If you take what a typical couple pays for SF rent you can buy two houses in most of the US. So... if you're going to be spending a lot of time at home, for many people it makes sense to move out to a cheaper and more spacious locale, at least for now.
Though SF is no New York, it is notably more urban than Portland. San Francisco is physically more strikingly beautiful than Portland, with magnificent views of the bay and ocean from the hills. Portland is surrounded by beautiful forests and parks, but so is SF - you can get from downtown SF into the middle of a quiet redwood forest in about 25 minutes, and the coast, north and south, is far more accessible than it is in Portland[1]. While SF has a severe problem with street addiction and mental illness, so does Portland, and SF does still have extensive walkable urban and semi-urban neighborhoods. Golden Gate Park, the Presidio, and Crissy field are just a few of the outdoor options within the city. There are also plenty of options to live in lower density, SFH neighborhoods with small backyards. Culturally, San Francisco is much more diverse than Portland - SF actually ranks first among US cities in the number of languages spoken by 1000+ households. Portland is overwhelmingly white and has a historical hostility toward ethnics and immigrants (some believe that the anti-Californian sentiment has roots in hostility toward Catholic and darker skinned immigrants) - and, ironically on the other side of the political spectrum, a lot of immigrant or first generation communities are actually uncomfortable with predominantly white, left wing progressive politics. Immigrants may be more likely to find a community in SF than Portland.
[1] I surf, which makes Portland a hard pass for me, though that's a bit too niche for a general comparison.
I think the only things you omitted are the differences in weather and the size of the cities.
- Portland is a fairly small city (especially inner portland) with a long history of anti-growth sentiment. The result is very rural agricultural areas _just_ outside of Portland.
- The weather patterns bring different wildlife and kinds of beauty. While the forests outside SF are quite pretty, they are also very different than the wet douglas fir forests up north. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder -- Portland also extends into the hills and provides famous views of Mt. Hood from the SW hills. The portland zoo for instance, is like going from a city into a rain forest.
The oregon coast is cold and rainy 95% of the year, not the most fun place to visit.
Crime and homelessness, while problems, aren't major factors for people in my experience. After all, those two things haven't really changed.
https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/5380756_sanfrancisco2019....
I disagree. Its consistently brought up, along with high rent, as one of the worst parts of living in the area. In my experience, the people who stay in SF are willing tolerate it for access to all the amenities there. When the pandemic makes it difficult to enjoy those amenities, it will drive people away.
[1]: https://abc7news.com/renaming-sf-public-schools-school-name-...
I'll add, the fact there are people who downvote information is quite possibly another strike against SF.
My personal opinion is that some of the renaming is a bit over the top, but I'm glad we're re-examining our historical "heroes"; most of what kids read in their US history classes paints an idealized, unrealistic picture of these figures, and ignores real harm they caused, both by their actions and attitudes. Regardless, I just frankly do not care whether a building is named Lincoln High School or John Doe High School. If ditching Lincoln's name makes a bunch of people feel more comfortable, it's no skin off my back.
What's actually important is that we teach the truth, and all of it. When we teach kids about Thomas Jefferson, we should certainly give him credit for the statesman he was, and for what he did to free the US from England. But we should also teach how he owned slaves throughout his entire life and saw no problem with that, and how he was a rich, elite landowner who believed that only a very small, single-digit percent of the population should be allowed to vote. Even Washington, who seemed not entirely comfortable with slavery, owned a slave that was only set free upon Washington's death. And Lincoln... well, his main concern was keeping the Union together. If that ultimately meant allowing the South to keep slavery intact, he was fine with that.
I don't bring all that up to say that they were awful, irredeemable people with no positive qualities. Some of them, if born today, might grow up with very different attitudes. But I think it's reasonable to suggest that quite a few people, especially non-white people, might not be particularly comfortable sending their kids to schools named after these people. And it's perfectly ok that they feel that way.
https://www.city-journal.org/california-race-coding-criteria...
End of lockdowns in CA are being tied to vague "racial justice" goals. These things are all connected. Renaming a high school says "we consider this the most important thing we could be working on right now" which is clearly absurd when you consider the real problems CA has.
But despite being a lifelong Democrat there is a certain level of concern over purity that makes me uneasy. All my Jewish cousins who were in Europe mysteriously disappeared during WWII. Yet, I own and enjoy a German car whose corporate origins are very intertwined with the history of that period of time. I think the Apollo program was pretty cool, and that was fundamentally rooted in the exploitation of German expertise from rocket research involving Nazi slave labor during the war.
So, if someone is disgusted with these things and personally avoids them, that's cool. But if they are on a crusade to purify society from them, I probably don't want to be neighbors.
What did Diane Feinstein do? :)
I think they're leaving for places where lower land prices mean homes with more space - which could mean the suburbs, smaller towns, or could even mean moving back in with their parents.
I know people, in London, where three 20-something couples were renting a three-bedroom house, living 2 people to a room. They barely had room to set up comfortable desks and chairs for everyone, let alone things like exercise equipment. Some of them decided temporarily moving back in with their parents wasn't such a bad idea after all...
The hard bit is the live+work space. I was incredibly lucky that I moved to a larger place right before the shelter-in-place order hit (from a loft to a condo with walls and doors!), but I know a lot of people who have been working on dining tables and sub-optimal improvised desks for the past seven months. If you live in a loft-style place with another person, the lack of personal space can really get to you.
Austin is nice, but comes no where close to the natural beauty of Colorado. I'd put it 2nd the West Coast.
Texas is just flatness and trees. The rivers are nice though.
SMATTERING OF QUOTES FROM THE ULTIMA VII TEAM
"Looks like shit... could be west Texas."
- PHILIP
My favorite restaurants are all closed and you have police state ensuring you don't use public facilities. Why would I pay $4000 a month for housing with none of the benefits?
And you're discounting the fact that they will still be living in a tiny apartment compared to other areas with much lower housing prices.
Especially as Arizona has become more and more liberal/left leaning, you got less folks viewing it as hostile & enjoying the fact you have a lot of hiking/outdoor activities, rivers, lakes and camping all within a short driving distance.
I think the weirdest and most noticeable thing is people riding motorcycles without helmets.
That said; yeah, the heat is not really that bad (it took me about 2 years to acclimate), and there are options for relief. Surprisingly, I think we get more rain in Arizona than in California (not this summer though), and winters are definitely much colder in Arizona than they are in California.