San Francisco Is Losing Its Great, Inexpensive Restaurants(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
San Francisco Is Losing Its Great, Inexpensive Restaurants
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-05/michelin-guide-san-francisco-is-losing-inexpensive-restaurants
69 comments
As a startup founder? The Bay Area is probably still the best.
As an ordinary developer? Consider New York. The pay in engineering is about the same, but instead of keeping all the people with normal amounts of money across the bridge in Oakland and beyond, you actually have a meaningfully integrated city that tries to cater to a variety of wealth levels.
And even if you stay in an enclave of rich-and-fanciness, your neighbors will be in media, finance, and creative fields, not just wall-to-wall tech. My first neighbor in New York had recently left his old job at the AP as chief correspondent to the White House. The guy who lived downstairs was retired, but had run a machine shop, and collected crazy old radios.
As an ordinary developer? Consider New York. The pay in engineering is about the same, but instead of keeping all the people with normal amounts of money across the bridge in Oakland and beyond, you actually have a meaningfully integrated city that tries to cater to a variety of wealth levels.
And even if you stay in an enclave of rich-and-fanciness, your neighbors will be in media, finance, and creative fields, not just wall-to-wall tech. My first neighbor in New York had recently left his old job at the AP as chief correspondent to the White House. The guy who lived downstairs was retired, but had run a machine shop, and collected crazy old radios.
I suppose the idea is to work in SV for a couple years while you're still young and healthy, rack up as much cash as you can while living quite frugally, then move to a cheaper place, buy a house for cash (or at least have a solid downpayment), and have no problem finding a job since you have X years of relevant experience at top-tier companies.
The result of fleeing middle class is that you have a city with a strange mix of very wealthy individuals (who can afford the high COL) and very poor people (who cannot afford to move out).
The result of fleeing middle class is that you have a city with a strange mix of very wealthy individuals (who can afford the high COL) and very poor people (who cannot afford to move out).
> then move to a cheaper place
There is a significant emotional cost to leaving behind everybody you know, moving to a new place where you know nobody, and have to build new local social and professional networks. Making a long-term plan where paying that cost is factored into your current decision is naive at best.
There is a significant emotional cost to leaving behind everybody you know, moving to a new place where you know nobody, and have to build new local social and professional networks. Making a long-term plan where paying that cost is factored into your current decision is naive at best.
> the gender-imbalanced dating market (the imbalance hurting both men and women)
I'm curious about how an excess of men can hurt women in the dating market.
I'm curious about how an excess of men can hurt women in the dating market.
Too many men chasing too few women does not make for happy endings for anyone. Excessive competition in any market tends to create irrational behaviour on both sides.
Agreed. If there are more men in the city, women should have more selection.
However, the diversity of men may be limited (e.g. they are all software engineers...). It would be like going to Baskin-Robbins and all they had was various types of strawberry ice cream.
However, the diversity of men may be limited (e.g. they are all software engineers...). It would be like going to Baskin-Robbins and all they had was various types of strawberry ice cream.
The old saying women have about dating at a technical university or engineering school still rings true: 'the odds are good but the goods are odd'
Dating markets with low signal-to-noise ratios, in the ice cream analogy, is like an ice cream shop that only offers a giant ice cream cone with no fewer than 100 scoops, and you only get to choose the visible scoop on top, the other scoops are completely random. So you try one, and you like that the first scoop is raspberry, but then you discover that the second scoop is Bertie-Bott's-Every-Flavor-Beans-Earwax flavored, and you throw the whole thing out in disgust. Next week, you try again, savor the raspberry again, are pleasantly delighted to find out that the second scoop is a mild lemon-meringue, and then hit icky artificial-medicinal-cherry on the third. So you throw it out again.
When you go back to the ice cream shop to demand some kind of control over what kind of ice cream flavors end up in your cone, the shop-owner apologizes and reveals that the reason why the other flavors are at random is because he doesn't actually scoop the ice cream, the giant ice cream cones actually arrive like that from the factory, and although 70% of the cones do come with some claims about which flavors are inside, 60% of those claims turn out to be false, so nobody pays attention to the label, and anyway here's another giant cone, maybe this one will turn out great and really be "your kind" of cone.
When you go back to the ice cream shop to demand some kind of control over what kind of ice cream flavors end up in your cone, the shop-owner apologizes and reveals that the reason why the other flavors are at random is because he doesn't actually scoop the ice cream, the giant ice cream cones actually arrive like that from the factory, and although 70% of the cones do come with some claims about which flavors are inside, 60% of those claims turn out to be false, so nobody pays attention to the label, and anyway here's another giant cone, maybe this one will turn out great and really be "your kind" of cone.
