London vs San Francisco – back and forth

http://jh47.com/2016/03/01/london-vs-san-francisco/

by edfryed • 10 years ago

112 129 10 years ago

dovdov• 10 years ago

Thankfully both became great tech hubs, so you can easily avoid them.

dmix• 10 years ago

Regarding the "how did these guys raise so much money?" thing. I'm afraid this is mostly just a sampling bias - one that I've experienced as well.

Here's why: the people who forever can't find good talented engineers are usually the bad companies with bad ideas. Getting capital from MBA-educated VC's isn't that challenging or any significant validation of success (although still a notable one).

So you are more likely to come across a large number of the crazy ones who can't find engineers/designers during your recruiting phase coming from out of town.

Once you build a network you will start to be invited to work for good startups and smart people. Good companies recruit via networks until they reach scale.

neximo46• 10 years ago

Please tell someone this in Australia with a straight face (and London, but things have slightly changed over the past 2 or so year). It is not as easy to get capital as you think..

There is a difference in company culture in the US and the non US tech-spheres. The US isn't conservative at all in its approach to get growth & this is reflected in fund raise sizes.

CM30• 10 years ago

I don't know about that. I'd say over in the UK (and maybe a lot of places outside of the US), investors are definitely more cautious about how much they'll invest. I mean, over here, getting an investment of a few hundred thousand pounds is treated like a decent deal, where it's seen as pocket change to a Silicon Valley investor.

Which all kind of feeds into why getting talented engineers is difficult here. Cause the money you raise isn't enough to pay the kind of wages they're used to in San Francisco, nor market the business quite as much.

And people are definitely more cautious here too. Over in the US, it seems people will start a business or invest in one on the off chance it might potentially succeed at some distant point. Over here, it's 'prove your business is making/will very quickly make money or get out'. And the good engineers (if they haven't moved somewhere with better wages) will probably be at larger companies, which their friends and relatives say is a 'safe' career choice.

jritchie2• 10 years ago

In London, tech does not rule the city. No single industry does. Not even finance.

Apart from the City, which is quite literally ruled by the finance industry. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London#Elections

lmm10• 10 years ago

The City is one small area where hardly anyone actually lives.

jritchie2• 10 years ago

Approximately 7,000 residents [1], but over 400,000 employees. [2]

[1] http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/environment-and-plan...

[2] http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/economic-research-an...

neximo46• 10 years ago

How is this different to SF (the 'city' in London isn't actually that big and smaller if you mean 'the square mile'), I assume most people commute to SF in as well?

It's not an apt comparison as firms are geographically distributed all over the bay area.

lhnz• 10 years ago

Yeah, but the The City is a tiny pebble in comparison to London. I'm sure there are plenty of places in London that size that are dominated by one industry (though none with their own laws.)

eistrati• 10 years ago

Very interesting read, but also very sad. I think the local authorities in San Francisco are the ones that have to wake up and invest quickly into growing up the infrastructure to accommodate the influx of talent. Otherwise the exodus will hurt everyone and it's already happening (e.g. http://qz.com/627414/tech-workers-are-increasingly-looking-t...)

generic_user3• 10 years ago

The housing situation has been in the same state with the same dynamics for over 20 years even before the first bubble started in 2000.

The vast majority will simply never be able to afford a house there. The only way that could possibly be attempted would be to build massive condos everywhere like you see in some Asian cities. That would kill the character of SF. No one wants to have a huge condominium plunked down into there neighbourhood and I can't blame them.

ropiku• 10 years ago

I don't want to turn this into yet another housing debate. SF (and especially SV) is generally low density. You can easily double the density and you would be nowhere near Manhattanization.

david-given2• 10 years ago

Come to Switzerland. Four to five story apartment blocks everywhere; quiet, green, safe, underground parking everywhere, gorgeous and huge flats at reasonable prices, and despite having a pretty high population density it feels way less crowded than my old terrace in the UK.

BashiBazouk• 10 years ago

The other thing about the SF character that many don't talk about: the tech sector may be here to stay, or not, but tourism has been a large part of the SF economy for a century. Don't kill a long term industry by over building for another industry of uncertain longevity...

gedy• 10 years ago

The only way that could possibly be attempted would be to build massive condos everywhere

But that's exactly what they've done in the past, look at the rows and rows of houses that people live in now and are part of "the character" of SF

rib3ye• 10 years ago

He thinks SF is multicultural? By that standard Oakland must be Africa.

neximo46• 10 years ago

This comment isn't very good. For one thing Africa is very very diverse (heck the most genetically diverse place on Earth) and full of different cultures, including western cultures.

