San Francisco Poaching Tech Talent From Silicon Valley

jfruh writes "Silicon Valley, including San Jose and the chain of suburbs running north from it along the San Francisco Peninsula, has long been the epicenter of the tech business and startup scene. San Francisco itself, just a few miles to the north, has always been in the Valley's orbit — but now, more and more, the center of gravity is shifting to San Francisco, and the move seems to be hitting a tipping point. The reason: the young talent companies want to attract would rather live in a hip city than in suburban sprawl, and don't want to commute 45 minutes to work."

Comments

won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Trepidity]

It takes about 45 minutes to commute between places actually in San Francisco, if you don't pick the right ones, thanks to SF Muni having barely had any improvement since the Market Street Subway was built in 1980. Could easily spend 45 minutes on the N-Judah...

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats what you get when you designing your city around pedestrian activity. Very green and very convenient for those near existing transportation hubs, but a pain in the ass for everyone else. New York City is the same way. Downtown Manhattan isn't too bad, but in Queens you either get a car and deal with parking or ride the bus and spend the time waiting for and packed inside overcapacity buses.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[andymadigan]

At least you're not driving, on public transit you get to read while someone else does the driving. I moved to San Jose six months ago and I explicitly picked a location where I could take the Light Rail to work, most of my coworkers drive and live nowhere near transit along the peninsula. I plan to move to SF (along with all the other "young talent") where it might take a bit longer to get to work, but you can go around the whole city without a car, instead of just certain areas. (I do have a car, I just hate driving).

Of course, the real reason to move is that even San Jose, with a larger population than S.F., feels like a suburb compared to City.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Trepidity]

I don't think SF is even really designed around pedestrian activity. If it were, it might have good transit! It's been sort of non-designed, really, with quite a bit of de-facto design for cars, despite their green image opposing them in theory.

It was a medium-sized city with an extensive streetcar network, and that worked ok. But then the population increased, the number of cars greatly increased (which also slowed down the streetcars), and nothing much was done to fix it. The only two real improvements were around 1980: BART made it so that you could get between the Mission and financial district easily, and the Market Street Subway cleared out a little street-level congestion in the worst area.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[phantomfive]

That's why all the people are moving to South of Market, right next to the companies.

Also, I'm not sure San Francisco is really a distinct region from Silicon Valley, at least when talking about tech.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[fiannaFailMan]

It takes about 45 minutes to commute between places actually in San Francisco, if you don't pick the right ones, thanks to SF Muni having barely had any improvement since the Market Street Subway was built in 1980. Could easily spend 45 minutes on the N-Judah...

That would imply that you live away out in the fog in the Sunset. Why would anyone without kids want to live out there?

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[fiannaFailMan]

I don't think SF is even really designed around pedestrian activity. If it were, it might have good transit! It's been sort of non-designed, really, with quite a bit of de-facto design for cars, despite their green image opposing them in theory.

It was a medium-sized city with an extensive streetcar network, and that worked ok. But then the population increased, the number of cars greatly increased (which also slowed down the streetcars), and nothing much was done to fix it. The only two real improvements were around 1980: BART made it so that you could get between the Mission and financial district easily, and the Market Street Subway cleared out a little street-level congestion in the worst area.

I disagree. The Sunset and Richmond are kinda suburban all right, but the rest of the city is quite compact and the bus service is pretty comprehensive. Shame about the surly drivers though. Something needs to be done about them.

I used to live in Nob Hill and I was able to walk downtown, to North Beach, to Pacific Heights, and to the great little strip of bars and eating houses along Polk. I never used my car all weekend. It was my commute to the valley that forced me to move back down here.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[fredrated]

Please post your evidence that modern San Francisco, designed mostly after the 1906 earthquake, was build around pedestrian convenience.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[fiannaFailMan]

because (a) the rents are lower, (b) street parking is almost a viable option, and (c) the 5 and 38 buses run all night

Might as well live in Oakland then.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Anonymous Coward]

Nail head, hit. I'd rather have a 45 minute commute where I can sit (or even stand) on a decent [1] rail or bus and do some reading than a 30 minute commute where I have to pay attention to what is on the road and watch out for the drunks.

[1]: Decent as in the rear of the bus has not been turned into a transient bedroom and bathroom which it is like here in Austin for most routes.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[mlts]

Trick to that is to have a flip-flop hub. Single speed for the hills, fixie for the flats.

Fixies have one nice thing going for them -- most bike thieves assume there will be a ratchet and pawl system... and when there isn't, they tend not to go far, especially if the bike is sans brakes (which is unsafe, but fairly common.)

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[djl4570]

Time squandered waiting for and riding SF Muni was my first thought. My personal observation from the mid eighties when I lived in the city was most trip across town that required Muni ride meant adding at least thirty minutes to your schedule each way.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Darinbob]

SF is dirty and grimy too. Why anyone outside that city would want to voluntarily move there is confusing. Probably kids who are disappointed that there aren't enough all night dance clubs outside the city. SF really is not a high tech center, unless for some strange reason you consider doing HTML or social apps to be "high tech".

Forget about driving, there are miltiant cyclists who will bang on your car. And the entirety of the city contains only 12 parking spaces so good luck finding on.

The cool/hip areas are a very small area and so are highly congested and over crowded, most of the city is really lower income areas. If you really do want to live the cool/hip lifestyle or are a foodie, then live outside the city and go visit on weekends. The amount of money you save by not living there will let you go to better restaurants.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Darinbob]

What the hell is wrong with feeling like a suburb? Having grown up in a small rural town I'm baffled by the arrogance and snobbery of city dwellers who'd prefer having homeless people sleeping in their doorway than to go somewhere else. Why is suburb a dirty word? What is in SF that anyone would want to live there and put up with all its problems?

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[TallDarkMan]

The basic answer is culture...be that arts, entertainment, or what-have-you...which the suburbs are more limited in. If you're lucky, there's some stuff to do in your (suburbia) town (Marin to the north is very artsy-fartsy, and Berkeley has a lot being a college town), but others (Hayward in the East Bay, or San Bruno on the Penninsula south of S.F.) don't have much more than the traditional malls. So "going out for a night on the town" usually means hopping in your car (or if it's convenient, hopping on BART) and heading to The City.

The suburbs aren't "bad"....just less stuff to do there versus the city....and I think that's true for a lot of cities.

Heck, I know of some people who lived out in the Central Valley (to the east of the Bay Area and it's suburbs) but moved to the Bay Area, even though it's WAY more expensive, simply because "there's more there"...

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[TallDarkMan]

Oh, and as a sidebar.... I was born here in the Bay Area (specifically San Francisco) and in my opinion, San Jose/"Silicon Valley" is so much like Los Angeles in it's "feel" that you couldn't pay me to live there! ...even with a 6-figure salary job! (yuck!)

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[tlhIngan]

What the hell is wrong with feeling like a suburb? Having grown up in a small rural town I'm baffled by the arrogance and snobbery of city dwellers who'd prefer having homeless people sleeping in their doorway than to go somewhere else. Why is suburb a dirty word? What is in SF that anyone would want to live there and put up with all its problems?

Depends. I live in the suburbs, but I work downtown. During lunchtime, I go out for walks and see/do stuff.

I had to work a better part of a year at a business park in a suburb, and it was awful - during lunch, you could walk and see... sidewalks, trees, the highway, that's it. Taking a walk during lunch (which is good for your health, especially if all you do is sit at your desk) became rather monotonous - there wasn't any energy to it.

I suppose I could see why people become sedentiary - in a business park, there's nothing to do, so most people just spend lunch at their desk goofing off and not getting some fresh air or exercise (however little).

Plus nothing special to eat - either make it yourself day after day, or eat from the one restaurant within walking distance. If you want anymore variety, you hvae to drive there. So getting errands done during lunch was practically impossible (downtown, I just walk to where I need to go - no car required).

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[andymadigan]

I grew up in a suburb and live in one for 5 years of my working life, and as others have said, it means driving anywhere you want to go, and you still miss out on a lot of night life and culture. Sure, S.F. has homeless (so does San Jose for that matter) but I've never really felt unsafe in SF. San Francisco has a feeling of life to it, start walking around a suburb and people will look at you like you're nuts. Many don't even have sidewalks, it feels far more like you're expected to stay in your box. Much more closed off from humanity.

Now sure, if you live in a suburb and you have friends there it may be less obvious and there are those who would rather have more control over who they interact with. I'm a geek and I get that, but I prefer the city. Downtown San Jose is at least a bit more citylike. There are people around, and you can find little shops and restaurants (higher population density and people who would prefer to walk to a nearby store rather than drive to a big box store helps), but SF is a real city, there are relatively few in the U.S.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah...the other answer is bars.

Driving to bars sucks...you have to stay sober enough to get home. So there's fewer bars in the suburbs and less bar culture. Bars are important because it's where single people in the city go to get laid. People like getting laid. And they like going to bars where there are new people they haven't met before for that purpose.

Hence the reason many people want to live in the city. More inebriated potential sexual partners.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[LMariachi]

A million times this. Don't move to San Francisco.

our rents are high enough as it is

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[fiannaFailMan]

Please post your evidence that modern San Francisco, designed mostly after the 1906 earthquake, was build around pedestrian convenience.