Increasingly desperate behaviour, high-pressure dating and a refusal to take no for an answer?
SHUDDER. Sounds like a review of an Adam Sandler romantic comedy.
https://www.salon.com/2016/02/07/the_guys_who_wont_hear_no_m...
http://www.theonion.com/article/romantic-comedy-behavior-get...
http://whenwomenrefuse.tumblr.com/
https://www.salon.com/2016/02/07/the_guys_who_wont_hear_no_m...
http://www.theonion.com/article/romantic-comedy-behavior-get...
http://whenwomenrefuse.tumblr.com/
bingo
In gender-imbalanced dating markets, the over-represented gender becomes increasingly more desperate in its dating strategies, due to lack of success. Desperation hurts honesty and worsens the signal-to-noise ratio.
When men are over-represented, true, women in general will find it easier to arrange dates. But those dates will, in general, be of lesser quality when men feel increasingly pressured to actively mask their flaws, in an attempt to stand out from other men in the dating market. Women then require more time, on average, to parse a potential partner's true personality and intentions, and develop trust. Requiring more time to develop trust raises the true cost for women of giving an individual suitor a chance.
(note: the prior paragraph is gendered because of context, but it also applies vice-versa in dating markets where women are over-represented compared to men, e.g. New York).
When men are over-represented, true, women in general will find it easier to arrange dates. But those dates will, in general, be of lesser quality when men feel increasingly pressured to actively mask their flaws, in an attempt to stand out from other men in the dating market. Women then require more time, on average, to parse a potential partner's true personality and intentions, and develop trust. Requiring more time to develop trust raises the true cost for women of giving an individual suitor a chance.
(note: the prior paragraph is gendered because of context, but it also applies vice-versa in dating markets where women are over-represented compared to men, e.g. New York).
Any employer willing to pay my relocation and compensate me $250k + equity, I would consider it.
Mildly offtopic:
Why does everything perfectly ordinary and expected in any other city have to become "Great" in an American city?
Across the world, restaurants, from the very basic to the very high end, arise around every agglomeration of people but here Bloomberg headlines these SFOs restaurants "Great". What makes them "great" that a decades old Irani restaurant in Mumbai cannot hope to match?
I can think of only one other place where "great" gets applied to very very ordinary things - Great Asian Cities when referring to Asian mega cities like Mumbai or Manila.
Why does everything perfectly ordinary and expected in any other city have to become "Great" in an American city?
Across the world, restaurants, from the very basic to the very high end, arise around every agglomeration of people but here Bloomberg headlines these SFOs restaurants "Great". What makes them "great" that a decades old Irani restaurant in Mumbai cannot hope to match?
I can think of only one other place where "great" gets applied to very very ordinary things - Great Asian Cities when referring to Asian mega cities like Mumbai or Manila.
The English word great has two distinct senses when describing a quality:
1. One of the best, truly magnificent (Michelangelo was a great artist.)
2. Better than something you would describe as "good". (How are you doing, Bob? - I am doing great, what about you?)
In modern American culture, "good" is often seen as normal and expected. Which means "great" turns into merely better than normal or expected. I think that is the sense in which the word is used in the article.
In some other cultures or languages, the same notion might be described as "not bad".
1. One of the best, truly magnificent (Michelangelo was a great artist.)
2. Better than something you would describe as "good". (How are you doing, Bob? - I am doing great, what about you?)
In modern American culture, "good" is often seen as normal and expected. Which means "great" turns into merely better than normal or expected. I think that is the sense in which the word is used in the article.
In some other cultures or languages, the same notion might be described as "not bad".
For want of a better description, the American vernacular lends itself to clickbait?
Or perhaps the American vernacular has been long shaped by the advertising and news trends that have lead us to the world of clickbait?
For a class project once I was encouraged to skim advertisings from the late part of the 19th Century through the early 20th Century and there certainly is a case to be made that American media have been drowning in hyperbole and fantastic claims for a long time now.
For a class project once I was encouraged to skim advertisings from the late part of the 19th Century through the early 20th Century and there certainly is a case to be made that American media have been drowning in hyperbole and fantastic claims for a long time now.
In this case I would say there is a feeling of guilt that is overcompensating for the quality of the restaurants. Most of the people complaining about this phenomenon are the actual culprits. Even with liberal types, the past is way more appealing than the present.
The article is specifically about exceptionally good restaurants that are moderately priced. And San Francisco has historically been famous for this (at least I heard about it a lot growing up in Seattle).
