As a New Yorker looking longingly westward, I have a question. Is the Valley the only place it makes sense to be, or is it feasible to live in the East Bay?
I know the real answer is that it doesn't matter where you are if you're the right person working on the right project.
That said, I want to be somewhere that the social environment is a positive one for someone living off his savings while trying to build a product and a company. Things like a good coworking space and people who keep you motivated and inspired can help a lot, in my opinion.
The only thing is, I want to move west for a nicer home life and standard of living, I just don't want to leave city life altogether. That's why I'm thinking of living in Oakland or Berkeley, and working in SF.
If you're going from the East Bay to the South Bay every day, the trip will make you insane. I did this for far too long, and it was a terrible idea.
Even in the best of circumstances, it takes half an hour to get from Oakland or Berkeley into San Francisco, making it unlikely that you will go to anything without advance planning.
Oakland has some bright spots (particularly Rockridge) but you are still unlikely to have serendipitous encounters with anyone. I've never lived in Downtown Berkeley, but it is the one place in the East Bay where the streets are full of people.
> The only thing is, I want to move west for a nicer home life and standard of living, I just don't want to leave city life altogether. That's why I'm thinking of living in Oakland or Berkeley, and working in SF.
I hear you can get a fixer in Oakland's hills for around $500k though, an old coworker did that. You might consider going further east to Pleasant Hill or Concord -- PH if safety/schools are a concern (more $), Concord if you can deal with the hoodrats and older homes (less $). Both are fairly inexpensive in comparison to anything closer to the City, and both are on the BART line... ~45 min on the train to SF.
Personally I've found that commuting drains a lot of the get-er'-done energy from me. If I had the dough, I'd live closer to the City or the valley. YMMV. San Jose has lots of nice areas, but it's an urban wasteland... block after unending block of houses and strip malls in many areas. The nicer areas are $$$$$.
When I was working at a startup fresh out of college, I got a 400 sqft studio in the middle of the city, which was perfect. It was an ungodly $1k/month, but I walked nearly everywhere and spent all day coworking or at a cafe anywhere. If you're unattached, I'd highly recommend a setup like that, since proximity to the things you need (people like you, cafes, etc) is more important than living quarters. If you've got a family... well... I hope your savings account is large.
I live in Berkeley and work in SF. To make this work you'll probably want to live near the BART and work somewhere on Market, or if you're OK with a little more transit time, in SoMa.
BART from Downtown Berkeley to Montgomery Street is 20 minutes in ideal conditions, but around 30 more typically due to waiting or a transfer at MacArthur. Expect to add to that 5-10 minutes for somewhere on Market and 10-15 minutes for somewhere in SoMa
Housing in Oakland is probably the cheapest you can get, at least within the proper bay area. If you are trying to "leave the city life, while not leaving the city life", unless you are aiming for the Berkeley or Oakland hills, you will still find yourself in fairly urbanized environs.
If you don't mind the fog, think about SF's sunset district. It's cheap(er) and a little out of the way, but still within earshot of SF proper.
The thing about Sunset (at least Outer Sunset) is that it's still a 45 minute muni ride to downtown. Yeah, there's a lot of "city stuff" (the park is right there), but man if you're going to spend 45 minutes on public transit, live in walnut creek and take bart or something.
Avoid Oakland. It has all the negatives of cities, and none of the positives. The exception is if you live in a non BART accessible place like the Oakland Hills, but then you just have none of the benefits of a city, and few of the positives.
Berkeley is ok in some areas, but basically I'd choose between SF and Palo Alto/Mountain View if you want to do startups. SF if you want something closer to NYC, and PA/MV if you want something more suburban/small town and different.
I just saw today that Oakland is in the top 5 of the most dangerous cities in the US. I know those Top Anything lists have to be taken with a grain of salt, but Oakland seems to be in the (local) news constantly, and it's mostly not good news. After having lived in the Bay Area for 4+ years, I've been to Oakland only once, and that was to help someone move out of Oakland. I think I'd rather move to San Jose if I wanted some city life, real estate prices there have come down a bit. Avoid the east side though.
Ugh, live in San Jose? Never. Statistically, Oakland may be dangerous, but it's also physically a large city. If you are in the right parts, you'll certainly be as safe as if you lived in Berkeley, and safer then a lot of parts of SF. Just stay in the nice parts of the City.
I haven't actually ever lived in Oakland though, but I've lived in Berkeley for 5 years, live in SF now, and have many close friends who live in Oakland. Parts of it are very nice!
I know the real answer is that it doesn't matter where you are if you're the right person working on the right project.
That said, I want to be somewhere that the social environment is a positive one for someone living off his savings while trying to build a product and a company. Things like a good coworking space and people who keep you motivated and inspired can help a lot, in my opinion.
The only thing is, I want to move west for a nicer home life and standard of living, I just don't want to leave city life altogether. That's why I'm thinking of living in Oakland or Berkeley, and working in SF.
Bay Area residents, what do you think?