Also 'Africa' isn't very closed off to the rest of the world contrary to what you may believe. Things have changed over the past few decades.

If you're going to generalise you might want to visit Africa before comparing her to something else, or mention a city that is a more apt comparison to Oakland.

sehr3• 10 years ago

They're not saying Africa isn't diverse, they're saying if SF is diverse, then Oakland is REALLY diverse (aka Africa)

chillaxtian• 10 years ago

favorite bit:

"The world is a big place, and it’s really not that unique. It’s not a utopia to be built through a technological elite. It’s a city, where people live."

stickydink• 10 years ago

I moved here with my wife from the UK on a H1-B a few years ago now.

Three weeks ago we drove (less than 1hr) to Stinson Beach, spent all day hiking the hills, spectacular views of the Bay, the City and the Farallon Islands in the distance.

Two weeks ago we drove to Monterey, took a Whale Watching boat ride for a few quid. We spent an hour watching a group of Orca hunt Sea Lion a couple hundred feet away.

Last weekend, we drove to Tahoe. Spent two days learning to ski, hung out with friends in our cabin.

This is all in February, the weather has been great. I don't know what we're doing next weekend, but it's probably not something that was in driving distance back home.

It's obviously a personal preference thing, but for me, the lifestyle matters far more than the job. Both me and my wife couldn't stand London any more. It's great for a visit, but that's my fill.

arethuza4• 10 years ago

Edinburgh here - we've got the hiking, spectacular views (and then some), islands, aquatic beasties, skiing 2 hours away. Even some nice big bridges.

You may have a point about the weather though! ;-)

[NB Obviously I forgot to mention the history, culture, the festivals, an ancient castle on the plug of an extinct volcano, glorious architecture....]

Weather can be a bit grim though.... (and has been particularly miserable this winter).

m1sta_• 10 years ago

2hrs to skiing where?

david-given2• 10 years ago

Edinburgh is one of the Great Cities of the world.

I apologise for the BuzzFeed, but the pictures are worth it: http://www.buzzfeed.com/hilarywardle/edinburgh-is-the-best

drcongo• 10 years ago

I live in London, three weeks ago I drove (more than 1hr) 4 miles into the town centre.

roymurdock• 10 years ago

Thank you for this well-placed gem of British humour. Although it begets the question - with the excellent bus and tube system, why drive?

lmm10• 10 years ago

I'm not sure I follow? There are plenty of fascinating things to see or do within an hour's drive of London - it's not like cars go faster in the US, and if anything there's more variety in a small area in dense England.

100timesthis2• 10 years ago

I think they are talking about beautiful natural places where you can spend sometimes alone. It's my biased interpretation, living in London I don't care about musicals, museums (just because they are always full of people) or anything with concrete in it or crowded, I just want a beautiful place where I can spend some time alone.

laurencerowe4• 10 years ago

Getting out of London into proper countryside does take some time. One of the things I missed when I moved to London from Manchester was being able to take a train to the edge of town and walk out into the Peak District. Now that I live in San Francisco I can easily drive out somewhere nice, but still miss being able to take the train and enjoy a couple of pints at the end of my hike!

caoilte2• 10 years ago

Good call. It would have to be Munich for a similar Euro experience.

lukesheard• 10 years ago

I have to complete agree with this. I was lucky enough to live in the Bay until September last year and the variety is just unparalleled. There's something about having the moderate whether where you live and then being able to travel in at most 5 hours between a desert or a ski resort that is unrivaled.

sulam• 10 years ago

So, I moved to SF in 1994 in my early 20's, which means my bona fides are longer than the OP, but still not native. However, from the greater baseline I can say a few things that won't be easily available to someone having lived in SF for a year:

1) public transit has sucked since well before the tech boom. When I moved to SF Oracle was probably the northernmost tech company of note (not counting Autodesk in San Rafael!) and the center of mass was decidedly in Mountain View. Today center mass is probably Foster City or perhaps Burlingame. Also, because the commute was only slightly less bad (CalTrain in particular hasn't improved much over the intervening 22 years) and there was no shuttle system, very few people chose to live in SF and commute south. And yet Muni was awful -- I worked in "Multimedia Gulch" (what the area around South Park used to be called) -- and typically if I wanted to get to work in any reasonable amount of time I had to take a cab. Today you'd take Uber, but same story.