As someone who goes out a lot and who was courted to move to SF by people who go out a lot, I can tell you that in 2015 SF restaurant scene does not hold a candle to NYC. It was one of the reasons I decided not to move to SF.
We Americans do tend to overuse superlatives. It's just part of our culture. A restaurant you enjoyed can't just be "good" or "decent", it has to "great". A nice vacation can't just be "relaxing" or "enjoyable" it will be described as "awesome".
"Amazing" is another word we tend to overuse.
"Amazing" is another word we tend to overuse.
As others have stated, we tend to overuse superlatives in American English. I try to avoid that, and have picked up a phrase for restaurants from a friend. He will sometimes describe a restaurant that is good, not great, but one he would go back to again, as "exceptionally adequate."
I interpreted it as "great" compared to the average American city.
I miss Sam Wo's, which had excellent food, was open late at night till 3:00 AM, was quite inexpensive, and had extremely insulting and abusive staff. It was the home of Edsel Ford Fong, the world's rudest waiter, and was featured in Armistead Maupin’s Tales of the City. Kids love the Sam Wo Mystery Room. And there's absolutely no fortune cookie!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Wo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel_Ford_Fong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnrs6Hzp6Kg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es0-GnG8qGs
https://tinyurl.com/ybuwn5jn
At least the Tamale Lady is still delivering her scrumptious blessings to late night denizens.
https://www.yelp.com/biz/the-tamale-lady-san-francisco
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Wo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel_Ford_Fong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnrs6Hzp6Kg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es0-GnG8qGs
https://tinyurl.com/ybuwn5jn
At least the Tamale Lady is still delivering her scrumptious blessings to late night denizens.
https://www.yelp.com/biz/the-tamale-lady-san-francisco
You didn't hear they re-opened Sam Wo in a different location? I've been once, it doesn't have the same charm as the old place, but it's alright. Still cheap!
http://www.sfchronicle.com/restaurants/diningout/article/Res...
http://www.sfchronicle.com/restaurants/diningout/article/Res...
Sam Wo's had profoundly mediocre food but it was open til 3am and the rude waiters were fun.
It is always amusing to read pieces like this or comments by those who either cannot understand or dislike it.
Here's the simple truth: there should be no such thing as an excellent, inexpensive restaurant for more than a flash in a pan. Why? Because if a restaurant is excellent and is inexpensive, then it underpricing its offerings the same way as an excellent software developer making $50k a year should not exist in Bay Area for longer than a flash in a pan because that software developer is underpricing his offerings.
Say I have a successful restaurant. For the sake of the argument it seats 40 people and does fixed price brunch and is only open between 11am and 4pm on Sunday. Brunch costs $20. It is amazing. I have a line out of the door. People wait for hours for tables. What should I do? Well, it is simple, I am going to raise a price for $30. Am I still packed? Are people still waiting? $50 it is! Holy crap, still a line? $100! I'm charging a hundred. Oh look, the line is smaller but I'm still doing the same number of covers I did before. $150! I really have no line but the number of covers now is right around what I can do. Excellent. $150 it is.
What does it mean? It means that before my restaurant was excellent, inexpensive and mispriced. Now it is just excellent and priced correctly.
Lets try it again: same setup. $20, i have a line and a wait list, and people outside clamoring for the brunch. Ok, I raise price to $30. Line is gone. I'm doing as many covers as before but there's no real line. I decide to hold at 30. Two months later I have half of the tables empty because people moved on. I drop prices to $20 and nothing changes. Still half of the tables are empty. What happened? I discovered I did not have an excellent and inexpensive restaurant, I just had an inexpensive restaurant and as soon as it tripped into not so inexpensive category it was over.
P.S. There are tons of cheap eats in Bay Area and SF. They are just not the kind of "cheap eats" that the people who make $150k/year like to eat.
P.P.S. Comment of the owner of the restaurant that tech companies are taking away the talent because they pay more, give full benefits and have 9-5 schedule is pure gold: pay. more. money. That will solve the problem. The owner do not deserve to make money for her services any more than Jack The Dishwasher deserves to make money for his.
Here's the simple truth: there should be no such thing as an excellent, inexpensive restaurant for more than a flash in a pan. Why? Because if a restaurant is excellent and is inexpensive, then it underpricing its offerings the same way as an excellent software developer making $50k a year should not exist in Bay Area for longer than a flash in a pan because that software developer is underpricing his offerings.
