I understand what you’re saying but I think you’re underestimating how many people like city life.
I work in SF and most of the people here are here specifically because they DONT want to live on ten acres in some rural place, they love that the city is walkable and dense and interesting.
For most folks the issue of living in condos or apartments it’s an issue at all until they reach a certain family size. At that point, most of the people in the city would be thrilled to live in a 3-4 bedroom townhome in the city — but THAT is where SF gets really difficult, because those cost $4 million or more these days.
Actually for many people they feel trapped because they’d like a LITTLE more space, ie. the Victorian townhome, but they specifically DO NOT want a car or a yard and do not want to leave the historic, walkable city. At that point you’re really screwed because outside of SF there is basically nothing else walkable west of the Mississippi. So there’s nowhere to go.
If somehow magically you could build a 1900s Victorian townhome city about 30’ away by train I think you’d find a couple million urban Californians wanted to move there.
But of course the sprawl all around the job centers, and the regulatory environment, both make that impossible.
> Actually for many people they feel trapped because they’d like a LITTLE more space, ie. the Victorian townhome, but they specifically DO NOT want a car or a yard and do not want to leave the historic, walkable city. At that point you’re really screwed because outside of SF there is basically nothing else walkable west of the Mississippi. So there’s nowhere to go.
There are a few other big cities on the west coast, and many of them have towns or small cities nearby that have walkable centers.
LA is world-famous for being non-walkable (even as it simultaneously is getting much better for walkability, hilariously). Seattle just isn't walkable compared to SF.
Surrounding towns of LA, like Pasadena, have nice walkable inner cores, though maybe you'll have to bike commute to work. Also, I found the LA transit system remarkably pleasant and useful, despite its reputation.
Seattle is walkable enough for me. It's not a binary variable.
I would love to buy something... anything better than a fixer upper, within a few minutes of a BART station that would allow me no more than a 60 minute commute into SF, but that doesn’t look realistic on less than a $400K household income. Owning pretty much anything would beat apartment living, even if it is in a rent-controlled $2200, 800 sq ft 2BR (my current situation).
First of all, SF doesn't really qualify. How many live in a neighborhood where their workplace, medical, grocery, and social needs are all walkable to/from?
Car-ownership-hostile != "walkable". Using Lyft/Uber isn't "walking".
Anyway, as to your question: parts of Sacramento, Auburn, Carson City, Eugene, Bend, and Boise all qualify, and that'slimiting to cities I know firsthand. Other cities that I hear this from others include Salem, SLC, ...
Much depends on what you consider to be "normal adult lifestyle". If one's definition of that includes walking through waste and needles to the Folsom St. Fair, SF probably does have a monopoly there.
I think your bar for walkable is lower than mine. Yes there are other places where you can take a nice walk, but I’m talking about living without caring or noticing that you haven’t driven a car in weeks.
Things that I do within two blocks of the flat I live in:
- get groceries
- go to a bakery
- go to one of three coffee shops
- go to one of ten or so restaurants
- go to a comic book store
- go to a game store
- go to a pub
- get my hair cut
- go to the dentist
My two kids, both under school age, at this point can safely walk with me to any of these activities, and, except for the dentist, they often do and quite enjoy it.
I could walk a bit further, but usually bike, and occasionally take transit, to my office, and to literally everything else in my life except the following:
- Trips out of town
- An occasional visit to a Lowes on the other side of town
That’s the bar I’m aiming for.
Note 1, I’m not talking about Manhattan. There’s almost nothing over three stories for several dozen blocks around me, this is all just really ordinary small/medium scale stuff from circa 1900.
And note 2, you asked how many people “really live like that,” and as best I can tell in San Francisco the answer is somewhere between 50 and 90% of the ~million residents. (I don’t know how good every neighborhood is, and I think some are less convenient than mine, but mine is pretty ordinary for SF.)
SF has decent public transit. Disliking public transit is fine, but ignoring it is something else entirely. Muni and Bart do make it possible to get around most of SF without walking or using uber/lyft.
And, given where I live, my medical, grocery, and a significant chunk of my social needs are truly within walking distance. The only one that isn't is work, and that would be accessible via public transit if I was willing to compromise on commute times a bit (or if I changed employers/offices).
Carson City has 4 bus routes serving 150 square miles, San Francisco has close to 100 serving less than 50. Those aren't remotely comparable.