2) Homelessness / dirtiness were just as present, if not worse. The Mission corridor was much worse, and parts of the Tenderloin have made huge improvements. Not to mention the tent cities around Rincon, the dramatic difference in the Embarcadero, Hayes Valley, and the Presidio. The Sunset and Richmond are mostly unchanged, and Visitacion Valley is still a part of town no one you work with goes to. :)

3) Housing prices -- ok, this is the one place where things truly have gotten incredibly, insanely worse. My efficiency in the city cost $600/month in October 1994. An equivalent space today costs $2100/month. There's a lot of things contributing to this, but I honestly think the shuttles are a huge part of the demand side of the problem. And of course the supply side has many well-documented shortcomings.

3) The number of silly companies getting started? Well, companies are just people, and honestly the number of silly people with crazy ideas in SF feels mostly unchanged. Their motivations are dramatically different, though. Today many of the most silly ones are simply in it for the money. Back in the mid-90's the people with rich fantasy life were all artists of the starving type. ;)

ghaff5• 10 years ago

San Francisco is an extreme case. But somewhat similar dynamics apply to a number of US cities. Up through the early 90s or so, companies were far more likely to be moving out of the city rather than moving in. Boston/Cambridge had very little tech (and what they had was mostly consulting) at that time. Everything was out at Route 128, 495, or even southern New Hampshire.

Furthermore, the majority of the people I knew weren't particularly interested in living in the city. Some of that was because it would have required a longer commute. But, in general, there wasn't even a particular preference among recent grads for living in town. Some did, but it wasn't the norm or even especially common in my experience. This is partly because, by and large, US cities were not as pleasant places at that time and this in turn led to less investment in transit, etc.

henson2• 10 years ago

Author here. This is fascinating to read! I (naively) assumed that things were better across the board prior to any of the tech booms. I lived in SF and commuted to San Mateo which was a non-trivial trip (coming from the tiny UK) and the BART/Caltrain combination was horrendous for different reasons (Caltrain was unreliable, BART was dirty). I did notice that a lot of the Caltrains were old Japanese trains from the 80s. Also, my rent here in London isn't that much different to my rent in SF, but I'm told I got very, very lucky there. Thanks for reading!

dboreham2• 10 years ago

I don't remember anything prior to the mid-70's but I have a distinct impression that cities everywhere in the western world were much dirtier and crime-ridden in the past (things began to improve around the 1980s, or Rudy Giuliani time).

orthoganol3• 10 years ago

"London and San Francisco are very different cities; I like London more."

Sorry, but it's just such apples and oranges and talked about at such a vague level in only 1 minute worth of content. It deserves a significantly more detailed treatment if you want to do justice to the topic.

nakedrobot22• 10 years ago

This is like Stalin vs. Hitler

London: gloomy, tremendously overcrowded, stressed people everywhere, binge drinking until 11pm and then you're out of luck, spineless european investors, and a cost of doing business so high due to high rents and expenses, that the Startup scene is really a non-starter.

SF: The frat boys have won, the nerds are a long-gone memory, the city is eating itself with brogrammers while america's homeless population of unfortunate veterans and mentally ill, pile up on the streets, looking in on the privileged class. The gridlocked system prevents even basic infrastructure enjoyed by most other civilized part of the world to exist (trains, housing, etc.)

Hitler vs. Stalin.

Live somewhere else. It is a wonderful world out there.

Try Prague for example. Safe, easy, cheap, full of great tech talent. Just to give one example.

lgieron3• 10 years ago

Live somewhere else.

There is a catch though - for programmers, London is by far the best paying city in Europe (except maybe Swiss cities).

onion2k• 10 years ago

In terms of gross salary, absolutely. In terms of net earnings after paying for the cost of living in London, probably not. I'm quite sure I could double or even triple my salary by moving to London, but my quality of life would very likely go down. For a start, where I live I can afford to buy a house. On a multiple of my income in London I don't think I could do that.

