Hacker News Reader

Comment by asabjorn | Hacker News Reader

SF Bay Area still has a fundamental problem with a decades long backlog in building new housing supply. Until the fundamentals are solved prices will continue to closely track the max capability of normal working class people to pay for existing supply.

This is unfortunate, since this is money better spend on innovations and people getting enough wealth to start their own thing in their garage.

View on HN

Starting your own thing in your garage is one thing, but we have a much bigger problem, in that service industry workers simply can't afford to live within a reasonable distance of this area, so there's a shortage of that form of labor, despite paying well over minimum wage.

Local stores, bakeries and restaurants, are closing down at a fast rate. I've been living here for a long time, and I'm sad to see small businesses being displaced by upscale chains. Downtowns areas which used to be a mix of small businesses and restaurants, are turning into chains of upscale restaurants and shops that are out of my price range (mid range tech worker)

We're going to find out what an industry town looks like when all industries but one or two are priced out, and the initial indications aren't very nice.

I don't know why SF is so popular. It smells bad and is always cold.

Atlanta, for instance, has way more culture (rap, hip hop, country, hollywood) and diversity (of race, wealth, background, career, etc). The food scene is phenomenal - I follow people on Instagram to find out where the trendiest midnight pop-ups are. Music is everywhere. Art permeates. It's about as far from a monoculture as you can imagine.

I own a huge home in the city and pay less on my mortgage than people in SF pay for rent. It's a cool hipster place too - 1800s cotton mill with 20 foot ceilings. A couple of my coworkers have fairly large machine shops in their homes. Space is practically unlimited here.

Food is cheap, rent is cheap, but the experience and lifestyle exceeds expectation.

I work for a tech company and make the same wages y'all do.

The only thing that sucks here is transit, but I live on the Beltline and walk/bike everywhere, so it's not so much a problem for me.

I feel like tech needs an exodus from SF. A lot of the money for innovation is just being handed over to landlords.

As someone who lives just down the street from you in Grant Park... uh, please shut up. The talking point should be: the heat in Atlanta is terrible, the traffic is terrible, it's miserable here, please don't move here and make it worse.

In all seriousness though, I agree with you on all points except the weather. What I fear is that the word gets out even more than it already has and we ruin a good thing. The Beltline is a transformational project and I've been rooting for it since the beginning, but lately, with all the growth, I'm starting to get a little concerned that the infrastructure really isn't in place to handle what's coming.

Interesting, lots of people say the exact same things about Portland. I would guess every booming city is facing this dilemma.

yes, the locals just blame it on procedurally generated things which are totally hotswappable with the things people in another city blame. "I'm mad at those people with money (but would buy here at market rate if I could afford it)"

Marginally fascinating.

The irony being that if you get to travel enough to notice this, you are practically already exempt and privileged in some way.

SF is popular because the weather is incredible. The bay area has cultural diversity beyond what most cities aside from New York can offer.

If you can afford it, SF is a wonderful place but it does have problems big cities with large homeless populations have.

When you say "I work for a tech company and make same wages y'all do", I'd be interested in what that number is.

edit: To clarify on wages, I'm not trying to have a pissing contest. I'm curious what you consider wages that are same as SF. Frankly, I wouldn't stay here if I didn't make what I make but I also know you won't make the same in most tech companies. I'd leave if compensation was sub $200k.

> The bay area has cultural diversity beyond what most cities aside from New York can offer

Wat. I specifically think SF is the opposite of diversity. Far left ideology is the norm, with no room for dissent... and racially, it's just whites and asians. If that's your idea of diversity, no thank you. Places like Atlanta, Houston, and Tampa are much more diverse.

[speaks in fry register]

"You're, like, a literrrrrrallll Notzeeeee..." /s

> SF is popular because the weather is incredible.

You mean hazy and dry?

> The bay area has cultural diversity beyond what most cities aside from New York can offer.

But then...

> Frankly, I wouldn't stay here if I didn't make what I make but I also know you won't make the same in most tech companies. I'd leave if compensation was sub $200k.

How much cultural diversity is there really if daily existence is a constant struggle for anyone making less than $200k?

There isn’t. Unless he meant engineers from other countries.

> but it does have problems big cities with large homeless populations have.

NYC and Chicago do not seem to have the vast homeless issues that SF does.

The contemporary homeless problem is vast, growing and almost exclusively along the West coast where climate permits year-round outdoor living.

They also have winter and humidity. The Bay Area climate is so average it’s a perfectly place to live outside. Try sleeping on a street in December in New York or Chicago. Similarly San Diego and Seattle have homeless populations.

