alt Hacker News> walkability, local activity density, and year round running
The fact that you think SF is the only city in America with these three things and the flippant, sarcastic "guess that makes me part of the very narrow demographic" quip tells me you aren't really approaching this discussion with an open mind.
No city on the planet is perfect. You are making tradeoffs by living where you do, same as I do living where I am.
Why does this idea seem like a personal attack to you? Every single reply you've made in this thread has the subtext "no, nope, not my experience, you're wrong".
Again, you like SF. That's great! It's not for everyone. That's not an assault on your personage.
Replies
I mean this whole thread started with a top level comment declaring “Unless you fit a certain very narrow demographic and career profile, SF is a shitty place to actually live”
That’s a very broad over the top edict, if you don’t like people defending a place maybe it’s best to try to stop the person lighting it on fire?
Seems backward to object to a person essentially saying “it’s actually pretty great if you like XYZ, like many do”
Maybe the reaction is more: what has all of that and as dense a job market (at least for the time being)? Or just a reaction, like I had, calling it a 'shitty place to live'. I'm more than happy for folks to discover other locales and lower the rent but even as a fan of SF, I don't see those smaller cities as fungible unless you've got enough saved to retire, in which case, fair enough.