The parent comment asserted walkability. If your environment is walkable, that means you don't need transit/carshare for everyday needs.
Carson City has 4 bus routes
Again, walkable means walkable without transit. My father lived there with daily needs within walking distance. SF is not only not the "only" walkable city, SF isn't generally walkable overall for all everyday destinations (especially hilly streets).
Walkability in the city-planning sense is defined by "lack of need for a car". Improved public transit improves walkability (see the walkability scores on pretty much any site ever), as does mixed use development.
Carson City has a walk score of 34 (although apparently there's a 4 block area in downtown that gets up to the mid 70s). SF has an average of 86. My apartment scores 99. Like I said, there isn't a genuine comparison to be had.
Exactly this. New York City is the very definition of a "walkable" city because you walk to the subway, stand on the subway, walk to work.
Not because you live within walking distance of work, which almost nobody does. That definition of "walkable" would be so tiny to render it almost meaningless.
Muni and Bart do make it possible to get around most of SF
Possible? Yes. They serve most attractions in SF. Not feasible to most of SF, not by a long shot. Look at your transit options between southern Sunset and Dogpatch, for example.
BART cuts one diagonal swath through the SF core only, and it doesn't even connect directly to Caltrain in SF county. It's hardly the Underground.
> Look at your transit options between southern Sunset and Dogpatch, for example.
L transferring to the KT? It doesn't even require a bus.
>BART cuts one diagonal swath through the SF core only, and it doesn't even connect directly to Caltrain in SF county. It's hardly the Underground.
Indeed, I'm not suggesting transit in SF (or the bay area as a whole) is perfect. Far from it. But compared to anywhere else west of the Mississippi (and most of the places east of it), there's nowhere better.
Plenty if you can cycle and get paid over $300k. If you had to, you could buy several walkable-to-work lots and join them into one big one in some cities. Or Uber literally everywhere.
Huh? I was saying a FAANG salary in Columbus Ohio (for exame) probably buys you a car free lifestyle with the style of home you want, especially if you have a working spouse.
Sure, but I bet even FAANG don’t pay $300k in Columbus. Google has an office in Ann Arbor, IIRC (which is a reasonable proxy for Columbus in this scenario). What does a senior engineer make there?
Google does indeed have an office in Ann Arbor. As far as I remember, it's quite light on engineers, though; I'd be surprised if any seniors are there.
Most Silicon Valley companies, including FAANGs, pay less to people outside the Bay Area. Some of them have an official HR policy of doing so and have standardized the salary adjustments for the other cities where they have offices.
Even if you are already at a FAANG in Silicon Valley, you will likely get your salary adjusted down by the standard amount if you move somewhere else. You'd actually have more luck avoiding a pay cut at a startup because they almost always have less rigorous HR policies than FAANGs.
There’s a big difference between places where you can walk (technically that’s almost anywhere) and a city that was built for walking (ie was large before cars).
On the east coast these are much more common, for obvious reasons. Places like Charleston and Savannah have a very similar feel to San Francisco. Some of New Orleans. Most of the center cities in the northeast. A lot of Chicago.
But the common thread here is age of the city and how well it has held on to its historic core. Out west there’s just not much old enough to qualify. Sure, there are some nice small towns here and there with historic main street areas. Portland, Seattle, and Boise have a neighborhood or two. But just ask the question “would you live here without a car?,” and then look at what percentage of the population does. Outside of those aforementioned bits of the country, not owning a car would make life extraordinarily difficult.
I work in SF and most of the people here are here specifically because they DONT want to live on ten acres in some rural place, they love that the city is walkable and dense and interesting.
For most folks the issue of living in condos or apartments it’s an issue at all until they reach a certain family size. At that point, most of the people in the city would be thrilled to live in a 3-4 bedroom townhome in the city — but THAT is where SF gets really difficult, because those cost $4 million or more these days.
Actually for many people they feel trapped because they’d like a LITTLE more space, ie. the Victorian townhome, but they specifically DO NOT want a car or a yard and do not want to leave the historic, walkable city. At that point you’re really screwed because outside of SF there is basically nothing else walkable west of the Mississippi. So there’s nowhere to go.
If somehow magically you could build a 1900s Victorian townhome city about 30’ away by train I think you’d find a couple million urban Californians wanted to move there.
But of course the sprawl all around the job centers, and the regulatory environment, both make that impossible.
Oh well.