

The good:

Innovation and energy everywhere. You can feel it in the air, especially since every billboard in SoMa is a tech startup.

I've met some of the smartest people in my life here, and have been really lucky to work on some exciting projects.

Neighborhoods are VERY divided and have their own feel, almost like separate cities.

Decent amount of high quality restaurants.

Availability to high paying jobs

The bad:

HBO's Silicon Valley no longer becomes funny, it's just a documentary at this point.

The homeless - they're everywhere and feel empowered to be aggressive on a scale I've never seen. I live in Nob Hill, and have been in a few altercations (though very much not the case when I was in the Marina).

Dating pool for a hetero male is meh at best. Most bars are filled with 75-90% guys, with few exceptions in the Marina.

Tech is everywhere - at first this was a good thing, but now it's unbearable.

Everyone seems to be incredibly sensitive and emotionally charged.

Weather isn't as good as SoCal, and is pretty "eh" majority of the time.

Expensive af.

TLDR:

Amazing career opportunity for young/mid-20's for a few years. You'll meet great people, work on exciting stuff, and raise your income level. Leave after a few years.

Feel free to ask more

The weather is the one thing I don't like. Its never hot here. Its rarely even very warm. Winter is cool as expected, but 2/3 of summer is windy and foggy.

Everything else is probably exactly what you think it is.

Compared to where? I will give you a very different answer if you are comparing to Austin vs Bangkok

I’m interested to know about three other things: rent cost, safety and public transport.

rent is the worst in america

I know several people who have had laptops and cellphones stolen out of their hands while they were at a cafe

the public transport is basically fine, crowded.

I lived there 2014-2017 in the Inner Richmond + Outer Sunset. Rent was ~$1.5k/room, getting to Financial District took about 40 minutes on express bus (2BX) or Muni metro (L).

A lot of internal US migrants find SF really eye-opening: the wider variety of food & culture, the reasonable public transit, the influence of the strong cultures (LGBT+, black, hispanic, asian, hippie) that have thrived in the city. It really is very European for a NA city. SF has lots of great places to see, in the city & around the Bay Area and North California. The Presidio & Golden Gate Park are fantastic close natural escapes from urbanity.

Coming from Europe, I was shocked by the horrible transport (tiny Muni buses with 5 steps to get in), the crime (petty and serious, like scavanging recyclables from restaurant waste into the back of a pickup outside my window at 2am or shootings on Market St), the weird flavour combinations in mid-scale lunch places (I'm calling you out, Golden West), the extremely visible wealth inequality + the "I'm alright, Jack" attitudes, the unimaginable mental health crisis in the homeless population, dealing with private health insurance, taxes and immigration, finding out co-workers on insane salaries were almost destitute from paying off student loans, and the ridiculous housing situation, in the city and in East Bay (people forced out of SF by gentrification and now being forced out of Oakland, Alameda is the deepest white-flight suburb). Oh, and paying more than $10/month for a phone plan.

Coming from Australia, I found the cost-of-living was reasonable (food & rent) and the coffee was terrible, awful. I gave up on the Russian roulette of $5 barista/espresso burnt coffee + boiled milk, and stuck with filter/drip, which was consistently not great and not expensive. There are a few places you can reliably get a good cappuccino for $3-4…

A lot of the comments here focus on the anti-tech sentiment & monoculture of tech: they're relaying their experience of not being a part of the community, as being a overpaid 20-year-old in their first job out of college hasn't prepared them for inviting neighbours over for coffee. The "other US cities transport their homeless to SF" trope is indicative of this attitude: it's not my fault there's so many homeless here, other people are making the decisions that inconvenience my day-to-day, nothing I can do to change their behaviour, so I don't need to do anything to improve it.

Weather was fine, summers were cool (cold at night) & foggy, spring and '''fall''' warm and sunny. Earthquakes were fine, you have to have some supplies and at least know about what to expect when the big one hits. Traffic is normal I guess? Kind of bad when the 49ers/Warriors/Giants have a home game and you want to go across the Bay Bridge.

I left becuase I got fed up with feeling like part of the problem & not having any say in elections + not waiting to raise an American family (eventually). I miss the amazing library system, 24-hour donut places, and the strangly serene driving culture.

2 words. Soul sucking. Damn pricey. Crazy housing. Elitist liberals. Tech mecca. 49er women. Lambos & hobos. Decent weather. Fin^2

What are 49er women?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=49er

Gold Diggers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com