undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdasil00310y ago0 comments

I've lived in both recently, and London definitely wins for more the more decrepit Victorian stock, but SF is no stranger to the flat conversion phenomenon and I'd say the average living space in the city is not much bigger than London.

However what tips the scales for London being more affordable IMHO is the fact that there is not 500 square miles of water smack in the middle spreading everything out. For instance in London I lived 9 tube stops from the center and it was < 5 miles by bicycle. In the Bay Area I also live 9 BART stops from downtown SF but it is 15 miles, I can't cycle (because no bike path over the bay bridge), and I get less for my money relative to London. Throw on the anemic transit here, and London is much more doable on a budget.

0 comments

thesimon10y ago

>London is much more doable on a budget.

Agree, even though the story is probably a bit different for developers due to the difference in salary.

dasil003OP10y ago

True although that's changing. London salaries outside The City used to seem to top out around £60k, but in recent years that ceiling has been broken. Meanwhile, Google and Facebook still pay ridiculous salaries, but smaller companies can't afford that, and with funding slowing down it's going to lead to even more belt tightening. You might be surprised how many people in tech are working for $50k, $60k, $70k in SF these days.

encoderer10y ago

No engineers are making under $70k in SF unless they traded salary for a lot of equity.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse