Hacker News Reader

Comment by spicyramen | Hacker News Reader

That sounds as if you visited SF for the first time...very good speech for tourism.I have been in Bay Area for 13 years, single, with GF, and now with kids. Good luck with the high real state prices and if you can afford it, is probably overvalued, homeless, drug addicts, lack of good public transportation and Infrastructure (no high speed trains). My take i would live in London.

View on HN

London is dirtier and just as inflicted with "undesirables", unless you're willing to continue paying SF rent prices, or live in zone 3 or beyond.

I don't find London to be dirtier than SF. Also I get the sense that it's a much bigger city in general, and of course your Stratfords will differ significantly from your Westminsters, although this can be said about basically every city.

Also I think London is slightly cheaper. Still, working remotely from London proper is probably a terrible idea given the extent of public transportation. Just live in Croydon and catch overground to London when necessary IMO.

Bad luck, I moved from London to SF a bit more than a year ago and:

* no, London is much much cleaner than SF. I'd rather take a stroll in London.

* there's very little amount of homeless compared to SF. Again, I'd rather take a stroll in London.

I was paying 1300GBP (so around 1500USD) for a one bedroom apartment in Battersea (so zone2). I am now paying 3350USD for a small one bedroom in Castro.

Battersea and Castro aren't comparable. Inner areas East of Shoreditch or north of Regent's Canal are consistently dirtier than SF's worst.

I'm comparing the whole cities. Shoreditch is lovely in my opinion, used to go there every week end.

Whilst you say dirty, they’re actually just more multicultural areas

> London is dirtier and just as inflicted with "undesirables"

Are we talking about the same London and the same SF? I went a whole week in London riding the subway several times a day without seeing anything gross.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com