Small blocks. Sidewalks. Businesses and store fronts that come right up to the sidewalk instead of hiding behind acres of tree-lined parking lagoons, grassy knolls, plastic roadside signs and six lane monstrosities. Compact neighbourhoods that are walkable and accessible from each other without driving. Mixed-use development rather than single-use zoning. Corner stores. Cafes. Small parks and public spaces here and there. A lack of parking spaces, those that do exist are empty for an average of 28 seconds at a time. Also the fact that the auto-centric city came about in the 1960s, not the 1910s. Maybe you're getting your decades mixed up.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[cshay]

I've lived in SF since 1994 and I can say beyond doubt that Muni is far far better back then. Heck, just the GPS use combined with smartphones allows me to leave my apartment 3 minutes before the bus arrives! But also, in the old days, without GPS, the drivers would stack up with 3 bus turning up at once and then none again for an hour. Now there is much more accountability of the whereabouts of buses and they are for the most part on time.

I find that people who complain about Muni are just those kind of people who insist on using a car no matter what, looking for any excuse to denigrate public transit. Sad for them that SF is a transit first city and cars are slowly being phased out. The young people moving to SF seem to like this fact.. I have met many who do not own a car.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Ryanrule]

Living is suburb is like driving a minivan. Clearly you have just given up.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[TheRaven64]

There's one bus that takes me within ten blocks of work and if I miss it in the morning, it ends up being faster to walk the ~1.5 miles to work.

Seriously? With a commute that short, why would you bother with a bus or a car? It's a perfect distance for walking or cycling.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Darinbob]

But why live in SF for that? Do people go to the museums on Tuesday night? I suspect most SF residents are the same as San Jose residents, they'll do the cultural stuff on the weekends. I don't recall any signs on the de Young museum saying "you must be a resident to visit". So just drive up on the weekend. (similarly I know SF residents who drive down to San Jose to see stuff there, sporting events, tech museum, concerts) You could even live in Fremont and walk to BART and then walk from BART to the museums.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[cshay]

The Sunset and the Outer richmond (and all the hoods down past Bernal) feel a lot like the burbs and not suprisingly it takes as long to get downtown as the burbs do. I don't think the 20 somethings moving to the city think of the Sunset as a viable option.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Just Some Guy]

What the hell is wrong with feeling like a suburb?

I live in Alameda, across the bay from San Francisco. It's a wonderfully quiet little place with low crime and great schools. I loving living there, walking to the library, driving five minutes to a beach, etc. It's not like the stereotypical suburban wasteland of soulless strip mall after strip mall and the quality of life is wonderful.

That said, I think I'd go insane if I didn't work in the city. There's so much more energy here, and a million things to do, see, and look at every day. It's a little noisier and more crowded than I'd want in a house setting, but I love working here.

Oh, my daily commute involves walking a block to the transbay bus, reading a book for half an hour, then walking a block from the bus terminal to my office. For a couple of bucks more and a longer walk, I can also ride the ferry in much less time (to the point that I'd have a hard time finishing a drink you can buy at the onboard bar).

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Stiletto]

But who can afford to live in the Oakland hills? Certainly not "tech talent" which is what TFA is about. You're talking about $1M+ houses.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[MisterSquid]

One of the main reasons "suburbs" is such a dirty word is that suburban living is considered unsustainable for large populations and that suburban denizens consume a disproportionate amount of resources (energy, land, and water) per capita than city dwellers.

Another reason suburban dwelling is considered environmentally undesirable is sprawl. Cul-de-sac development, automotive thouroughfares, and pedestrian unfriendliness are major features of suburban development and all inhibit the higher social densities that characterize a more environmentally sustainable urban lifestyle.

A great place to start when trying to understand contemporary models of urban planning (which includes suburban planning) is Jane Jacobs' The Death and Life of Great American Cities.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Nurgled]

The last part of your comment gets to the part that amuses me most about the tech scene dynamic in San Francisco: most of the startups and other tech companies (including mine) are in SoMa, but the people who work there almost all live somewhere else. Meanwhile, the houses in SoMa are occupied largely by people who use Caltrain to get to the peninsula to work. I ilve in (or at least near) Cole Valley and commute to SoMa on a bike every day. 20-30min each way. However, I used to take the bus (6 or N) and I can confirm that it's far from being entirely poor people: the neighborhoods along these routes are very popular with professionals of all kinds and they fill up all of the available buses from 8:00 til 9:00 every day. (It does indeed take about 45 minutes to commute by bus from here, but as others have said it's nice to read a book on the way to work rather than having to drive... that's the one thing I miss now that I ride a bike every day.)

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[nanoflower]

I agree that does seem like the perfect distance to walk or cycle (if it's safe.) Especially since San Francisco seems to have great weather for walking. Unlike much of the rest of the country which can be too hot in the summer (for walking to work) or too cold in the winter.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[kenorland]

These days, you can get all the culture you want directly in your home, in glorious HD quality and 3D if you like. And usually, it's about as fast to get from the peninsula to entertainment in SF than it is to get from the more residential areas of SF.

And the cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention younger people are less likely to stop and think of the financial ramifications of living in the city. Who needs money when you can just walk to work?

Re:And the cost

[spazdor]

WTF are you talking about, exactly? Cars are a pretty immense financial outlay.

Re:And the cost

[stevew]

I'm calling BS to this whole line of discussion. Example - the biggest thing to hit the valley recently is Facebook, and it isn't in SF. The entire Start-up infrastructure is still located where it always has been - Palo Alto near Standford. The startups typically go where the money is, and where Square footage is cheaper. That ISN'T SF!

Re:And the cost

[Kenja]

Only crazy people own cars in San Francisco.

Re:And the cost

[cpu6502]

>>>Cars are a pretty immense financial outlay.

Yes they are but still cheaper than having to pay two bus or train tickets everyday. Over the longterm the car is less expensive, especially if you keep it over its full 300,000 mile lifespan (400,000 for diesels).

Re:And the cost

[magarity]

It's not the cost of a car, it's the cost of living in that city. Housing (renting or owning) is more, sales/income/property taxes are at higher rates, etc. etc. Thus the comment that if all your money is spent on city expenses, the benefit is getting to walk to work.

Re:And the cost

[biometrizilla]

There are also non-financial ramifications, such as having to deal with the incessant pan-handling that confronts you on just about every major intersection in SF.

Re:And the cost

[0123456]

WTF are you talking about, exactly? Cars are a pretty immense financial outlay.

Not compared to buying a house in San Francisco (according to a quick Google search, a median price of $710,000 for April to June 2012).

I've only ever bought one car that cost more than $7,000, so I could buy a heck of a lot of them for the amount I'd save living somewhere cheaper and driving.

Re:And the cost

[Fwipp]

SF bus tickets are, IIRC, $2 each. $4 a day for roughly 200 days a year ~= $800 a year. Even if you keep an $8000 used car for 10 years, you've still got to pay for gas, insurance, and repairs.

Unlimited passes for a month in SF are about $75, or $900 yearly.

Re:And the cost

[SuperKendall]

Even if you keep an $8000 used car for 10 years, you've still got to pay for gas, insurance, and repairs.

You also get to go anywhere you like, at any time. Is that worth nothing?

Not having a car is fine if you plan to never do any significant travel. But the rest of the country is worth seeing.

Re:And the cost

[cpu6502]

$900 times 30 years (how long my first car lasted) == $27,000. So yeah I guess the bus ticket would be cheaper overall.

Re:And the cost

[phantomfive]

You can rent when you go on a long trip. That's what I do.

Re:And the cost

[fiannaFailMan]

Only fucked up and crazy people live San Francisco, If I were a start up and the only thing I needed was an internet connection, I would setup in Riverside --- Palm Springs or any where in the Coachella Valley--- where office space and housing is dirt cheap. Fuck paying to live in a "hip" city, it not hip is is just disgusting and expensive.

If you want to employ gun-toting rednecks then by all means set up in Hicksville. If you want the brightest and the best then you have to go where they want to live whether you like it or not.

Re:And the cost

[fiannaFailMan]

Even if you keep an $8000 used car for 10 years, you've still got to pay for gas, insurance, and repairs.

You also get to go anywhere you like, at any time. Is that worth nothing?

Not having a car is fine if you plan to never do any significant travel. But the rest of the country is worth seeing.

Zipcar.

Re:And the cost

[fiannaFailMan]

WTF are you talking about, exactly? Cars are a pretty immense financial outlay.

Not compared to buying a house in San Francisco (according to a quick Google search, a median price of $710,000 for April to June 2012).

I've only ever bought one car that cost more than $7,000, so I could buy a heck of a lot of them for the amount I'd save living somewhere cheaper and driving.

I know people that just buy condos in San Jose, get renters in, and then live in a rented apartment in the city. You can get some good deals because of the rent control.

Re:And the cost

[fiannaFailMan]

I'm calling BS to this whole line of discussion. Example - the biggest thing to hit the valley recently is Facebook, and it isn't in SF. The entire Start-up infrastructure is still located where it always has been - Palo Alto near Standford. The startups typically go where the money is, and where Square footage is cheaper. That ISN'T SF!

