View Single Post
  #79  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2007, 5:35 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Shake View Post
Metros like New York and SF are not growing fast enough to provide the affluent suburban lifeestyle of the upper middle management crowd. These metros are great if you are a millionaire or if you are 22 years old, but otherwise not so much.

High density developments may help address some of the housing costs, but the vast majority of Americans want the suburban lifestyle.
You have to be joking. The affluent upper middle management crowd invented most of San Francisco's suburbs and still inhabits them. The SF metro isn't growing, allegedly, because it has spread geographically so far that the areas that are growing don't get counted. The "official" SF-Oakland metro includes Alameda, Contra Costa, SF, San Mateo and Marin Counties. These counties are all pretty much built out. Growth is pretty much a matter of increasing density by building multi-family housing where once was single family. The growth (i.e. "sprawl") is taking place in Sonoma, Napa, Solano and San Joaquin counties. And then there's Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties which I have previously pointed out are in just about every functional way part of the same metro area as SF-Oakland (soon, the "San Francisco 49ers" may well be playing in Santa Clara).

And the city is not just for youth and millionaires. It's becoming also a place for empty-nesters and, of course, in the Bay Area, especially childless couples (gay and straight).
Reply With Quote