Over the next 15 years, I don’t think the prospects for San Francisco look good. I wouldn’t want to live there and it’s no longer necessary to start a tech company there. Real estate costs are too expensive for what you receive. For the vast majority of companies, it makes sense to staff people in lower-cost cities such as Provo, Boise, and Boulder. Fundraising is one of the biggest benefits of living in San Francisco. But people with strong networks and online audiences can build connections and fly to the Bay Area only when they need to. With that said, I write these words with only 60 percent certainty. Admittedly, I may be under-estimating San Francisco’s network effects and the tacit knowledge required to buy a venture-scale company. If you want to build a billion dollar business, there’s still no better place to be.
Over the next 50 years, I have a positive outlook for the city. It’s destined to be a hot-bed for innovation and economic opportunity. Beyond that, the center of power in America continues to shift towards the San Francisco region. Bay Area built technologies are disrupting the East Coast: New York (finance), Washington D.C. (government), and Boston (academia). The Bay Area will benefit if it retains its network effect on tech-savvy talent.
Most people underestimated the strength of bay area’s network effect. At least the author is cognizant of it and explicitly wrote that as a reason that gave him the most doubt about his predictions.
When we see lots of new startups set up shops in places other than SF we’ll know then SF’s golden days are drawing to a close. Keep an eye on if and when Y Combinator moves its HQ away from SF. Right now SF is still cruising along. Listen to the wolf crying boys at your own financial expenses.
The hippy invasion took over SF in 1967. Population went down over 100k. Quality of life and schools suffered. Now all those old hippy assholes, in rent controlled apartments, are complaining about tech gentrification. Karma is a bitch
It is a law of nature. Success attracts both good and bad. Good stops being good. But, bad becomes badder (is this a right English word?). Until the Good realizes it is too late.
The liberal radical takeover of SF has lead to a highway to hell for the last 50 years. Now the chickens have come home to roost and the innocent Techies are being blamed. Instead of the dirtbags that run the City.
SF is most definitely not hell. If it were it would be in one of the most expensive parts of hell. Median house price here is over 1.3M. People paying 1.3M to live in hell?
The highway to hell is the poopy drug invested streets… Broken car windows and the crazies allowed to roam the streets. In the 19th century vigilantes dealt with it . Let’s see what happens now.
Druggies only in very small part of town. You won’t see much homelessness in Sunset and Richmond for example. It makes for shocking headlines for non-locals. We locals know where they are and work around them.
Working around them won’t solve the problem. As long as liberal politics encourages them they will grow in numbers exponentially.
I have numerous friends had their cars broken into. Something like 100,000 per year. Intolerable. SF tolerance has created an intolerable situation.
It is a beautiful city no doubt but I would really love to see someone come in and clean it up. We have some friends who had something like eight break-in attempts in the first year after buying their $2M condo in a nice but central part of town. We need to get these folks off the streets – being homeless by choice should not be an option.
I would suggest San Mateo. Less crowded, less crime. Easy commute to SF and much better deals. Plenty of good restaurants and no fog. Like I said, most people leave SF especially after becoming a crime victim or having to find a decent safe school.
Yes, looking for a primary. My only goal is “not too pricey” and my wife’s is “not too foggy”. Both are negotiable. I just had that idea three days ago.