Thank you, we're aware that Palo Alto isn't SF. But it is one of the few places along the peninsula where you have something resembling a city street with cafes and bars and things to do and stuff.

FB isn't Silicon Valley. FB is one company. If you want to "call BS" then please cite your sources. A single company does not the valley make.

Re:And the cost

[CFTM]

I live in the East Bay. I take BART to work everyday. From my stop in the East Bay to my stop in SF, it costs $4.15. Parking at the BART station costs $1. I live 2.4 miles from the BART station. Round trip, it costs me $9.30 to go to and from work.

Were I to be driving, my commute would be nearly 30 miles. I'd be driving across the Bay Bridge ($5 a day) and then parking in San Francisco would cost me a MINIMUM of $10 a day. This isn't even taking into account opportunity cost of time, wear and tear on the car or fuel.

The car is not cheaper in San Francisco. Ever.

Re:And the cost

[spazdor]

Since I don't know a damn thing about San Francisco public transit I won't argue any of that stuff, but I will point out that that's all irrelevant because the GP comment specifically said:

walk to work

Re:And the cost

[spazdor]

I'm not sure people who are in the market for homeownership really need to worry about commute costs in the first place.

Re:And the cost

[dgatwood]

Even an hour away, the median home price is $650,000. You pretty much have to go two hours away or live in the worst parts of the Bay Area to get median housing prices down in the $200-300k range. If you're living two hours away, you'll probably want to find work somewhere closer than San Francisco, and if you're living in a bad neighborhood... well, you're braver than I am.

The choice of San Francisco versus other parts of the Bay Area basically boil down to whether you want a standalone house with a lawn or a glorified apartment. If you pick the lower-density area, you'll have to drive. If you pick the higher-density area, you might be able to walk to some form of public transit, but you pretty much won't be able to drive (usefully) because driving in San Francisco is just plain unholy. The average travel times end up being comparable, as does the monthly cost; you just have closer neighbors and lower square footage in the city.

Re:And the cost

[CFTM]

You can call BS on this discussion all you want, but it doesn't change reality.

Facebook and Google are no longer considered "start-ups"; they're both publicly traded at this point.

Most of the start-ups are opening up shop around SOMA or Union Square. It makes a lot of sense for recruiting talent away from the big players (Apple/Google/Facebook). SF is a bit more exciting than Palo Alto....

Re:And the cost

[HexaByte]

Not really. Your $700K home, even if you get it for a cheap 4% interest rate, will cost you $3341.91 per month in mortgage. At the end of 30 years, you've paid an additional 1/2 million in interest, hundreds of thousands in taxes and maintenance, and then it you don't buy a home of equal or higher value Uncle Sam will tax you on the capital gains!

Homes are not good investments unless you can pay cash or rent them at a profit.

Re:And the cost

[thetoadwarrior]

You're an idiot. Cars aren't free.

Re:And the cost

[sabri]

I live in the East Bay. I take BART to work everyday. From my stop in the East Bay to my stop in SF, it costs $4.15. Parking at the BART station costs $1. I live 2.4 miles from the BART station. Round trip, it costs me $9.30 to go to and from work.

Were I to be driving, my commute would be nearly 30 miles. I'd be driving across the Bay Bridge ($5 a day) and then parking in San Francisco would cost me a MINIMUM of $10 a day. This isn't even taking into account opportunity cost of time, wear and tear on the car or fuel.

Now the big question, how much time does it cost you to commute? I live in south San Jose (Bernal exit of 101), and work next to Hwy 237, Zanker exit. My commute is exactly 20 miles. Using public transport it would take me at least 1.5 hours. Using a car it would take me approx 40 minutes. Using my motorcycle it costs me 25 minutes (carpool lane joohoo).

With a 9 month old daughter that I'd like to see grow up, I could not care less of saving $200 a year on using public transport, but losing 2 hours a day. Time is also cost, and public transport is almost always more costly than your own transportation.

Same thing will apply in San Francisco. Live next to Golden Gate park, work downtown and you are not happy with your bus/train/subway/lightrail.

Not to mention that I'd never move to San Francisco, the most visitor unfriendly city I've ever seen (and I used to live in Amsterdam).

Re:And the cost

[uncqual]

"Might" is the key word here. Overall, one can only expect housing to appreciate at the rate of salary inflation. If salaries consistently increase by p percent annually while housing increases by p+d for d>0, less and less people will be able to afford homes and the reduction in demand will drive prices down.

Purchasing might make more sense than renting, but often it costs you more. That depends on many factors including how often you move (due to job changes or due to

Obviously, some areas will do better and others will do worse -- Location, Location, Location. Maybe SF is one of those, maybe not.

Re:And the cost

[Burning1]

Unlimited passes for a month in SF are about $75, or $900 yearly.

Most high-tech employers offer commuter checks, which are pre-tax. So the actual cost goes down to about $45/mo.

Re:And the cost

[uncqual]

(Don't click [Submit] when you mean [Continue Editing]!)

Purchasing might make more sense than renting, but often it costs you more. That depends on many factors including how often you move (due to job changes or due to

...changes in family situation) - moving often costs you 5% or more of the value of the home in fees and "fixup" costs that are merely cosmetic and would normally not be needed at that time so are accelerated.

Re:And the cost

[stevew]

Okay - so you admit that Palo Alto has some "stuff" going for it, and I'll even admit to you that the cost of living in Palo Alto proper is probably as high as in SF or maybe even greater. Yet the cost of living in the numerous bedroom communities around here aren't nearly as expensive (though not cheap by Wisconsin standards..) Further - most of the Incubators are in this general area too - these things stay close to the money. I know the Startup I'm working for is right next to El Camino and Page Mill road! I can see AOL, Microsoft, and Wilson-Sansini ;-) from just that corner! Not startups - but BIG companies.

The other simple fact is that SF is about the most Business UNFRIENDLY city in the country. Why would you go some place where you pay more in taxes just for being in business when you're main activity is trying to preserve capital while creating that next great product?

Re:And the cost

[dlsmith]

If you want to employ gun-toting rednecks then by all means set up in Hicksville. If you want the brightest and the best then you have to go where they want to live whether you like it or not.

Maybe I'm an anomaly, but I'm a well-educated, young (early 30s, anyway) computer scientist and I care a lot more about my net pay (after living expenses) than I do about living in a hip city. I find out a job is being offered in a high COL area, and I cross it off the list.

I think there are a lot of places that offer a much better balance: Austin, Atlanta, Denver, Salt Lake City, ... (I imagine responses will tell me these places are most definitely not hip.)

Re:And the cost

[crgrace]

I hope you don't start up a company, since you've just called most of your potential employers and customers "Fucked Up and Crazy People".

I'm not hip (I'm reading Slashdot, duh) and I love living in San Francisco. It's a one-of-a-kind place that really nourishes you. It has its problems, but life is more exciting here than it was when I lived in the suburbs.

Re:And the cost

[CFTM]

It's about 45 minutes door-to-door using public transit. I think on a light traffic day I'd be lucky to do the drive in an hour and fifteen minutes; on Friday's I get to wave at stand-still traffic as I continue on to my destination. Being south of the Bay Bridge in the East Bay makes for a quick trip into SF. Were I coming from Richmond or Walnut Creek, I'd be looking at probably 85 minute door-to-door but the drive would have the potential of being much worse. The tunnel out to Walnut Creek is atrocious in the evenings and there are so many stops through Berkeley that the Richmond bound trains take forever.

So in many respects, I'm in the perfect location for where I'm going to work (10 minutes drive to the BART station on one end and 8 minute walk to work on the other end).

Re:And the cost

[tonejava]

It's just not the interest of living in the city, companies are paying the salaries to live in the city, relocating people from anywhere in America to live in SF, if anything companies want you to be in SF.

The companies know having the staff co-located and being close to the action is going to be more productive than coordinating a team across the web.

Re:And the cost

[DigiShaman]

So why even work in California at all? Either telecommute from another city (like Austin, TX), or just outsource the entire damn job overseas. In the age of the Internet, why would anyone think of of living in one of the most expensive cities with high taxes among the most volatile and mobile occupations? These young people are simply nuts!

Re:And the cost

[bobbutts]

Renting also has cost me stability. I switched to ownership after being kicked out of my rental due to the landlord selling the property. I had trouble with a previous rental because the landlord decided they wanted to live in the property again. In another previous situation I was forced to move due to building renovations. I loathe moving and also lacking control, so renting is much less attractive.

Re:And the cost

[Darinbob]

The brightest and best have long ago learned to leave San Francisco. You'd have to be pretty crazy to pay the highest rent possible, never be able to afford a house, have to commute an hour to a job if you do a high tech job, put up with unsufferable hipster foodies, etc.

Re:And the cost

[Darinbob]

He's from SF. To them, anyone outside the city is a ultra conservative redneck (heck, they even complained about Gavin Newsome being a Republican stooge there, and some neighborhoods object to having street sweepers beause it will cause gentrification).

Re:And the cost

[Darinbob]

Why work in SF though? Not a lot of high tech jobs there. Mostly "content" or social apps. Sure you can get IT service jobs there but you can get IT service jobs anywhere in the world. There are some high tech companies that aren't just stupid web sites to be fair but they are few compared to elsewhere in the Bay Area.