I see no value in earning more just to pass the money directly to my landlord.

pjc50• 10 years ago

Pay needs to be compared not at nominal exchange rates but at purchasing-power-parity, including real estate.

nakedrobot22• 10 years ago

Oh God Please - in terms of cost of living and quality of life, your mileage may vary, but for many people, you can't do any worse.

wdmeldon• 10 years ago

I think one of the biggest issues with, say Prague as you suggested, is the language barrier. Sure 50+% of people speak English, but that's still a huge transition for someone who has only ever lived in an English speaking country.

stcredzero2• 10 years ago

SF: The frat boys have won, the nerds are a long-gone memory, the city is eating itself with brogrammers

Bravo! What we have in SF are the social dynamics of Mad Men with the supposed trappings of "geekdom." There's still bullying, it just doesn't happen in the locker room, and the pretexts have different texts.

orthoganol3• 10 years ago

The "Brogrammer" is nothing more than the "Other" that certain people in SF likes to project all their unhappiness into, because they are unable to think very critically about social issues in the city. Lazy thinking. I've met maybe 2, my entire 6 years living in SF as a programmer. CEOs, finance, sales, marketing is where the actual SF bros are. When someone complains about the "brogrammer epidemic" it's not unreasonable to claim they may have some issues of their own they are dealing with.

kinnth• 10 years ago

I currently live in London and have never lived in SF but have travelled every year for GDC (games developer conf) for 1 week a year.

I tend to agree with the author. The place is lovely, it's almost like a heaven on earth with almost all ameneties, temperatures and people within a 3h driving time from SF, but for some reason London with it's grey grimey and dirty history has more appeal. Perhaps it's the fact that you can explore and get lost down a back alley, or that your friends tell you about this new bar which started up but is in zone 4 and you just have to see it.

I also like the fact that Tech is an asside and people are key. I don't want to live in a bubble but I love what I do. I admire mingling with the theatre crowd or simply watching the tourists navigate the bus timetables.

I think everyone has their preference, but both are fun for different reasons.

Now if you want a real up and coming tech city, I would suggest Berlin.

wozniacki2• 10 years ago

People generally agree that it rains between 140 and 160 days a year on average, in London.

Do you ever get acclimated to the constant soggyness / dampness, the mugginess & the lack of steady bright sunlight even if you were born & raised there ?

Especially when you have to live in such small quarters without ample backyards, which are puny even by SF standards.

I don't know if Seattle gets such frequent rainfall although the total rainfall might actually be higher [1]. But I couldn't live in a place enveloped with constant dampness. It just drives me nuts. Dryness is something I've to have.

[1] https://www.quora.com/Why-does-it-rain-so-often-in-London/an...

Ntrails• 10 years ago

I mean, I wasn't born and raised in London but in England. I honestly don't know what any other weather would be like. Anything short of downpour is just wetness, a little drizzle is completely fine.

Also. As if people in London have back yards...

mattlondon2• 10 years ago

Summers can be very hot and dry (not guaranteed!) - 30-35c is not unheard of - with crisp blue skies, 15-16 hours of sunlight etc. There are a lot parks and green spaces in London so its easy to find space - there is a LOT of green/coast/sea etc near London as well so very easy to get out. The jet stream means although we're fairly north we get mild weather considering.

The statistics are probably misleading - it is not raining every other day (although sometimes it is). Its not constantly soggy, but certainly damper than California. Winters can get dark really early though which is a bit annoying.

The main problem is that people don't have air conditioning, so although it sometimes gets hotter than Egypt etc in the summer, you cant cool down apart form sit in your car or go and hang out in the supermarket in the chiller sections!

hibikir• 10 years ago

The soggyness and lack of sunlight is common in Europe, even as far South as Northern Spain: My hometown averages 130+ days of rain, and everyone lives in a condo: Backyards just don't exist. I currently live in the middle of the US, and have done so for almost two decades. I have over half an acre of yard, a house that would be considered a small palace in Spain, and average precipitation days is under 100, and a good 10 of those are snow.

And yet, if the job market was even remotely close, I'd move to northern Spain in a millisecond, because quality of living is more about low stress and making what you want to do convenient, rather than about rain and backyards.

Symbiote2• 10 years ago

constant

Nothing about the weather in England is especially constant. On average, it rains more than some places. But mostly people appreciate the change — it's nice to have a week of clear blue skies in the winter, but it wouldn't be appreciated if the whole month was like that.

And, of course people are acclimatized to it. People are born and used to living in Greenland, or the Sahara. London is easy!

San Francisco is actually more humid in the mornings than London, year round.

