Just about any other aircraft in its class will be just as good or better but cost substantially less.
I should also add, the 172 is terrible for just about every mission set outside of training. They can barely only carry 3 people safely (2 with bags) but are very slow, heavy, and expensive to operate compared to a dedicated 2 seater. If you want 3+ seating and bags go buy a 182 or something :)
I have a '78 172 w/ 180HP STC, and I think it's a pretty good sweet spot. You can take a friend, a ton of bags, full fuel on long range tanks, and still climb easy on a humid day. You can also travel light, dial back the throttle and cruise around at 5.5GPH, making it similar in cost to operate to a 152 (still a 2000 vs 2400 TBO though).
Your main point is well-taken: you definitely pay a performance-per-dollar premium for using the world's most popular training platform. But you also get some benefits: the most familiar and one of the most forgiving airframes ever made; a platform that every A&P knows inside and out and every supplier stocks parts for; and a plane that can very easily get in and out of any strip you can spot.
Maybe 20 years ago.
A new one is $300k now, and pretty good used ones with steam gauges are $60k. A 2000-hour engine overhaul is $20k to $25k and outside tie-downs in the Bay Area are $500+/month.
San Jose Reid-Hillview is being closed, so keep that in mind.
San Jose Reid-Hillview is being closed,
The only way the closure will be stopped is if the State says it's needed for San Jose-area earthquake relief, which it is, and a politician realizes another one cannot be built later in a dense urban area.
(SFO, SJC and OAK operate as one airspace in the Bay Area.
SFO has limited capacity during fog because the runways were built too close together for simultaneous IFR operations. So RHV is pretty handy to keep in operation, unless, of course, you want to develop a new subdivision in the Evergreen area of San Jose.)