> One one hand, depending exclusively on Bart means you dont get to have SF at night
You can just go to SF earlier and crash at your friends. For me I did a combination of crashing at friend's places and carpooling for the ride back.
I also going to guess that using Uber once in a while would still be cheaper than renting or owning in SF.
> Oakland has bigger commute, and lots of shady areas, including some eventful bart stations
Just like SF, you don't have to live in Oakland. There are many other cities in the Bay Area metro. Also Oakland is gentrifying. Not too long ago, a lot of places in SF were sketchy as well.
> If you live in Palo alto and work in San Francisco, you are going to have a hell of a daily commute.
Wake up a little earlier and use Caltrain. It's great for bikes too.
Living outside of SF isn't super hard. It's just not as easy as making up a million excuses as to why you need to live within SF.
Crashing on friends houses is not really a solution, its something some people can sometimes do.
Using Uber for long distances: figure 10 rides a month (which means you only go out twice a week at night) at 60 bucks each is 600 dollars a month. Most of your rent advantage from being in many places in SF in comparison to Daly city is going to be kept by the expensive commute.
I mention Oakland because of the parent post. Its a place many people go to because Bart gets there, but its far from being a panacea.
Even with Caltrain you have commute issues: you have limited time options, and it still takes a long time. And Palo alto is not cheap either.
You don't HAVE to live in SF, almost nobody does. The point is that all the other options have a high price of convenience which is up to people's lifestyle.
I made friends with several people in Oakland and the commute was always an issue in designing where to go for drinks or dinner, because either part gets locked in the other zone after Bart is out.
If you live far away, there's a high probability that you'll also make friends where you live. There's also a decent probability that one of them will have a car and will want to hang out with you in SF on the weekend from time to time. If you live in a place like Palo Alto, there's also a strong chance that you're not going to want to hang out in SF every weekend as well.
> I mention Oakland because of the parent post... And Palo alto is not cheap either.
There are many other cities in the Bay Area that are accessible with either Bart or Caltrain. Like you I only mentioned Palo Alto because of a parent comment.
> The point is that all the other options have a high price of convenience which is up to people's lifestyle.
Well I felt that the way people were complaining about not being able to live in SF is like they were going to be homeless. The price of a little convenience is not high when you are flexible and adaptable.
My only real point is that if you have a problem, you'll probably find a decent solution for it.
You can just go to SF earlier and crash at your friends. For me I did a combination of crashing at friend's places and carpooling for the ride back.
I also going to guess that using Uber once in a while would still be cheaper than renting or owning in SF.
> Oakland has bigger commute, and lots of shady areas, including some eventful bart stations
Just like SF, you don't have to live in Oakland. There are many other cities in the Bay Area metro. Also Oakland is gentrifying. Not too long ago, a lot of places in SF were sketchy as well.
> If you live in Palo alto and work in San Francisco, you are going to have a hell of a daily commute.
Wake up a little earlier and use Caltrain. It's great for bikes too.
Living outside of SF isn't super hard. It's just not as easy as making up a million excuses as to why you need to live within SF.