Hacker News Reader

Comment by midislack | Hacker News Reader

We could also just not live in San Francisco. That's a better option for many.

And yet people love it and want to call it home, and are willing to make sacrifices to do so. I know I have here in the Seattle area. Mind ya own business!

I think what they’re really saying is that maybe not every person who wants to live in SF, for example, can. There’s some upper limit on how many people can live there and if more people want to live there than can prices will go up.

So maybe not everyone who wants to live there gets to.

In the past this would cause other places to become “more San Francisco-like” (arguably Seattle itself has changed since the 80s and perhaps in this direction). Why that doesn’t occur could be interesting for discussion.

I’m not very familiar with SF and the Bay Area, but from what I have read about it my impression is that real estate in communities surrounding San Francisco and the Bay Area in general have absolutely been affected by the real estate situation in SF and become more San Francisco-like in terms of housing prices.

Again, not from out that familiar with the area so maybe I’m off the mark here.

They have - what I'm referring to is the older "city migrations" where if Chicago was "too big/expensive" then Detroit would come into its own.

So instead of SF continuing to expand to engulf all of California, other cities in other areas would begin to grow. Somewhat this has happened - Redmond near Seattle, etc, but we haven't really had any "ground up" new cities that I can recall, they're all offshoots/suburbs of existing ones.

Then I guess they’ll pay that privilege then?

Enjoy but don't pretend YOUR social problems are MINE. You chose to take them on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com