> SF is popular because the weather is incredible.

The weather is polarizing, to say the least. Some of us like feeling change, as in through seasons. I fucking hate feeling cold in August. There's about three good weeks of warmth in the year and the rest of the year you need layers.

I grew up in the Midwest and spent half a decade between Texas and Georgia. Some of us are also sick of the hot summer heat. And I say that as someone who lives in the Santa Ana foothills in Orange county (it's regularly flirting with 100 degrees in my backyard during the peak of summer -- at least it's dry).

> SF is popular because the weather is incredible

Well.. it's more like the weather is constant. It's always foggy, with random periods where the "marine layer" is not present.

However, drive 30 minutes and you can get away from the annoying fog.

Or walk to SoMA or the mission or potrero hill or any other neighborhood east of the fog line.

Mission bay is fog free as well.

I get the appeal of the Bay area if you don't have to drive far. And I get the appeal of San Francisco if you never have to venture out of Pacific Heights and The Presidio so to speak.

But damn, the sheer number of homeless people pooping on the streets is dystopic. And I've been all over the world. The garbage on the streets of New York City smells better. The tent cities all over the mission blow my mind. I used to really want to live there but when I go up there these days it's only because I have to be there.

> SF is popular because the weather is incredible

If you like cold summers and fog over much of the city... Otherwise you'd likely prefer the weather in the peninsula, which is sunny and warm almost every summer day. In fact Redwood City's slogan is "Climate Best by Government Test", heh. But SF gets surprisingly cold even in the middle of summer.

> If you like cold summers and fog over much of the city... Otherwise you'd likely prefer the weather in the peninsula, which is sunny and warm almost every summer day.

Why do people assume everyone wants nothing but sun sun sun? It's so boring. I like a bit of cold, fog, and rain.

Then Seattle is a much nicer city if that’s what one is after

Only half the city gets that much fog. Sunset/Richmond side of things. We've had fog maybe 5 days this year in Noe.

Many of us do!

Tech isn’t a constant pie. For Atlanta to grow, SF doesn’t need an exodus. In fact, the destruction of SF’s tech scene will be a giant blow to North America’s tech sector for a generation. The forced de-agglomeration of tech cities is not an experiment China or India are running.

If you want Atlanta to grow, pray SF (and New York, and LA and Vancouver and Toronto) fix it’s real-estate problems.

>Tech isn’t a constant pie.

Is that why it makes wierd spirals?

Several Asian people I know who moved to the Bay Area seemed to be traumatized by the racism they faced growing up in the South. Don't know if it is different now.

Parts of SF do smell but most of it and most of the Bay Area don't. Likewise, part of the Bay Area is foggy but I would say 80% of the Bay Area isn't.

There is definitely a growing monoculture here. Not sure Atlanta doesn't though. If you look deep enough most places do in at least one aspect.

Traffic is bad most places in the Bay Area though. Prices are high for many things beyond housing.

I think tech is definitely spreading itself a bit more geographically. Its overall a good thing. The concern is how many of these places have enough tech diversity to be self sustaining. The Bay Area is just much, much deeper technically than these other places.

I agree with you. Atlanta is a really interesting, underrated city. It feels both southern and urban in ways that few other cities do. My impression is also that it has not just a lot of racial diversity, but at all economic levels. I grew up in the South in cities with many black people, but Atlanta was the first place where I got a sense of what it felt like to be around a significant number of middle-class and wealthy black people.

Problems with the surrounding culture of the state are real, though. Being in a progressive city in a regressive state sucks, because those state laws still affect you.

Without trying to be inflammatory, and I truly mean that... One interpretation of what you're saying is that poor blacks are regressive. But, I assume what you really meant is that poor whites are regressive?

I've also lived in Georgia, and not in Atlanta, but in Augusta and Macon with a sprinkling of Savannah, as a relatively poor person (average white male) during their early 20s, if you want some context behind what I'm saying...

I'm from the south and interpret that comment in a very different way. Poor blacks are much more easily disenfranchised, especially in small towns. Educated people are more likely to be able to have id and get registered to vote, especially if they are a minority.

> One interpretation of what you're saying is that poor blacks are regressive.

Sure, but by that same interpretation, ice cream sales cause summer temperatures.

I think there is a correlation that politically regressive areas also feature worse poverty rates for minorities. My strong hunch is that the causation goes in the opposite direction of what you imply. Places that care less about civil rights and equality are less likely to work to address the systemic racism that leads to relatively greater poverty for blacks than whites.

You're also dealing with a hostile state government in the bible belt, and surrounded by far red areas. I'm leaving Missouri and wouldn't consider Georgia for that reason, although I have always enjoyed Atlanta.

