1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

$4 toast and the ruin of San Francisco

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by LongTimeListener, Nov 7, 2013.

  1. Mark2010

    Mark2010 Active Member

    Just not worth it.
     
  2. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

    Now that's something I don't think I've ever seen: San Francisco is a hellhole.

    Bakersfield? Yes. San Bernardino? Most certainly. But San Francisco?
     
  3. exmediahack

    exmediahack Well-Known Member

    I am fascinated by the cost-of-living and the preferences people have, depending on their stations in life.

    How some larger-but-not-huge cities are relatively inexpensive to live in (Birmingham, Oklahoma City, Milwaukee, Louisville, Indy, Cincy, Kansas City and Cleveland on the larger end) and some smaller Central Time Zone cities that are not coastal are pricey (Austin, Madison). So much of it is whether it's a "cool" city or not.

    The coasts? Forget it -- unless you're in that 200k household income, I just can't really see getting ahead once you're battling higher mortgages and longer commute times.

    (Yes, I live in the Midwest where a 2,300-sq foot, 4 bedroom with a decent yard and good schools is under 200k.)

    However, I have also declined opportunities in coastal markets because of the cost of living and concerns over commute. About a year go, I was eyeballing a move to Sacramento but had a difficult time finding a similar house to what we have - in a similar school district - for less than 340k. The closest was Vacaville (30 miles away) and I preferred to live in Davis, as I like college towns (usually the public schools are solid by proximity to college).

    Even in opportunities in smaller markets in Maine, Vermont and Pennsylvania, I found housing that would have been financially suffocating and longer commutes.

    Perhaps when the kids are older but, for now, I'll sit back and watch and keep payin' it down.
     
  4. Mark2010

    Mark2010 Active Member

    I have no objection to visiting there. It has some nice qualities. But when your dollar will only buy 60 percent of what it will somewhere else, that's not attractive to me. I'm not just referring to real estate, either.
     
  5. exmediahack

    exmediahack Well-Known Member

    Yes. Add in parking, idling a car in traffic (lower gas efficiency), 40 minutes more onto a daily commute. All of that does add up. Especially the older one gets, moving is more and more difficult.

    I certainly don't want to retire where I current live but, when I look at household median incomes in Southern California, Seattle or the northeast, I wonder how people make it, month-to-month.

    Ten years ago, we were in the 47th percentile of "median income" and now, through good fortune and promotions, we're in the 87th. Yet it would be a financial quagmire if our 180k home here was a 400k home on the coasts and I'm spending more to drive to work, eat lunch/dinner near work, park and drive home.
     
  6. SpeedTchr

    SpeedTchr Well-Known Member

    Sorry, I left out the word "again" after hellhole. Had nothing positive happen in my visits to SF.
     
  7. exmediahack

    exmediahack Well-Known Member

    There definitely is a difference between "great cities to visit" and "kid-friendly cities". I didn't really notice it until I had children.

    We spent eight days in Austin, Texas for a wedding about a decade ago. I had always heard, "Austin is a cool city! You'll love it!".

    If there were no kids, it would have been enjoyable. With two small children, it was a freakin' siege. Parking. Traffic. Expenses. A miserable week. I imagine many of the other places I loved as a childless adult (San Francisco, Miami, NYC, Boston) would have similar experiences. Chicago was, surprisingly, okay with small children.
     
  8. waterytart

    waterytart Active Member

    Boston is a great city for children. You can walk Freedom Trail, ride the duck boats, eat at Quincy Market. If they're still young, you read Make Way For Ducklings before you go, then visit the ducks--statues and real--in the park.

    In fact, all the cities ex listed have fun things to do with kids.
     
  9. I Should Coco

    I Should Coco Well-Known Member

    It's interesting to hear how some major cities "aren't child friendly."

    When we moved to the Northwest with elementary school-aged kids, people said that to us about Seattle. Yet if you do a little research for kid-friendly activities or spots to visit, there's TONS to do with a family in Seattle.

    We found the same thing with Portland, Ore., and the Oregon coast. Great for families.

    Not every vacation has to be Disneyland.
     
  10. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Since I raised both my children in the Boston area, and they have chosen to live here (for now) as young adults, I can only disagree with those who say it's not good for kids.
     
  11. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Let me amend that statement. My wife Alice raised my children, or almost all of it anyway. I was a sportswriter who traveled a lot.
     
  12. Huggy

    Huggy Well-Known Member

    We thought New York was great when we took Huggy Jr. there a few years ago. Vegas (obviously) and San Francisco (way too many hilly streets among other things) not so much.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page