Say I have a successful restaurant. For the sake of the argument it seats 40 people and does fixed price brunch and is only open between 11am and 4pm on Sunday. Brunch costs $20. It is amazing. I have a line out of the door. People wait for hours for tables. What should I do? Well, it is simple, I am going to raise a price for $30. Am I still packed? Are people still waiting? $50 it is! Holy crap, still a line? $100! I'm charging a hundred. Oh look, the line is smaller but I'm still doing the same number of covers I did before. $150! I really have no line but the number of covers now is right around what I can do. Excellent. $150 it is.
What does it mean? It means that before my restaurant was excellent, inexpensive and mispriced. Now it is just excellent and priced correctly.
Lets try it again: same setup. $20, i have a line and a wait list, and people outside clamoring for the brunch. Ok, I raise price to $30. Line is gone. I'm doing as many covers as before but there's no real line. I decide to hold at 30. Two months later I have half of the tables empty because people moved on. I drop prices to $20 and nothing changes. Still half of the tables are empty. What happened? I discovered I did not have an excellent and inexpensive restaurant, I just had an inexpensive restaurant and as soon as it tripped into not so inexpensive category it was over.
P.S. There are tons of cheap eats in Bay Area and SF. They are just not the kind of "cheap eats" that the people who make $150k/year like to eat.
P.P.S. Comment of the owner of the restaurant that tech companies are taking away the talent because they pay more, give full benefits and have 9-5 schedule is pure gold: pay. more. money. That will solve the problem. The owner do not deserve to make money for her services any more than Jack The Dishwasher deserves to make money for his.
People wait for hours for tables. What should I do?
Or you could do what the restaurant down the road from me did when they found themselves in a similar situation. Buy out the place next door, build a huge outside patio area, quadruple the number of tables you have, have the quality of your food and service completely collapse under the strain of trying to serve this many guests and lose your reputation is a great restaurant.
Or you could do what the restaurant down the road from me did when they found themselves in a similar situation. Buy out the place next door, build a huge outside patio area, quadruple the number of tables you have, have the quality of your food and service completely collapse under the strain of trying to serve this many guests and lose your reputation is a great restaurant.
Quality does not scale. If it did Walmart would be the biggest restaurant owner.
I am actually surprised that more people don’t try to go micro size, but very high end. Two or three tables, but super high prices.
I am actually surprised that more people don’t try to go micro size, but very high end. Two or three tables, but super high prices.
That's the quickest way to go out of business.
'Fortunately' they're in a fairly tourist dense area so they seem to have managed to limp along.
> What should I do?
Doesn't that assume that profit maximization is the ultimate and only goal of every restaurant owner?
Perhaps it is, I'm not familiar with San Francisco restaurants. But some might simply enjoy being able to offer excellent food at a comparatively low price simply because all their business, personal, and employee needs are met and rising prices could be detrimental to that balance. For example, if you enjoy seeing low-income families from your local neighbourhood eat at your place because you are affordable (not to mention healthy and delicious), then raising prices would drive them out, and you might be sad and disappointed, for whatever personal reason (i.e., your personal needs are no longer being met as neatly as before).
Doesn't that assume that profit maximization is the ultimate and only goal of every restaurant owner?
Perhaps it is, I'm not familiar with San Francisco restaurants. But some might simply enjoy being able to offer excellent food at a comparatively low price simply because all their business, personal, and employee needs are met and rising prices could be detrimental to that balance. For example, if you enjoy seeing low-income families from your local neighbourhood eat at your place because you are affordable (not to mention healthy and delicious), then raising prices would drive them out, and you might be sad and disappointed, for whatever personal reason (i.e., your personal needs are no longer being met as neatly as before).
> Doesn't that assume that profit maximization is the ultimate and only goal of every restaurant owner?
It is. Every single restaurant owner wants to make the maximum amount of money. That's why they open restaurants and don't go to community centers to feed less fortunate for free ( or for price below the cost )
> Perhaps it is, I'm not familiar with San Francisco restaurants. But some might simply enjoy being able to offer excellent food at a comparatively low price simply because all their business, personal, and employee needs are met and rising prices could be detrimental to that balance. For example, if you enjoy seeing low-income families from your local neighbourhood eat at your place because you are affordable (not to mention healthy and delicious), then raising prices would drive them out, and you might be sad and disappointed, for whatever personal reason (i.e., your personal needs are no longer being met as neatly as before).
In that case they have a hobby they can practice in community centers and dare I say churches.