So you can't stand to live in a place where many people don't think the way you think, yet you'd probably appreciate a more "diverse" city? You appreciate places like San Francisco because while others may look different, they think the same. That's fine, people are more comfortable around those who agree with them; but quit kidding yourself.

That's an uncharitable interpretation of the OP. It's not that people think different, it's that people are actively discriminated in Atlanta (well it's less an Atlanta problem and more a Georgia problem). For context I write this as an African American living in the Bay Area with family that's based in Atlanta.

For example as a Black person I know my vote won't count for much in Georgia, and that the state is actively working to disenfranchise it [0]. I also know that I won't have the ability to plan my family [1]. I know I might get weird looks if I'm in a non-heteronormative relationship [2].

So the problem most people have with "red" states isn't that people love God, love cops and love pickup trucks, it's that these areas actively working to restrict our "blue" freedoms.

0: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/14/stacey-abram...

1: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/us/heartbeat-bill-georgia...

2: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/20/us/tennessee-internet-min... (Note, this is about Tennessee, but similar attitudes pervade the South)

SF tore down a major black community within the city (Filmore) and its policies have resulted in an exodus of blacks except for some impoverished communities.

You think your vote counts in the bay area?

Say what you will about voter suppression in Atlanta, but a vote counted there is worth a lot more than a vote counted in California.

Flip Georgia blue, and you’re making real change.

It counts for a lot in the CA statehouse vs what it would be in GA. That said at the federal level, my vote is largely meaningless. But for the majority of my voting life I've had a bifurcated federal government that gets nothing done. So from my vantage the state is where real policy is coming from anyways.

The comment you are replying to explicitly mentioned a "hostile state government", none of the ax-grindy stuff you're bringing up.

This is a disengenuous argument. Even people who genuinely like diversity are not obligated to want to live near all possible kinds of people. I like diversity, but I don't want to live next to neo-Nazis, anti-vaxxers, serial killers, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

So you’re lumping in Republicans with “Nazi’s, anti-vaxxers and serial killers”?

No, I'm giving examples of the kinds of people one wouldn't want to live next to even if one wanted diversity.

The idea that liking diversity means liking all possible humans is flawed.

Which is exactly why liberal voters should move to Georgia. Georgia is purple, and it's close to going blue. It makes much more sense than concentrating these votes in California, which is as blue as it gets.

California votes are "useless", whereas Georgia votes "matter". (I don't mean to offend by this, but the swing states have an outsized impact.)

I voted out Karen Handel last election -- in a very close race -- which felt truly amazing.

State laws matter more for quality of life, and I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for the backward states to catch up to CA (and other progressive states).

What liberties do you enjoy that we don't? The only egregious thing I can point to in Georgia is the heartbeat abortion bill, which if you aren't paying attention is merely a ploy to get it in front of the Supreme Court so they can make it national.

We were so close to defeating Governor Kemp and making this not happen. Now it's a risk to you and the entire nation.

Assisted suicide, pro choice and pro proper sex education discussing contraceptives, sick leave, parental leave (and family leave), overtime pay (and other job benefits like being able to sit and generally pro labor, non compete ban, marijuana freedoms, stricter environmental standards etc.

It’s not all roses, there are improvements to be had, but it’s leaning in the right direction. I don’t even know why people consider states without family leave acts.

I appreciate that you are helping turn the tide though by living in a Georgia and voting to support the people that will help push the country forward, but unfortunately I can afford to live elsewhere where my daughter doesn’t have to worry about unpaid maternity leave or having to go back to work after a few weeks. I’m flummoxed as to how to fix the political system giving too much voting power per capita to conservative states without a war though.

What makes CA and NYC politics better? A place where you struggle to house and educate your family on a six figure salary seems to be sorely lacking.

To me it seems like we are doing terrible where it matters; - cost of living is terrible due to unwise regulation (housing, taxes for ineffective measures etc) - the vast amount of poor that live on our streets do not tell anything good about our safety net - peoples capability to engage with people of different opinions is dystopic, leading to social isolation - the education system has in the last 40 years gone from one of the best to one of the worst

Thanks for posting that! It reminds me that things can change for the better. I remember the way that her actions really damaged Susan G Komen for the cure charity. You make a good point about changing things. I'm on the west coast, I'm from the south. I at times am tempted to move back to the south, or one of the swing states and help move things along. It's not the best for people to segregate as we have into liberal west coast states overall, but I love living here more than my racist home town with high crime rates; I also get I'm not doing anything to help that.