Re:And the cost

[ahem]

The juxtaposition of these two statements struck me as somewhat incompatible from an actuarial perspective:

... Using my motorcycle it costs me 25 minutes (carpool lane joohoo).

With a 9 month old daughter that I'd like to see grow up, ...

Re:And the cost

[pspahn]

I can certainly attest that Denver is NOT hip. It sucks here, we have crime everywhere, the girls are all fat and unhealthy, and... the worst part... the beer is horrible.

Certainly not a place anyone should want to move! =)

(If you're from Denver, you know I'm right... so shhh.

Re:And the cost

[aoism]

Or -- buy a $300 bicycle, spend $10 in repairs per month, and actually save more money because you can cancel your $70/month Gym Membership. You also get to work in 20mins and home in 30 mins -- faster than MUNI, and almost as fast as taking a cab during rush your.

Re:And the cost

[mattack2]

At least $8 an hour for the 'occasional driving plan' (plus the zipcar membership). Yes, that includes gas & insurance.. But that's still ridiculously expensive.

Re:And the cost

[mattack2]

My commute is exactly 20 miles. Using public transport it would take me at least 1.5 hours. Using a car it would take me approx 40 minutes. Using my motorcycle it costs me 25 minutes (carpool lane joohoo).

If you don't drive during "commute hours", your car trip should be much closer to the same 25 minutes. If you're here, you're likely in tech, so can't you work anytime you want? (I can't imagine one would choose to drive during rush hour.)

Re:And the cost

[CanHasDIY]

If you want to employ gun-toting rednecks then by all means set up in Hicksville. If you want the brightest and the best then you have to go where they want to live whether you like it or not.

Your hubris would be funny, if not so sad...

Seriously, though, if you're looking for the 'best and brightest,' you'd be well served to start your search outside California. Contrary to what residents of that state have convinced themselves, Californians are not the end-all-be-all of human intellect.

Judging from a good portion of their legislation, I would say far from it.

Re:And the cost

[mattack2]

The weather & proximity to stuff. Even as an indoor type person, it's great to be able to wear shorts & a T-shirt pretty much all year around. (Yeah, ok, in the winter, that's fairly unusual.)

Also, easy drive to the beach and a couple hours to skiing. (I admit I haven't done either in quite a while, but if I were a bit closer to the mountains, I'd do the latter more.)

Re:And the cost

[mattack2]

and then it you don't buy a home of equal or higher value Uncle Sam will tax you on the capital gains!

Only if you make more than $250K (per person) profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States#Primary_residence

Re:And the cost

[MushMouth]

You really think that is expensive? How much do you drive? How much do you pay a year on your car, include everything, gas, insurance, registration, parking tickets, maintenance. If you live in SF you realize that zip cars have parking, so you should include the hassle of finding parking. Lastly, you don't just have a car, you have the car you need for what you need it for. Do you need to go to the lumber yard, or buy a sofa, well then you have a truck or a van, do you want to pick up a pretty lady, well you can get a mini convertible. Unless you are driving more than 15k miles a year, it's really hard to beat $8 an hour of usage (including sitting in a parking lot) for owning a car. (and I do own a car)

Re:And the cost

[mattack2]

I don't drive much, I have a short commute. My insurance is under $500/year (I think it's closer to $400). I fill up my tank much closer to every 2 weeks than every week.

I don't get parking tickets, so obviously have nothing to pay there. (I live in suburbia, I expect free parking where I go... and will do that even after I get an electric car that's better for the environment.)

I haven't had tons of maintenance on my car. In the past year or two, I had an $800 repair, which is the biggest bill I've had on my 1999 car.

Re:And the cost

[TankSpanker04]

Not really. Your $700K home, even if you get it for a cheap 4% interest rate, will cost you $3341.91 per month in mortgage. At the end of 30 years, you've paid an additional 1/2 million in interest, hundreds of thousands in taxes and maintenance, and then it you don't buy a home of equal or higher value Uncle Sam will tax you on the capital gains!

If you live in the house for at least 2 years then sell it for profit, you don't pay capital gains on the first $250k you made ($500k if you're married). Also, after age 55 you may "downsize" to a less expensive and/or smaller home and retain your property tax base from the previous home. Thanks, Prop 13.

Re:And the cost

[fiannaFailMan]

I'm really happy that it's so cheap for you, but you live in suburbia. Nothing happens there. You can't walk across the street to the corner store for a gallon of milk and stop to chat to your neighbours about the concert that's going to be in the nearby park next weekend. You can't walk up to the tennis courts to play a few sets with your roommate and stop for coffee and a snack on the way back while you sit outside on the street and strike up a conversation with the interesting dog owner at the next table. You can't walk to the independent bookstore, on the way bump into some old friends that you haven't seen in years, and instead of going to the bookstore you go to the bar and spend a few hours catching up over cocktails while a pretty lady at the next stool catches your eye and ends up becoming your future wife.

You suburban TV watchers and couch potatoes can throw as many smart alec remarks as you like about "insufferable hipsters". If you want to live in your cookie-cutter apartment complexes and dorm "communities" where nobody knows your name then knock yourself out. I prefer a real social life where "social networking" actually means getting out there and mingling with people, not sitting in front of a Facebook in the evening with reality TV in the background.

Re:And the cost

[MushMouth]

So what you are telling me is you spend $6 an hour just on gas to drive your car (30 mph, 20 mpg, $4/gal), and you think $8 an hour is expensive?

Re:And the cost

[Meeni]

You are delusional. A car with such high mileage is a maintenance money pit. A car is always a very high expense. I have one and don't plan on ditching it, but just do some proper accounting, you'll see.

Re:And the cost

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Want a serious answer?

If you have a so-so idea that could maybe go somewhere in 10+ years, set up in Riverside. Or better still, find some college town with a good local engineering program in flyover land. You can find a steady stream of decent students who are used to living on a shoestring. A few will like the college town vibe and choose to linger for a few years. That can work. Running a company on inexperienced people of modest ability on the cheap is a reasonable model.

If you have a genuinely good idea that can go somewhere impressive in five years (or less if you are really ambitious), you would be an idiot for not going to Silicon Valley of some similar tech hub.

For many genuinely good ideas, it is too costly to be cheap. Top talent can get your idea off the ground in 1 year where the cheap inexperienced talent will flounder with mediocre results for 3 or 4 years. In fact, it does not matter that top talent in Silicon Valley costs 5X as much, because your upside potential for getting to market sooner can easily go up by a factor of 10X or even 100X.

Yes, setting up in Silicon Valley increases your initial risks because everything is more costly here. But if you are a gambling man, the advantages can very easily outweigh the risks.

Re:And the cost

[cshay]

In SF, with very few exceptions, the sale of the property does not result in eviction. Renters have almost the status of owners here due to renters laws.

Re:And the cost

[cshay]

This is changing, hence TFA.

Re:And the cost

[Ryanrule]

Well, they needed a population to test things on...

Re:And the cost

[cshay]

Don't forget $200 for your healthcare deductible. Bicycle riding is very hazardous in SF.

Re:And the cost

[mattack2]

You can't walk across the street to the corner store for a gallon of milk

Yeah, that milk you're paying a huge amount more for than I am.

Re:And the cost

[mattack2]

I'm definitely not driving 30 mph. I get on the freeway as soon as I can, even to go just a few miles (my house & work are near freeway entrances/exits).

Re:And the cost

[MushMouth]

So actually you are paying more than $6 an hour to drive your 13 year old car (just in gas, if you do 50mph and your car gets 25 mpg and gas costs $4/gal thats 2 gallons/hour ergo $8/hour) and you assert that $8 an hour for zip car is expensive. You really ought to rethink that assertion.

Re:And the cost

[fiannaFailMan]

You can't walk across the street to the corner store for a gallon of milk

Yeah, that milk you're paying a huge amount more for than I am.

Oh I can walk a little farther to the supermarket too and get it a little cheaper. I'd still rather do that than have to get in a car and drive several miles every time I need to buy something as small as a postage stamp.

Re:And the cost

[Just Some Guy]

Now the big question, how much time does it cost you to commute?

Given that the bus drives in the carpool lanes and has its own toll booth, there's no way I could drive from East Bay to my office in SoMa in less time. Even worse would be if I didn't rent a monthly parking spot and had to find one every day.

Re:And the cost

[sapgau]

+1
You make a reasonable argument there

Re:And the cost

[Stiletto]

So why even work in California at all?

Easy. Because that's where the tech jobs are.

I moved to the Bay Area from a cost-of-living paradise, the Florida panhandle. No state income tax, everything was dirt cheap, including houses. Problem: No tech jobs = high risk.

Living in CA means, if things go south for my current employer, I can just walk across the street and quickly find work there. Less risk. I pay for that risk reduction with: taxes and the fact that I'll never be able to afford a house.

Re:And the cost

[Stiletto]

Your comment is spot on, but you're forgetting another factor: Funding.

If you eventually will need venture funding, you're going to want to be within driving distance of Sand Hill Road. Sure, there are angel networks and some VC firms out there in flyover land, but if you're serious, you're going to want to be here in the valley.