Look at the bottom for average conditions (humidity etc):

http://www.bbc.com/weather/2643743

http://www.bbc.com/weather/5391959

100timesthis2• 10 years ago

for me one of the best things in London is the weather, as it never gets too hot, It's sunny but not too much, and it doesn't rain as much as you would expect. But I have to say that I really hate too much sun and heat.

clock_tower• 10 years ago

Do you ever get acclimated to the constant soggyness / dampness, the mugginess & the lack of steady bright sunlight even if you were born & raised there ?

I think you have to be born to it. I'm of mostly West Country and Bavarian stock; growing up in the American South, where the cooking's from Scotland and the weather's from India, was hellish for me. I'm in Seattle now, and absolutely loving the cold and damp. I expect I'd enjoy Britain still more, when and if I get the chance to visit or maybe move there, since it offers cold, damp, and history; but I wouldn't want to live in a dry, hot climate any more than a wet, hot one.

libertine• 10 years ago

You should try Lisbon - it's not quite there yet in the tech and startup scene, but it's getting there.

Awesome weather with nearby beach's, rich history and culture, really cheap when compared to London, it's way smaller and therefore more "cozy" - the only problem is the hills if you want to ride bikes.

cylinder• 10 years ago

What's the fascination with bars? I'd much rather be atop a hill with a view of the ocean and clear sunny skies over me than sitting in a dark room filled with drunks that looks like all the other dark rooms filled with drunks around the city.

lmm10• 10 years ago

On a sunny Sunday afternoon sure - and there's a great park culture in London under those circumstances. But after work, in bad weather and/or winter? I want a room, a "third place" for socializing (and I want alcohol available there, because I'm bad at socializing without it). Americans tend to call such places bars (as a Brit I wouldn't generally think of them as that). They're certainly not all dark rooms that look alike.

tamersalama• 10 years ago

I have stayed in London for around 1 year. It's lovely. How easy it is to find work in London (for a Canadian)?

caoilte2• 10 years ago

Lots of work, but getting harder every year to employ people without visa.

Synroc• 10 years ago

Is it better if you're EU?

tomp2• 10 years ago

I wonder what a similar comparision between London and New York would be... Anyone has a good link?

ghaff5• 10 years ago

This answer from Kim-Mai Cutler on Quora that I read recently seems pretty spot-on to me. (She's also written about housing in SF.)

https://www.quora.com/How-does-London-compare-to-New-York-Ci...

yandie• 10 years ago

I haven't visited the US but having been to London multiple times, it's not THAT multi-cultural (maybe by British standard). It's definitely the most multi-cultural place in the UK, but compared to Australia where I've been to a couple times with my Australian fiance, it was a bit of a let down.

mattlondon2• 10 years ago

I visit SF and Silicon Valley fairly regularly from London (where I live so potentially biased).

I am always, always, always shocked by the homelessness (and the mental state of those poor souls) in SF. People call London a dirty, unfriendly city but I've NEVER gotten any trouble from any of the homeless people in London apart form the usual begging, yet in SF its pretty much guaranteed you're going to get hassled/shouted-at/shoved/threatened by one of the homeless people once or twice per visit as you just go about your business.

I was considering moving to SF to work a while back. Housing is not cheap for sure, it is probably around about the same as London ... except in London if you pay $4000/month you dont get a vagrant shitting on your doorstep.

It is a genuinely shocking situation in SF. I am permanently shocked by the homelessness. It is terrible but no one seems to want/be able to do anything about it.

scarmig• 10 years ago

We do manage to spend a quarter billion dollars a year on homelessness in San Francisco, amounting to tens of thousands per homeless person. And that doesn't even count costs that hospitals and medical centers have to spend on ODs, various stabbings, etc. So finances aren't the issue.

If I had to identify the issue, it's that there's a lot of status quo players who comfortably exist in the current state of things (after all, that's a lot of money floating around). The people who suffer worst from the state of affairs (the homeless themselves) pretty much have no political pull or people looking out for their well-being, and the rest of us get shouted down if we complain about having to step over used syringes and human shit as we open the door to our apartments every day ("you think you have it bad? Think how bad they have it!")

Last month, I was walking through SoMa with my boyfriend, and a homeless guy literally came up and punched him in the back of the head for absolutely no reason at all. He walked off, we called the police, an officer came, and his response was basically.. "well, what do you want me to do about it? There's no point in arresting him." Even though the perp was standing on the corner like half a block away.

