[lemonlime]

If SF was unattractive, it wouldn't cost $2,500-$3,000 to live in mediocre housing with 6 housemates.

Even people that don't have high paying tech jobs are lining up to pay these kinds of insane prices. They don't want to pay the prices, but it's worth it to live in an area like SF.

One of the only places on the planet in human history that people put this much energy and money into just living somewhere.

[twiceaday]

"Nobody drives in LA. There's too much traffic!"

[mikebenfield]

Obviously there is some level of demand to live in SF, and that's part of the explanation for the high cost of living.

But the factor really driving up rent and real estate prices is the massive resistance in SF and the Bay Area in general to building new housing.

[bcrosby95]

It's being driven up everywhere. SF just started higher.

[arcticbull]

In part yes, but also, SF was especially resistant to building new houses. So much so it even has a Wikipedia article on its obstinance. [1]

> For example, from 2012 to 2016, the San Francisco metropolitan area added 373,000 new jobs, but permitted only 58,000 new housing units.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage

[inferiorhuman]

Don't confuse the city and county of San Francisco with the whole bay area. There are NIMBYs just like everywhere else out here, but San Francisco is already one of the most densely populated cities in the country. You don't have to look very far (e.g. Brisbane) to see places with little-to-no housing fighting new developments tooth and nail.

[arcticbull]

While I agree, being among the most densely populated areas in a country that's mostly empty ain't much to write home about. It's basically just apologism. I know it needs to happen everywhere, I just have a particular disdain for SF city politics.

[raverbashing]

I guess living in SF is like buying a boat. You're happy when moving there but much happier when moving out