Re:And the cost

[Stiletto]

Not compared to buying a house in San Francisco (according to a quick Google search, a median price of $710,000 for April to June 2012).

Can someone help me out a little with this craziness? Because, I'm still kind of new to the Bay Area.

WTF kind of job does one have that allows him to buy a house for $710,000?

Let's say you're putting down 20%, which most lenders insist on nowadays. That's $142,000. In. Cash. (yea, let me just go find a cash machine) WTF?

Then, if you follow the rule of thumb which says you generally can afford to buy a house that's 2 to 2.5x your annual salary, you end up needing to make at least (using 2.5x) $284,000 a year to safely afford this "median" house. WTF WTF WTF?

So who owns these $710,000 homes? Are they all company founders who hit it big? All CEOs? Or did they all simply buy them back in the '80s when they cost $30K and have been living there ever since?

Re:And the cost

[bogjobber]

Hehe....we're on the same brainwave. I almost gave a similar reply about Salt Lake City. It's horrible here. Terrible weather, ugly people, nothing to do, and religious fanatics everywhere trying to stop you from having fun (well that last one's a tiny bit true, I guess). Certainly not a place that any right-thinking young professional would want to move.

Plus, we're full. :)

Re:And the cost

[bogjobber]

Well there's a lot of places that are in the spectrum between San Jose and Poughkeepsie. You went from one extreme to the other :)

Re:And the cost

[sabri]

If you don't drive during "commute hours", your car trip should be much closer to the same 25 minutes. If you're here, you're likely in tech, so can't you work anytime you want? (I can't imagine one would choose to drive during rush hour.)

Good guess. I'm in tech an have pretty flexible hours. Writing this from home, I'll be leaving in 10/15 minutes to be in the office around 10am. However, even at this time, it is likely that:

- The 101 is slowed down northbound starting Capitol or at least Tully
- The exit 101->880 is congested
- 880 northbound itself is congested

But these are not the biggest issues. Try to get onto 237 from 880: im-pos-si-ble under 10 minutes. This is where I get the most out of riding my motorcycle. With a car it takes me 25+ minutes (just to pass the two traffic lights and the metering onto 237).

Were I to choose public transport, I'd first have to walk 2 miles towards the nearest BART station, ride the train to Zanker/Tasman and then walk another 20 minutes or so to the office.

To stay on-topic: even with my current commute, it still makes sense not to move to SF: right now I have options to choose from, that shorten my time. I can take my motorcycle and be in the office within a reasonable time-frame (and cost, for that matter). In SF, even on my motorcycle my benefits of driving a motorcycle are a lot less, due to the ridiculous amount of traffic-lights an almost every intersection. Public transport is a joke, expensive and I prefer not to sit next to some long-haired overweight coder who consumed huge amounts of garlic the day before, and skipped his weekly shower that morning.

Re:And the cost

[Comrade Ogilvy]

True. And the VCs are going to be put off by anyone who does not seem savvy when it comes to spending more money to save money, and spending more money to cut time to market for the big win. Not being within shouting distance of Sand Hill (or other tech hub) screams "amateur".

Sometimes it is better to dive into the deep water with both feet. Sometimes it is better to wade slowly in from the shallow end. There are a few big companies that started with the latter, but almost all eventually move to bigger cities when making a play for the big time.

Dear allston, who seems preoccupied with the disadvantages of the first and the advantages of the second, really understands neither option.

Re:And the cost

[airdweller]

A point, a point, my kingdom for a point!

Re:And the cost

[kenorland]

SF may be hip, artistic, and fun on weekends, but it is also dirty, crime ridden, noisy, and expensive. Most of the geeks I know prefer to live on the peninsula, in nice, clean, spacious apartment complexes or ranch style homes.

the business has changed, too

[Anonymous Coward]

Issues of sprawl and crappy commutes notwithstanding, the people developing cool apps for smartphones want to live in SF because they are hipsters. These are not the same kinds of folks that "made" silicon valley. They were far nerdier, more interested in hardware, chip design, etc -- basically infrastructure stuff and they were NOT hip. They weren't quite as drawn to SF.

SF also has girls.

I still think the Peninsula and South Bay are far superior if you like outdoor activities: running, hiking, climbing, biking.

Psh. I like the old farts better than the new kids.

Re:the business has changed, too

[phantomfive]

Are you saying.......that SF is for Brogrammers? Probably true.

Re:the business has changed, too

[fiannaFailMan]

The gay city, right?

Right. There's still a better male:female ratio in SF than in "Man Jose". Subtract the gay guys from that and it gets even better. Trust me on this. For every girl that walks into a Silicon Valley bar there's at least ten guys with her. Your odds are much better in the city.

Re:the business has changed, too

[tonejava]

What? you're not allowed to be a developer if you're gay? Seriously!

Re:the business has changed, too

[Trepidity]

I still think the Peninsula and South Bay are far superior if you like outdoor activities: running, hiking, climbing, biking.

If you like outdoor activities, then imo the other side of the hill, on the coast or in the mountains, is really the best place in the area. Less of the suburban-sprawl, big-box kind of feeling, more nature, less crowded. And ocean and redwoods! But alas the tech activity there is not as great as it used to be. The once Unix-greybeard-filled Santa Cruz Operation eventually died (and its corpse became a patent troll, SCO, that wasn't even based in Santa Cruz), and Seagate moved most of its operations from Scotts Valley to Cupertino. There are still some indie-game studios, though (Chronic Logic, Team Meat, Gaijin Games).

Re:the business has changed, too

[Darinbob]

Why go to a bar? Is the sort of woman you'd meet in a BAR the sort you'd want to have a long term relationship with? And what does it say about her taste in getting picked up by a some dude in a bar?

Re:the business has changed, too

[KagakuNinja]

I'm about as nerdy as you can get, and 48 years old. I also happen to have a life-long interest in alternative music, and SF is the place to go. It is the cultural magnet for the entire Bay Area. San Jose has an anemic music scene, and everything in between SF and SJ is a wasteland. The only emerging rival is the East Bay, which has attracted a lot of bands due to the lower cost of living. So for me, it would be really great if I was living in SF, this isn't just about young "hipsters" with tattoos and shit...

Re:the business has changed, too

[fiannaFailMan]

Why go to a bar? Is the sort of woman you'd meet in a BAR the sort you'd want to have a long term relationship with? And what does it say about her taste in getting picked up by a some dude in a bar?

Huh? What are you talking about? Where the hell else are you supposed to meet people if not in a bar? Would you prefer me to meet some losery loner on an online dating site or something? The majority of my long term relationships began in bars or on the way home from them and "the kind of girl" you meet in a bar is not much different from "the kind of girl" you meet in the street or in the supermarket or anywhere else with the exception that they're outgoing and sociable. What are you, Amish or something? Maybe you'd prefer me to meet people in a fucking church!

Re:the business has changed, too

[bdwebb]

Brogrammers...oh wow. How have I missed this new term!? Thank you so much...I have so many people to tear apart in this category (friends...all in good fun, heh) that I am in physical pain from containing myself until after work when I see them. Awesome.

Re:the business has changed, too

[Ryanrule]

'Maybe you'd prefer me to meet people in a fucking church!"

Thats how it works in the south. Lots of teens go fuck after church. Totally cereal.

Re:the business has changed, too

[Darinbob]

Bars just seem creepy to me.

Re:the business has changed, too

[Dave Emami]

Why go to a bar? Is the sort of woman you'd meet in a BAR the sort you'd want to have a long term relationship with? And what does it say about her taste in getting picked up by a some dude in a bar?

Huh? What are you talking about? Where the hell else are you supposed to meet people if not in a bar? Would you prefer me to meet some losery loner on an online dating site or something?

If you mean strictly offline, then: college, work, concerts, convention for whatever hobby you have, politics, charity, or a social organization of some kind. That is to say, some gathering whose nature selects people with interests you share, some of whom might happen to be looking for someone, as opposed to a bar or similar venue, which selects for people who are looking for someone, some of whom might happen to share your interests. The same distinction applies to online activities: a dating site, vs. some online activity which brings together people and occasionally leads to love/friendship among the people involved. One of my coworkers at a previous job met his wife on a BBS via helping with computer accessibility for the blind. I know several couples who met each other via online anime fandom, and (indirectly) others who met via online games.

Maybe you'd prefer me to meet people in a fucking church!

That falls under the "social organization of some kind" category. I'm sure there are a few atheist equivalents, for those for whom that's an active interest rather than merely not having a religion.

Hip City?

[Sponge Bath]

My friend who lives there calls it "the city". The hipness is implied by the condescending tone of voice when you say "the city".

Re:Hip City?

[i kan reed]

Guess what? In ancient Rome, they called Rome, "the city" and in England, they call London "the city", and it's similarly true elsewhere in history and the world. The condescension is imagined on your part.

Re:Hip City?

[TheRaven64]

in England, they call London "the city"

'The city' is usually used in England (if not referring to the nearest city) to mean The City of London, which is about a square mile containing all of the banks and associated surplus population.

Re:Hip City?

[Macman408]

It's not just a hipster thing. Everybody in the bay area calls it "the city". Conversely, only tourists will call it "frisco" or "San Fran".

Re:Hip City?

[phantomfive]

It's similar in the Bay Area. "The City" refers to a little section on the tip of the penninsula. Calling it "the city" distinguishes it from the greater metropolitan area. And it does have the biggest concentration of big buildings and high priced housing.

It changes if you go farther away, like California's Central Valley, they will call the entire Bay Area "San Francisco", often including San Jose.

Re:Hip City?

[fiannaFailMan]

My friend who lives there calls it "the city". The hipness is implied by the condescending tone of voice when you say "the city".

Everybody who lives in the bay area calls SF "the city". Get over it.

Re:Hip City?

[xstonedogx]

As a resident non-native, I make it a point to call it "San Fran" (or when feeling particularly spiteful "Frisco") just to jab at native sensibilities.

I usually reserve it for this type of conversation:

Them: Where are you from?
Me: Minnesota
Them: Oh. Where in Minnesota?
Me: The Twin Cities area. (Or sometimes just "the Cities")
Them: Oh... Where's that?
Me: It's not Duluth and it's not the place where the Mayo Clinic is. (Fargo accent:) So... have ya lived in 'Frisco your whole life der den?

And occasionally people act like I lied to them when they find out I have never lived in the city limits of either Minneapolis or St. Paul. Like they'd have any idea where Rosemount or St. Louis Park are if I told them those places instead (nevermind that I didn't live in one municipality my entire pre-CA life). I honestly think they'd say "Atherton" if they were traveling and someone asked them where in California they were from.

Re:Hip City?

[adavies42]

Istanbul actually means "in the city" or "to the city" (in medieval Greek). People near New York call New York "the city" (and people in the other boroughs mean "Manhattan" when they say "the city").

Re:Hip City?

[DNS-and-BIND]

"The City" implies that everyone who's anyone should know which city it is. Using the definite article "the" implies that there is only one city...only one that matters, anyway. It's localist and does indeed smell of condescension. "What, you don't know! Surely you are a hick from the sticks."

Re:Hip City?

[avandesande]

In NJ NYC was always called 'The City'

Re:Hip City?

[Trepidity]

In Greece, oddly enough, they still call Istanbul (i.e. Constantinople) "the city".

Re:Hip City?

[aoism]

Agreed. If I am hanging out in Oakland or Mtn View, I'll say I live in 'The City'. Otherwise if I am talking to friends in other citites/states or tourists in the city, I will say 'San Fran' or 'SF'.

Re:Hip City?

[GungaDan]

Funny, In Brooklyn we called Manhattan "the city." Nevermind that it is a city of 5 boroughs and we were in one of them, hence in "the city" ourselves. Hell all the way down in Gravesend we might as well have been in Timbuktu.

Re:Hip City?

[CanHasDIY]

In rural Missouri, where I hail from, "the city" is any populated area with at least one building over 3 stories tall...

J/k, although, it's only a slight exaggeration...

Re:Hip City?

[CanHasDIY]

Istanbul actually means "in the city" or "to the city" (in medieval Greek).

Not Constantinople?


Sorry, couldn't help mahself...

Re:Hip City?

[i kan reed]

Or maybe there's a city of local significance, or did you completely miss the point of my post?

Re:Hip City?

[ethanms]

In the Boston area when you refer to living within the city most people will say "in town", as in "it's more expensive to live 'in town' than in a suburb", or "you're going to find a lot more sushi places in town than out (t)here"

I think it's fairly common to refer to a nearby city as "the city" or in our case "in town". It probably does get confusing when you live somewhere equally distant from major cities--such as living around the CT/RI/MA border... if you say "The City", do you mean Boston? Worcester? Springfield? Hartford? Providence? Maybe New York City? It's all relative to location and the speakers.

(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism)

Re:Hip City?

[LMariachi]

Agreed on "San Fran," but try telling the local Hells Angels that they're tourists.

Re:Hip City?

[Ryanrule]

Conversely, only VISITORS will call it "frisco" or "San Fran".

Im from chicago. Chicago is "the city." Sanfran is where i visit the corp office.

Re:Hip City?

[Sir_Eptishous]

My dad grew up in "The City". He's old school, and has always called it that. It isn't some "new" hipster lingo. All the old(and new)timers in the BA call it that.

And also want to pay more rent

[ramk13]

San Francisco is undoubtedly cooler than the south bay, but it's also way more expensive. Not everyone can afford rent or the space they want in SF when compared to many of those south bay cities. That goes both for companies and people. Some companies will move or start there, but I think it's reaching to say we're at a tipping point.

And most importantly, people aren't raising kids in SF:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/13/san-francisco-moms-reflect_n_1508072.html

So that talent that young is going to have to commute the other way when they get married and have kids.

Re:And also want to pay more rent

[Anonymous Coward]

Just shows that it isn't the tech companies making the profits here, its the landowners.

Re:And also want to pay more rent

[jcadam]

No, when the young talent gets married and has kids they find a job in another part of the country with a sane COL. I interviewed with a few of these 'hip' companies in SV, and they tend to balk when they hear my current salary (and I currently live in a rather low cost of living area). Not to mention that, at the ripe old of age of 32, I feel like a geezer as soon as I walk in the door at your typical startup. Now when I get a call from a recruiter who thinks I'm perfect for some position in the SF Bay area, I just say "No, Thanks."

Re:And also want to pay more rent

[Ryanrule]

Its GOOD that its more expensive. FORCE the companies to pay the lower level people better, and the upper level people worse.

PLUS, its not a 5 minute drive to a golf course like the valley. That should help keep the useless mba people away.

Re:And also want to pay more rent

[dlsmith]

Lower-level people aren't getting paid better if you raise their cost of living as much as (or more than) their increase in pay.

Re:And also want to pay more rent

[chispito]

Its GOOD that its more expensive. FORCE the companies to pay the lower level people better, and the upper level people worse.

PLUS, its not a 5 minute drive to a golf course like the valley. That should help keep the useless mba people away.

Because when companies have less money to spend, they trim off the top.

Re:And also want to pay more rent

[DerekLyons]

Its GOOD that its more expensive. FORCE the companies to pay the lower level people better

You're a bit confused there - because despite them being paid better, they aren't any better off. They can still only afford a crappy place, etc... etc...

Re:And also want to pay more rent

[durdur]

Yeah. It's expensive to live there, but the same is true of most of Silicon Valley. But one of the downsides is certainly a sucky climate - it just doesn't get warm in the summer very much (although there are exceptional days when that does happen). And commuting into San Francisco is possible but from many areas not convenient or fast. I know a senior VP who left his job just because his family was well established in Palo Alto and he got tired of the commute to SF. He didn't consider moving there.

I'm not surprised

[i kan reed]

Suburbs seem to be the defining problem from my generation's perspective. It's a cultural wasteland. It lacks identity. And for a generation that has become almost entirely bound to the indoors, most of the proclaimed advantages are unnoticed. The mortgages that go with suburban living look like an anchor to a group that is already mostly overburdened with student loan debt. It looks like despair incarnate.

It'll be a SLOW shift towards urbanization though. Huge chunks of the populace look at the suburbs as what you are supposed to do, particularly once you have children. Falling crime rates and rising transit costs will eventually break that, though.

Re:I'm not surprised

[i kan reed]

Problems with small towns.
1. relative poverty, and very few professional job opportunities..
2. Large portion of population lack perspective
3. Small towns have strong identities but have equally strong Inferiority complexes

1. Not true, I've had 2 high tech jobs out of small towns. I don't know what else to say about that.
2. Bald assertion about the people who live there. Completely unjustified from where I'm sitting too.
3. Again, painfully bald assertion of psychology of a LOT of people

problems with the suburbs
1. Poor planning regarding zoning distribution and transportation. -Everything just takes so freaking long to do compared to a small town.
2. Lack of identity
3. Feels very isolating for people who didn't grow up in one.

1. Not necessarily, but people are separated from everything. From their neighbors by fences, from different subdivisions by artificially twisty roads. From commerce by driving required distances. From industry by frequently hours by car.
2. Not just a lack of identity, but an facade of one, along with an enforced sterility.
3. I don't see what growing up in one has to do with anything. It is isolating, there's all sorts of elements that seem to exist only to isolate.

Problems with cities
1. Crime
2. Its Loud
3. bad schools
4. Neighborhoods with extreme poverty and toxic culture.
5. Hipsters inhabit the nice affordable neighborhoods
6. Have to deal with people shouting out angry profanity on an almost daily basis.
7. The city dynamic gets boring.

1. Not really anymore, crime rates have fallen dramatically since the 1980s, with numerous social mechanisms behind those drops, only some of which are politically reversible.
2. Not all parts of cities are loud, that's an impression people get from fiction more than reality. Suburbs tend to be near high velocity roads with constant traffic that is actually worse in some ways. Rural areas are quiet.
3. A self-fulfilling prophecy as wealthy people with kids move to places with "good schools". Of note, some cities have exceptional schools. Not the one I live in, but that's another story.
4. I can't interpret this as anything other than "Oh no minorities". Clarify this point.
5. As opposed to who? What paragon artificial slice of humanity do you interact with daily that is so non-annoying.
6. Never had to even once. Not even ONCE. Again seems like a stereotype out of fiction rather than something you've actually experienced.
7. I never asserted it to be exciting or constantly novel. It's a bit healthier for the human psyche, the environment, and in the long run, the economy. I'm not sure what amazing, non-boring things you think happen in the suburbs.