As a city, we need to decide whether the homeless are autonomous people who can be held responsible for their actions, or whether they are desperate souls who really can't be expected to care or look out for themselves and really don't have any "rights" beyond being treated humanely and compassionately. Only the latter really makes sense in my view, but this in between place of "they can do whatever they want no matter the ill effects on the community, but we're morally required to continue to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at their self-described champions every year with no improvement in the situation" is ridiculous.

wozniacki2• 10 years ago

Without repeating the same oft-repeated policy wonk points from either side of the debate, could we NAME / LIST the PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS who BENEFIT from the PREVAILING HOMELESSNESS INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX and thus benefit from undergirding the STATUS QUO?

Anyone know who owns the majority of the city's SROs?

I'd start there.

Look, as we speak the DPW trucks are dismantling some of the tents on Division St. [1][2] However longtime residents of SF will tell you that it doesn't even merit a small applause. SF's homelessness problem isn't even dinged much less dented.

The city hall's money purses aren't kept overflowing by the likes of you and me - at least not yet in any meaningful way, although the likelihood of the emergence of a strong technology voting block / interest group isn't far away.

Until then identifying the key players who sustain this very flawed complex, is in itself a great first stab.

[1] https://twitter.com/amyhollyfield/status/704657181665169408

[2] https://twitter.com/VaughanChip/status/704702716484825088

AJ007• 10 years ago

Is homeless the right word to use here?

This word is used to describe a very wide range of people, some of who are not homeless. Americans are very tolerant. Many have no problem handing a heroin addict cash and actually feel really good about themselves after doing it.

I've walked Manhattan alone at all hours, I've been in the worst neighborhoods of Chicago, bad neighborhoods in Brooklyn, major cities in the developing world alone on foot at night with no other caucasian in sight, all over Mexico, along with many other places and the one place where I am very aware of my surroundings and concerned is SF. I do not live there and never have, so that is as much opinion I can give.

simonebrunozzi• 10 years ago

London is a real city, an Alpha++ City even [0].

San Francisco, and Silicon Valley, have millions of inhabitants but they are not a proper city. They are a collection of a sizable provincial city (SF) and many "suburb" cities.

This, in my mind, makes the most difference.

By the way, the homelessness issue is mostly in SF and East Bay. If you go down the peninsula, you don't see it much.

Oh, last but not least: the weather in the Bay Area is generally nicer.

[0] http://www.spottedbylocals.com/blog/alpha-beta-and-gamma-cit...

whybroke• 10 years ago

Doing something about it would require more than token governmental policy benefiting the poorest of society and an admission that the current insufficiently controlled system will always destroy some lives. Both ideas are deeply contrary to the current American narrative.

Instead you will get a vocal minority of people saying the homeless choose to live that way or that they are made homeless by rent control or public housing or excess regulation. Since this matches most American's world view, it is accepted without evidence.

It is a society that will always strive to raise housing prices not lower them, more willing to give handouts to defaulting mortgage holders than to give housing to the homeless, and more willing to jail the homeless than to house them. And so the situation worsens as it has for 30 years.

The best SF can do is put endless bandaids on a small part of a national problem.

T2_t2• 10 years ago

Because they care. In the USA, (non-resident) I find that almost every bad thing usually has a really nice, positive flipside.

SF spends so much on the homeless that, ironically, it attracts them. In fact, Las Vegas has sent homeless there: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/11/2602391/san-franc...

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record... shows that $241 million was spent - that's so very much for a metro area of 8 million people.

In a country of 300 million, you only need a very slight incentive and things get weird, and the SF attitude to homeless, the food they give out, the shelters, the climate, all encourage homeless to move there or, worse, get sent there by less scrupulous states.

I am never sure if this is a really nice or a really bad thing for SF. I'm kinda thinking both.

ninjaroar• 10 years ago

Can anyone comment on the dating scene for heterosexual males in SF vs London? I've been considering moving to SF, but the male-female ratio makes me think dating will be hard and I do want to find someone to settle down with at some point...

Swizec2• 10 years ago

I did the whole PUA thing for a while in SF. If you want to, going on 3 to 4 dates per week is doable, 2 per week is easy. Everyone is also very sex positive so getting laid regularly isn't hard either.

After a few months of that I wound up liking a girl enough for more than a first date. We were sort of living together within 3 months of meeting.

That last part happens fast in SF because rent is high and sharing rent helps.