I've spent my entire life in a purple island surrounded by red. It's someone else's turn.

It definitely smells bad. For me it's not at all cold: it's very consistently nearly perfect weather for me. To me, Atlanta summers are comically, miserably hot.

My favorite thing about SF is that it is rarely hot and it's relatively close to incredible mountains. I'm certainly not here for the nightlife, food scene, or art/creative scene, but more power to those who are.

> make the same wages y'all do

As SF? Are you making, say, over $400K in Atlanta?

SF is popular because it's the only place near a huge number of jobs on the peninsula that's not a generic bedroom community. If someone dropped you on El Camino Real anywhere between San Jose and San Francisco, you would have a very hard time telling which city you're in. They're all basically the same. (For those who don't know, El Camino is a major street which passes through most city downtown areas, and goes up and down the peninsula).

The bay area cities tried to maintain their "suburban" image, and ended up all being the same.

> always cold.

I realize this is subjective, but... What? I don't think I've ever been there when the high temperature was under 55.

And it's often not over 60! That feels good in the winter to someone acclimated to wider temperature swings... but pretty cold in the summer.

Maybe it's just the fact that I live in Syracuse, NY, but I always look forward to SF weather (no matter the time of year).

There is an art culture in the Bay Area and not everyone likes hip hop or country culture either.

Humidity makes life way more miserable than temperature.

I escaped the south 16 years ago and I never want to fucking go back.

Further the bay area is home to many unique cultures that are sadly seriously distressed thanks to the housing situation, yet tenaciously persist as best they can.

If you check out a lot of neighborhoods in SF you can really see this. The more middle class neighborhoods have lots of small businesses that you'd use - mechanics, bakeries, restaurants, coffee shops, etc.

Take a walk through an upper class neighborhood (Noe Valley is a good example) and it's either really expensive versions of the same ($7 for a cupcake? sure!) or weird niche stores that only the wealthy can afford (skin care clinics, high-end clothing, etc).

I lived in Noe Valley for 14 years in a rent controlled apartment that quadrupled in value during that time. I was eventually evicted with an owner move-in but during that period I saw all of the useful local businesses close and be replaced with ... 1. Doctor/Dentist offices 2. Real-estate agencies 3. Banking and financial institutions 3. Doomed boutiques riding off the areas old reputation - these always closed within 6 months. 4. Expensive date restaurants or bars serving just enough food to count as a restaurant.

Off the top of my head, we lost the newspaper/magazine shop, hardware store, a few cheap restaurants, the glass blowing shop, the running store, a bunch of nice boutiques, the local butcher and most (but not all) of the businesses that made someone want to live in Noe in the first place. We gained a ton of financial and real-estate frontage (useless for day-to-day life) a couple of nice but expensive upgrades like a Whole Foods. All this money and no-one seems to actually spend it on local business, so nothing stays open for long.

I used to live right by 24th street right before the whole foods moved in, and I can visualize all of those shops as I walked down the street to Holey Bagel (still going strong!). The little weird boutiques! The running store! But even then I would never go into any of those places. I am fully on board lamenting the fact that numerous one-of-a-kind stores no longer exist in SF because it is not economical for them to do so (RIP Macbeath hardwood), but a lot of those little shops on 24th street were put out of business by Amazon and the internet, not by SF.

This is quite possibly just a manifestation of a national trend by landlords (all ten of them) to raise rent so high that sure things like 7/11 or KFC quit. The only tenants that seem to be able to afford the rent are $COFFEE and The Habit. I've seen this in my home town (San Diego), Spokane, and Manhattan. I've probably seen it in other towns but it stops being noticeable.

A friend moved to Noe Valley about 15 years ago. Said it was working class at the time (still well off by SF standards).

Now it’s like a playground for the rich with a standard 1,500 sq ft home nearing $2.5M.

You're basically left with hipster restaurants and coffee shops that'll charge 10$ a coffee and 20$ a meal.

The effect of SF’s nativism was to differentially push out all but the nouveau riche — ironic but inevitable because there is no restriction on internal migration in the United States.

I can’t wait for the Amazon Prime Steakhouse.

I was so disheartened to experience this when I visited last fall. I immediately ruled the area out for my move in a couple months.

Service people? Seriously, people who make $100,000 a year will have a lot of trouble living in a nice place and still be able to save for retirement. I don't know how many people in the Bay Area make $100k or less, but I would guess many millions.

It's true, but prices declining is a positive thing, and I'll take what I can get. (I say that as a Bay Area homeowner—contrary to my financial interests, I would rather see relief for lower-income renters than more equity for tech workers like me!)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com