Re:I'm not surprised

[scamper_22]

Well... that is primarily because that generation has no identity... so they think they can find one in the city.

I don't blame them for not having an identity. It is the fault of society for not giving them one; for not teaching them in the school system what it means to be British or American or Canadian.

I live in the city, but not because I need to find myself or because it is more entertaining. I'm there purely to be close to work.

Urbanization won't give anyone an identity. That comes from within you and your relationship with people. Something small towns have, something suburbs have, and something cities have.

If you view suburbs as a cultural wasteland... chances are the city will disappoint as well... after the superficial activities are done.

Can we stop using the term 'poaching'?

[dkleinsc]

The problem I have with the term is that it suggests that there's something morally wrong with offering somebody more salary / benefits / perks to change jobs, or with that somebody choosing to make the move to greener pastures.

Employment is a 2-way street: My boss can choose to fire me at any time, I can choose to quit and do something else at any time. I understand that many employers would not like employees to be able to do that, but they can, and that's because they're your employees rather than your slaves.

Re:Can we stop using the term 'poaching'?

[gbjbaanb]

and there's nothing that's going to stop your boss from firing you once you get to a certain age and replace you with some younger, cooler, but most definitely cheaper wage-slave anyway, and then you'll realise the whole thing is a bit of a sham.

Not a lot that can be done about it really, the boss wants cheap labour and you want more money. I think the end result is a huge programmer shortage and a large benefit to off-shoring IT workers.

Of course, your company and yourself could adopt a more progressive policy of long-term tenure of employment where people grow with a company, are trained to keep up with new technology and increase experience with the company's systems and business. But no-one's going to do that when there are short-term profits to be made!

Re:Can we stop using the term 'poaching'?

[dkleinsc]

Not really what gbjbannb is alluding to: There's pretty good evidence out there that programmers over age 40 are regularly discriminated against in the field, regardless of their level of skill, due to a perception that the ideal programmer is a young easily exploited kid who wants to work 100 hours a week fuelled by caffeine and sugar. Give me a team of people those bosses have decided were 'dinosaurs' any day of the week.

Re:Can we stop using the term 'poaching'?

[RabidReindeer]

And this is why you keep up with technology and continuing to learn in your spare time rather than becoming stagnant. Old age is as much a state of mind as all our inevitable fates.

And this gives you ... what?

Not job stability. I average about 2 years ahead of "state of the art" in my town, although sadly, that's not all that difficult. I have just about the same employment longevity as anyone else I know. Even the younger cheaper folks.

This is news?

[dorpus]

They said the exact same thing when I lived in the Valley during the dot-com boom. Not everyone wants to pay $2,000 for an apartment that has the privilege of homeless people pissing on the doorstep, walking on streets that reek of sewage, daily encounters with street trash that threaten anyone who is dressed normally, or the dilemma of owning a car with no place to park vs. a car-free lifestyle that makes shopping so difficult. Yes, I love the car alarms that go off constantly, the buses roaring by all the time, the ugly eucalyptus trees that give off a powerful smell, the harsh cold wind from the bay combined with the harsh sunlight, the lack of air conditioned offices, the "vibrant nightlife" of stores that close down at 5PM, the tourists who treat you like a funny zoo animal, and the warm welcome one receives from other Americans for saying they live in San Francisco.

Re:This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you pay $2,000/mo you'll have to live in a pretty shit area or in a pretty small place.

A decent 1BR in a nice area in the heart of SF is $3,000/mo. If you have a while to look you can probably find something between $2,500 and $3,000.

Re:This is news?

[crgrace]

That's one way to look at living in San Francisco, and it sounds to me you would be much better off living in the suburbs.

There are so many positives living in San Francisco. Walking from my apartment to grocery shop or go to the hardware store. Tons of amazing restaurants around the corner. A gorgeous view (that changes all the time with the weather) from every hilltop. A glorious urban park with great museums and places to jog. Getting together with friends on the spur of the moment, without all of them driving from various suburbs. Some cool festival or other going on almost every weekend. Each neighborhood having a completely different vibe, and all with something fun or interesting to offer.

Sure, it has its problems, but it has its charms, as well. Try not to see only one side of the story.

Re:This is news?

[dorpus]

Why yes, there is the Golden Gate Park with its ankle-breaking mole tunnels and shifty-eyed characters lurking in the woods. Or the architectural marvels of the KQED tower standing over the city like a half-built robot; the SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO: INDUSTRIAL CITY hill sign; and the Alcatraz with its concrete bunkers. I suppose the museums offer their share of pre-recorded whale sounds or Italian paintings that look like they were bought on a street corner in Rome. You wouldn't want to tell an SFer that the food is no different from restaurants elsewhere, that bubble tea or chicken-on-a-stick can be bought at any mall in America -- their eyes might glow red. Street festivals, yes, which offer the same homogeneous fare of tye-dyed hippies and marijuana accessories. I suppose the Market & Castro halloween street party could be entertaining, the gays who meticulously coat themselves in peanut butter or whatever. I suppose SF offers a way station for bored young adults, before they grow jaded and move to more normal places.

Re:This is news?

[mattack2]

Walking from my apartment to grocery shop

But isn't there only like one Safeway? Lucky/Albertsons? Is there a Costco?

Re:This is news?

[Ryanrule]

Where do you live, on a god damn ranch?

Re:This is news?

[Sir_Eptishous]

Do you regenerate Hit Points like the Trolls in Dungeons and Dragons?

Re:This is news?

[Wordplay]

The nightlife is the thing for me. If SF actually stayed open all night a la New York (or at least its reputation) I'd probably live there, being a huge night owl. But I swear to god stuff in SF closes earlier than stuff down in San Jose, with the exception of the clubs and the few little liquor stores and pizza joints around them that cater to the club crowd.

Re:Gentrification

[fiannaFailMan]

Give a few years. Oh Noes 'gentrification'! The inevitable whinge. Tech money moves in, car dealerships and salons follow. Loft prices soar. Street vendors and used book stores move out. Rents go up and 'families' can't afford to live there any more.

Bitch, bitch, bitch. Thousands of hours of NPR hand wringing interviews with disgruntled pseudo-hippies.

San Francisco has rent control.

Left CA 15 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Good riddance.

I hope they sell it to Mexico, we won't miss it.

Re:Left CA 15 years ago

[fredrated]

Boo fucking Hoo for you.
Thanks for leaving, you weren't missed.

Happened in the first dot-com boom, too.

[Animats]

This happened during the first dot-com boom, too. Huge influx of twentysomethings. Then the dot-com boom collapsed, and the number of twentysomethings in SF dropped 40%. (A friend of mine who runs a hip hair salon and throws big parties said of this "and the ones who still have jobs are working their butts off.")

The first dot-com boom moved into existing real estate. This time, there's extensive new construction.

Silicon Valley may be in permanent decline. The last production wafer fab in the valley closed in 2008. With impressive systems on a chip like the Allwinner A10 from China selling for $7, the margins in semiconductors are far smaller than they used to be. That threatens Intel. HP is still a mess. Yahoo is collapsing. Microsoft just posted their first loss. Google and Apple continue to thrive, but Facebook seems to be on track to be the next Myspace.

Re:Gentrification

[CFTM]

You forgot the part where the mobile tech bubble bursts....

Not Really

[BadPirate]

the "Young Talent" companies only make up a small part of the tech industry out here. Silicon valley still has the largest and most successful of the tech industry at the moment in Software (Apple, Google) and even the older struggling giants (Yahoo), which represent a MAJOR force for employment, Apple's new campus in cupertino will hire and bring in more bodies to the valley then the next 100 SF startups (even assuming that by the time 100 startups have formed 50 of them haven't flopped).

Years ago when I moved to Silicon Valley the ratio and rate was the same. There were "artsy" or "fun" gaming startup jobs (a few) available in SF, and there were startup jobs available here in SV. But the real hiring was being done by the big players, and those guys will never move to SF. The hub will remain. There is no "tipping point". Article is an opinion puff piece by a hipster looking San Francisco dweller - https://twitter.com/cscott_idg who is obviously as biased about the subject as I am.

Moving on.

And physical location still matters *WHY*?

[pla]

How odd. I would have thought that, of all places, Silicon Valley would have launched its "B" Ark full of all the PHBs who can't believe people can actually do their jobs while sitting at home in bunny-slippers.

Fellow geeks - Telecommuting! We need to stop putting up with this "physical presence" crap and start making the number of days per month we actually go into the office a core negotiating point in any interview. "You want me Tuesdays and Thursdays? Okay, I want an extra week of vacation to make up for the needlessly wasted hours of my life spent in traffic to humor your delusions that I can somehow program better in an uncomfortable, harshly-lit, noisy environment surrounded by people who want to tell me all about what vile substance their kids/cats spewed on innocent bystanders this past weekend."


