Comment by davidw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by davidw | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That really rings true for me.

I enjoyed my time in San Francisco, but really got a sense that it was not a place in "equilibrium", so to speak. Families can't really live there unless there's a million dollars for a house somewhere, which means that you have to be pretty wealthy, or you're headed out to some other city in the bay area. SF was great for being single, but it just struck me as being a bit artificial. Here in Padova, there are wealthy people, poor people, young people, families, elderly people - a nice mix, in other words. Same with Portland.

Also, he's right about so many people being in tech. Here in Padova, I have more friends who aren't in tech, and that makes me happy - I love to hang out with my tech friends too, and talk about this or that, but sometimes it's nice to get away from that, and in SF I never felt I could, despite trying.

That said, as someone born and raised in Oregon, I just don't think I could deal with moving back to the rainy part of the state. Endless drizzly gray days get pretty depressing. They don't even feel very 'cozy'; winter in Innsbruck was way better; watching the snow fall or waking up to a brilliant blue day with snow covered mountains was much better than sloshing around in the dismal gray day after day.

I'm actually not sure where I'd go if I went back to the US. Southern Oregon is nice in some ways, but not much going on at all in tech. Boulder looks appealing in several ways, but I've never been there, and it looks like they have a strong sense of 'smug' of their own, something I'm not a big fan of.

Edit Let's see... other random notes

* Portland, for me, had better food than SF. This was because I worked downtown in Portland and had a nice variety of affordable and diverse lunch options. Where I worked in SF didn't have nearly as good a selection.

* Portland has Powells. Powells is awesome.

* Portland is closer to more outdoor stuff, although I always got depressed in summer because of the thought of my precious few sunny days slipping by sitting in an office. Even with good technical gear, it's hard to stay warm in 5C and steady rain on a bike.

At one point I stayed a couple months with some friends in San Francisco and I utterly hated it. When discussing it with my friends, who love it there, they gave me some very valuable insight.

They basically said they believe most people would hate it in San Francisco but that's the whole point. Because the people who love it there don't really fit in many other places. It's a sanctuary for a certain type of culture and that's where its value is.

Everyone deserves a place where they can fit in and for the young idealist, the aging hippie, and all the other odd balls that call that place home that's where they belong. But yes, as a consequence that means that a lot of other groups (most families for instance) don't belong. Not every environment has to be all inclusive.

I'm socially fairly "progressive", but "no families" just seems kind of wrong to me. I don't care if you're gay or straight or whatever, but families are part and parcel of being human. Just to be clear: I don't think everyone needs to have a family or anything like that, but a lot of people choose to, and a place without them seemed weird to me even well before I had one myself.

There are tons of families in SF, except most of them are Chinese or Mexican. The original article, and most of the comments here (including mine) read like a "Things White People Like" critique of SF, including the punch line: moving to Portland...

Let's take the Mexicans as an example, as I think the Chinese situation is a bit more complex.

There are a couple of possibilities:

* There is a supply of decent middle-income housing inhabited largely by Mexicans and less so by other groups.

* Those people have money and are living in expensive San Francisco houses that have a decent amount of space for a family.

* They don't have much money, and are crammed into small houses or are living in bad neighborhoods (as defined by high crime or other objective measurements).

* Your numbers are off and there aren't 'tons of families' from that group.

Which is it?

What do you think the answer to that question is? Your larger point is correct, it is too expensive for most white people to have 2.2 kids and a Volvo in SF. It's also lacking for restaurants, sucks for outdoor activities, and has poor public transit. Best to move to Oregon, Canada, or Europe rather than suffer the indignity of life in San Francisco.

I have no idea what the answer is, but I'm betting it's not the first two. I have no idea why nice housing means "white people" though. My guess is that pretty much anyone would prefer nice housing to crappy housing, wherever they're from.

I have no idea what the answer is

I thought you said you had lived in SF?

I did, for a year and a half, but wasn't privy to the goings on in many people's homes, so I don't have any first hand evidence one way or the other. And I don't have access to actual numbers about people per household, income levels and so on, so I honestly can't say whether you're simply factually wrong or if there are a lot of people crammed into houses.

You lived in SF for a year and a half and you didn't notice where Mexican people live?

Other than the Mission being the 'traditionally' Mexican area, it's not something I paid a lot of attention to.

Pay more attention next time, then you won't have to ask stupid questions on the internet.

I wrote less clearly elsewhere in the thread that you can be in the middle of a very diverse place, but your own life can be driven by a monoculture. This also explains the Portland paradox... statistically less diverse, though for members of a specific subculture, perhaps more likely to provide exposure to different things.

San Francisco is a terrible place to have children unless you're either (a) very rich or (b) very poor.

Very trenchant. Not sure why you got downvoted.

We have a special neighborhood just for families. It's called Noe Valley.

Interesting fact: the special neighborhood San Francisco has for families is 85.8% occupied by homes without kids.

... families with a million dollars to drop on a house ...

http://www.trulia.com/CA/San_Francisco,1443,Noe_Valley/

Only one million? Cheaper than I thought!

Actually I do see a few houses in the $1 million range on that page, but none of them seem to have yards. With no backyard and no reasonable parks in the neighbourhood, where would your children play?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com