SpeakMouthWords• 10 years ago

PUA

I'm assuming the person you're relying to is excluding borderline megalomania from their calculations.

orthoganol3• 10 years ago

London wins, it's 10 x population. SF has a lot of very impressive, well credentialed guys you're competing with, in a relatively small pool. If you're also "impressive" you might do well, but if you're just another programmer or finance guy, or wannapreneur good luck. I know a lot of girls who have told me how impressive the dating pool is in SF. Throwing PC to the wind: You'll find someone but you'll probably take a downgrade in attractiveness and will have less options overall. That said, there's a ton of really cool people here, probably in greater concentration than any world city.

If you like Asian girls, you are in the right city. From where I'm coming from, NYC is the ultimate city for dating in the US for heterosexual men. Ignore the self-proclaimed PUA guy. They exaggerate because their identities are so tied to it, and they sink an exorbitant amount of time and mindshare, unless they are exceptionally charming/ good looking/ have really good jobs, in which case they shouldn't apply their standards or expectations to others so casually.

s3nnyy2• 10 years ago

A tech job in Europe does not mean Berlin or London. Zurich has the ETH university and the biggest Google office outside the US. It is a great place to live and is the only place where net-salaries are on par with the Bay Area.

Salaries are in the range of 7000 - 10.000 CHF / month after taxes and apartments can be way cheaper than in San Francisco.

Zurich is expensive but als tiny. Almost everyone lives "in the suburbs" where the rents are half as much and which only means a 10-15 min commute[1] to town (using the superb public transport).

I am a technical recruiter with a software engineering background and I live in Zurich. You find my email address in my HN-handle.

hollerith• 10 years ago

Can an American citizen without a college degree and without a million dollars in savings gain the right to live in Switzerland permanently ("permanent residency") if he can get a job there?

s3nnyy2• 10 years ago

If you do not hold a Swiss / EU-passport, it is hard. A Swiss company can get you a work permit, if they can prove to the authorities that no other suitable candidate could be found in Switzerland / in the EU. This can be done if the company really wants you.

So unless you are an expert in some field AND a company really knows you, the chances are unfortunately low. :(

jernfrost• 10 years ago

I've only been briefly in San Fransisco. As a non American I think there is a certain exhilaration with these American cities. All sorts of people talk to you, while at the same time American cities to me often seem quite scary and dangerous, but often in a kind of exciting way.

I remember my first day in San Fransisco in the tenderloin district. It felt like I was walking in a real world grand theft auto with dangerous gang bangers, people yelling and each other across the streets and gangs of though guys on the corners. It was both exciting and scary.

But I also met very open minded and exciting people and went to some really nice restaurants.

But as this Londoner describes it. All sorts of transport and infrastructure seemed absolutely terrible in SF. I was surprised that this sort of tech capital of the world was so run down in many ways. The airport was an awful mess, and subway getting there was really filthy.

I've been to London a number of times. Kind of hard to compare. Despite being much bigger I actually felt safer in London, and it has great public transport. What the tech scene is like I have no idea. But I come from small town Norway so London is way too big for me. My favorite city is Amsterdam in the Netherlands.

cjslep• 10 years ago

I've been to SF and Oslo for business. The homelessness in Oslo seemed only near the Nationaltheatret, whereas it was much more widespread in SF. Granted, I was there in the summer and have no idea where they would go come the hard winter.

DrNuke• 10 years ago

London? Manchester is equally viable for business, Bristol has better quality of life and Edinburgh is top for arts. Each for 1/3 - 1/2 of the cost. Even cheaper is Birmingham, and strategically located in the West Midlands. Who needs the rat race in London if you work with computers?

henson2• 10 years ago

I would agree about Bristol (not that I disagree with the others, I just don't know them that well). I studied there and it is a good compromise between active industry and the laid-back West Country attitude. Working self-employed from London allows me to sidestep the rat-race to some extent however, whilst enjoying a great tech scene and good transport connections.

oesmith• 10 years ago

I'm looking forward to Google opening an office in Bristol. Until then, I'm stuck on a daily commute from Bath to London.

The commute sucks, but I couldn't stand living in London (nor SF or the bay for that matter).

lmm10• 10 years ago

Google's offices at Victoria? I can understand wanting to live outside London, but surely there are optinos that would at give you a shorter commute - Caterham? Epsom? Dorking? Sevenoaks? Brighton even?

laurencerowe4• 10 years ago

Manchester is a great place to live, but the UK is so London-centric finding interesting non-remote work there was a challenge. The BBC opening a big office there did help though.

scholia• 10 years ago

Not sure why there's such a concentration on San Francisco: it's a much smaller place than London (10m inhabitants).