/ And let's not even talk about how I have a triplet of 28" monitors on my home workstation while getting a mere second 22-incher at work took nearly an act-of-god

Re:And physical location still matters *WHY*?

[Cutting_Crew]

@pla - i think we had the same thought process here. you beat me by about 10 minutes but everyone else reading my post below and put it together with this and you have a winning recipe.

Re:And physical location still matters *WHY*?

[Stiletto]

Fellow geeks - Telecommuting! We need to stop putting up with this "physical presence" crap and start making the number of days per month we actually go into the office a core negotiating point in any interview. "You want me Tuesdays and Thursdays? Okay, I want an extra week of vacation to make up for the needlessly wasted hours of my life spent in traffic to humor your delusions that I can somehow program better in an uncomfortable, harshly-lit, noisy environment surrounded by people who want to tell me all about what vile substance their kids/cats spewed on innocent bystanders this past weekend."

Careful what you wish for. If your job can be done from home, it can be done from India.

How about just letting people work from home???

[Cutting_Crew]

We've crossed this bridge many times before throughout the years from various articles.

What happened to companies (especially high tech companies) allowing people to work from home? Maybe a visit to the office once every two weeks or maybe a monthly meeting for employee social time...sharing projects, dinner, etc etc. This means that you could employ people not even local to SF which is in the end overall cheaper(for everyone). There are many many bright people who live elsewhere in the US(many of them not single) that just dont want to live in this area for many different social, economical and political reasons.

This also means you dont have to pay through the nose for a building that houses all the employees. Just room enough for the owner, the receptionist and a big open atrium/hall for company meetings when everyone is supposed to check in. I really don't think companies get it. Check out Art & Logic . All their employees work remote and they at least claim that they only look for the best and the brightest. Their clients are also big time companies.

Re:How about just letting people work from home???

[tonejava]

Most companies get more team value from having the team co-located - especially with Agile practices. Having to work out "Where is ?" is a bitch when you are supposed to be getting a job done as a team (especially with Continuous Delivery).

I encourage my team to be in the office because we don't have just one person working on a feature or pumping out quick fixes all the time and when something goes wrong we all need to get on the job of fixing ASAP.

Re:How about just letting people work from home???

[Cutting_Crew]

thats why you can use facetime, skype or any other type video conferencing set ups. Hey even buy everyone company phones if it makes it that much more seamless. and Agile can work as long as everyone has access to a repository somewhere. if everyone is working on the same project and differnet people are workng with different features, as a team, you communicate check-ins, check-outs and commits. Once you have the system in place and assuming that you have a good team then you shouldn't need to be at the office. My employer says we should be there to "keep up appearances". Appearances of what? and to whom? I get more done at home than I ever did at the office. If you want to know if people are actually going to be home working instead of eating bon bons and watching soap operas all day the proof will be in the product that they deliver. This is espeically true for Agile development, depending on how many sprints you have and how often.

Re:How about just letting people work from home???

[trout007]

I'm a mechanical engineer and I'm excited because I'm getting a laptop for my next machine that is capable of running the software I need to work. Now I can work form home. If I had my way my schedule would be to go into work twice a week to handle meetings and other BS and spend 3 days at home in isolation doing actual design. I don't know if it is common for technical people but I need to be left alone when I'm really thinking. I have a routine where I work straight for about 2 hours than take a 30 minute break when I feel like it to catch up on e-mail and take a break. Also if I'm doing complicated analysis I do it much better after 10pm when the kids are asleep and the house is quiet.

Re:How about just letting people work from home???

[tonejava]

It's not a question of whether you trust they are working or not, the tools still only allow limited communication. Getting a team to spike on something, IMO, requires them to be interactive at a more interpersonal level than using FaceTime or Skype.

Re:How about just letting people work from home???

[Cutting_Crew]

well like i mentioned before, check out Art & Logic. I actually am at step #2 with them and am actually considering going to work there. ALL their employees work from home. ALL of them. They have some big time customers as well. So something they are doing, whatever it is, they are doing it right.

Re:How about just letting people work from home???

[tonejava]

What they are not doing is developing enterprise software! :)

Re:Too Much Risk

[stevew]

That is just ignorant! Even though I don't believe the article - Uhm - how do you think the San Andreas fault GETS to San Francisco? It runs through the hills that create Silicon Valley. Always has - always will. Ever heard of the Loma Preitta Quake? That large percentage of the US brain truss you are worrying about ALREADY lives in Earth Quake country.

Riverside CA is viable ...

[perpenso]

Riverside CA is viable. It has a University of California campus and good computer science, engineering and bio programs (probably others as well). It's location is convenient for recreation. The mountains are about 1-1.5 hours away, so is the beach, so is the desert. There are nice communities with housing at a small fraction of the cost of LA and Orange County (OC). A lot of very talented and skilled people working in LA and OC actually live in Riverside or one of its neighboring towns. If you were to open shop in one of the industrial/research parks next to the UC campus you will have access to students and many industry veterans currently working in LA/OC but living in/near Riverside who would love to ditch the long commute.

Meh

[Dave Emami]

Maybe living there is better than visiting, but every time I made the yearly drive to SF for the Software Development Expo, it was hell. Streets that seem nigh-vertical, an insane profusion of one-way streets -- in one case, two of them meeting in opposite directions at the top of a hill -- plus paying through the nose for parking. I was always glad to be back on I-80 and headed home.

Not intended as a flame, I know there are people who love SF, but I like living in a post-WW2 horizontal city instead of a pre-WW2 vertical one.

Re:Meh

[fiannaFailMan]

I like living in a post-WW2 horizontal city instead of a pre-WW2 vertical one.

Well bully for you. Live in your suburb then. Nobody's stopping you. Some people like the suburbs and see only the downside of the city, some people like the city and see only the downside of the suburbs. That's just part of life's rich tapestry.

Re:Meh

[Dave Emami]

I like living in a post-WW2 horizontal city instead of a pre-WW2 vertical one.

Well bully for you. Live in your suburb then. Nobody's stopping you. Some people like the suburbs and see only the downside of the city, some people like the city and see only the downside of the suburbs. That's just part of life's rich tapestry.

Never said otherwise. Just giving my impression of SF from the days when I lived relatively nearby.

Love the city!

[aoism]

While I'm sure living and working in the valley is great for some people, I enjoy a 20 minute commute to work, not needing a car except when going out of town, tons of things to do in the city every night, and most importantly, being within 5 blocks of:

1. A large grocery store
2. 5 Awesome Bars
3. 15 places to eat
4. A barber
5. Eye doctor, Dentist, Podiatrist (damn those hills)
6. Post Office
7. DMV
8. Liquor Stores
9. Coffee Shops
10. A beautiful park with running trails
11. Public Transportation if I need it
12. Many of my friends and coworkers
13. 3 fun music venues

And my rent is $2035 for a 900 square foot 2 bedroom that I've had for the last 6 years. Rent control is great :) Sure, it's noisy some nights. Sure some nights you can't see your hands in front of your face because of the fog. Sure, there are homeless people -- so what? If you're old and have a family then perhaps this isn't the place for you. SF is pretty anti-child. If you don't like being in the thick of everything -- stay in a quiet suburb. For single 20 and 30 somethings, this is where it's at.

Re:Love the city!

[DoctorBit]

Ok, I'll bite. Where is that?

SFO's issues

[ethanms]

I've been told by a friend that one of the issues with running businesses within SFO is that once you grow beyond a certain size your costs really start to escalate because of various city ordinances and taxes. Don't they have some health care requirements that other nearby cities/towns don't? Not to mention the cost of real estate, etc.

Being a great place to live doesn't necessarily mean it's a great place to run a business. At some point, unless you're wildly successful or simply cannot exist outside the SFO ecosphere, the businesses will look to either lobby for lower costs or will move out of the area forcing the workers to either move or commute.

Re:Gentrification

[mattack2]

Which is anti-free market.

SF Bus drivers

[tlambert]

By "watch out for the drunks", you are referring to the bus drivers, right?

"Remember, don't drink and drive!
    Ride the Bus, and leave the drinking to us!"

Re:I hate San Francisco!! Not ever going there.

[MushMouth]

Except you are lying or have a bad memory as an expired meter fine is currently $65 (actually $55 if you went to the Noe Valley Whole Foods). And you are an ass for parking that far off the curb. And Pay the fucking meter, they take credit cards and you can text to them.

Being social doesn't require going to the bar

[erice]

Huh? What are you talking about? Where the hell else are you supposed to meet people if not in a bar? Would you prefer me to meet some losery loner on an online dating site or something?

Meetup.com, for one. There are other activity groups as well. (Most aren't free, but Meetup is). Then there are social scenes around hiking, skating, cycling, even rowing.

Thing is, even if you participate in a group centered near the South Bay, a disproportionate number of the women are from SF. And, of course, the groups centered in or nearer the City have more women.

The hip arrogant youth can go live up there

[OrangeTide]

The rest of us engineers will stay in the South Bay.

Re:I hate San Francisco!! Not ever going there.

[cshay]

You are blaming the city, yet you admit you didn't pay the meter and parked wrong. The same thin could have happened to you in Milpitas. Disingenious.