As a Londoner, I've visited tech companies in San Francisco, but also in San Jose, Santa Clara, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Cupertino, Sunnyvale and various other places. They're not all the same.

However, in the UK, a lot of tech companies are similarly spread out around the M4 corridor. Wikipedia says: "this part of the M4 Corridor is sometimes described as England's Silicon Valley" and includes "Slough, Windsor, Maidenhead, Reading, Bracknell and Newbury". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_corridor

That seems to me to be a more useful comparison....

dpatterson2008• 10 years ago

Have to say this was a good write up. Having lived in London for 25 years of my life I am now living in Toronto on a holiday working visa for a development company. Never visited SF but the things I've heard about SF seems quite true. This is an Apples and Oranges topic, but being a former Londoner I have to say you will never be short of a job in the tech scene. To some degree I feel in the climate we live in Finance and Technology is what is running the heart of London right now.

ozy123• 10 years ago

I've lived and worked in the UK most of my life and moved to SF three years ago. There were a few things you omitted in your comparison but probably won't immediately apparent in the short time you were here.

Salary difference. On average Most decent experienced devs in London make around 50-60k pounds which is around 80-85k dollars. An entry level dev in SF makes anywhere between 90 - 120k dollars and most experienced devs earn at least 120k dollars with the range around 110-150k. So roughly a 30-60k+ dollar/year difference.

Healthcare. Almost all the companies I've worked for have covered my healthcare costs so I only have to pay copays - as an idea 20 dollars to see my GP and 30 to see a specialist. I had 8 weeks of physio last year and my total out of pocket was around 600 dollars including a CT scan, which I could pay using pre tax dollars. So the overall cost was pretty low. I also got to see a physio the same day rather than waiting 6 weeks+ on the NHS. My total max out of pocket is 3000 meaning I don't pay anything more than that. Given the significantly higher salary even if I were to hit my max it would still be worth it.

The cost of living is comparable although certain things are cheaper - gas, trainers(sneakers), car insurance to name a few. Food is roughly the same I reckon.

Overall working in London vs working in the US I saved significantly more money - it's not even close. Although a tin of heinz beans costs two dollars so that's made a pretty big dent in my savings ;-)

laurencerowe4• 10 years ago

It is difficult to find a well paid senior developer job in London. I'm not sure if this is the cause or effect of so many experienced developers becoming freelance consultants. Rates of £500-700/day for long term contract work with corporate / finance clients are fairly common, so you can easily double your salary vs permanent employment (or work half the time.)

joecasson• 10 years ago

I'm currently in the middle of a 7 month stint working in London, and I have lived in SF for 2.5 years prior. Funny coincidence.

I don't think Henson is necessarily wrong about anything he says. Hell, I actually like London a bit more than SF for some of the reasons he lists. But it came across to me like he was more homesick than anything.

I'm curious what industry he worked in, and who he spent his time with. I'm guessing tech based on the blog and the section devoted to it, but in any case, that alone greatly determines how you'll fare.

Here in London, people are polite and always love chatting up the American, but it is a little hard to make friends outside of work/housemates. The focus on pub culture - while awesome - is a large reason for this, in my opinion.

I've been debating writing more about my experience. Maybe I'll do it to give a voice from the opposite perspective.

patforna• 10 years ago

I don't think there's an objectively best place to live. Some people like bars while others like mountains. Some like crowds while others like solitude, etc. And that's totally cool, because we're all different. I've lived 1 year in CA, 2 years in Sydney, 9 years in London and just moved back to Switzerland (where I'm from) a few days ago. All the places I've lived in had their nice and not so nice sides. Guess that, at the end of the day, it's about figuring out what's right for you and accepting the tradeoffs. I, for one, am very grateful that I'm able to choose where to live because not all of us can.

lmm10• 10 years ago

Yes and no. Different places are better for different things, but some places do combine a lot of positive factors, and some places do combine a lot of negative factors; I suspect there really are pairs of cities where you can say that X is just better than Y for most reasonable criteria.

Even if you don't believe that, many people on this site have the choice between London and San Francisco, so it's well worth exploring the differences between them here.

London vs San Francisco – back and forth

Related Stories