It is. Every single restaurant owner wants to make the maximum amount of money. That's why they open restaurants and don't go to community centers to feed less fortunate for free ( or for price below the cost )
> Perhaps it is, I'm not familiar with San Francisco restaurants. But some might simply enjoy being able to offer excellent food at a comparatively low price simply because all their business, personal, and employee needs are met and rising prices could be detrimental to that balance. For example, if you enjoy seeing low-income families from your local neighbourhood eat at your place because you are affordable (not to mention healthy and delicious), then raising prices would drive them out, and you might be sad and disappointed, for whatever personal reason (i.e., your personal needs are no longer being met as neatly as before).
In that case they have a hobby they can practice in community centers and dare I say churches.
No it's not. My old boss used to own 2 restaurants/cafes, and ended up selling one, even though it was profitable, so that he could go back to basics and run just one restaurant, and being able to run things at ground level.
If you've ever worked in hospitality, you'd find that a lot of owners, especially chefs who own their own restaurant, aren't in it for the money. They treat it as an art.
It would be preposterous to say that every artist wants the maximum amount of money. It's not always about the money.
If you've ever worked in hospitality, you'd find that a lot of owners, especially chefs who own their own restaurant, aren't in it for the money. They treat it as an art.
It would be preposterous to say that every artist wants the maximum amount of money. It's not always about the money.
Your old boss charged as much as he could have possibly charged in the place where he was ( restaurants are local: in a locality where there are more than a few customers dont travel to a restaurant. They do in places like Maine where there are so few restaurants that people drive for forty minutes one way to get to one ) , which is why he was successful.
If one is doing it for "the love of people" and love of craft he or she has a minimum incremental cost place to do it : community centers and church kitchens.
If one is doing it for "the love of people" and love of craft he or she has a minimum incremental cost place to do it : community centers and church kitchens.
It's hard to believe that you really think that the two dichotomous possibilities are a) the bottom line is absolutely the most important thing or b) the motivation is charity, to hell with quality or creating a nice, personally expressive environment.
The boss does not operate a one man shop. The boss has employees. Employees want more money year after year after year. So what's more likely: the boss is the only person who does not want more money and everyone one else does or the boss does everything he can maximizing his take home?
Your blinded by capitalism. Get out more, there's more to life than money. So sad seeing so many people like you today, if you ever lost your life savings you'd probably sooner have a mental break and commit suicide than see the world which you've ignored in favor of scapes of paper and an imaginary system of bean counting.
> Your blinded by capitalism.
Fascinatingly, I do not find that acknowledging that water is H2O to be blidning.
> Get out more, there's more to life than money. So sad seeing so many people like you today, if you ever lost your life savings you'd probably sooner have a mental break and commit suicide than see the world which you've ignored in favor of scapes of paper and an imaginary system of bean counting.
Money is a proxy for absolutely everything. As someone who grew up and used to be unimaginably poor I'm rather sure that I can survive with very little. I will, however, do my best to avoid it.
Fascinatingly, I do not find that acknowledging that water is H2O to be blidning.
> Get out more, there's more to life than money. So sad seeing so many people like you today, if you ever lost your life savings you'd probably sooner have a mental break and commit suicide than see the world which you've ignored in favor of scapes of paper and an imaginary system of bean counting.
Money is a proxy for absolutely everything. As someone who grew up and used to be unimaginably poor I'm rather sure that I can survive with very little. I will, however, do my best to avoid it.
> Here's the simple truth: there should be no such thing as an excellent, inexpensive restaurant for more than a flash in a pan.
It's incredible that you can state this even with tons of evidence to the contrary. You may want to rethink your assumptions or understanding of other people's thinking and motivations.
It's incredible that you can state this even with tons of evidence to the contrary. You may want to rethink your assumptions or understanding of other people's thinking and motivations.
> It's incredible that you can state this even with tons of evidence to the contrary. You may want to rethink your assumptions or understanding of other people's thinking and motivations.
Restaurant economy is local, just as salaries of software developers.
Restaurant economy is local, just as salaries of software developers.
The real world doesn't work that way. If your reputation is based on cheap, good food and you lose the cheap your left with an average non-remarkable restaurant that no-one talks about.
> on cheap, good food
The difference between good and excellent restaurant is larger than the difference between someone who has 1800 ELO and 2200 ELO rating in chess.
The difference between good and excellent restaurant is larger than the difference between someone who has 1800 ELO and 2200 ELO rating in chess.
you want to do good in a restaurant. take the 10% franchises use for marketing and franchise fees and put it into loading your food up with more food or lower your prices. will you have a 5 star restaurant no. will you have one of those places with lines out the door probably.
That's not the way it works, as so many shows on Food Network demonstrated.
[deleted]
So what about the SF residents who don't work in tech?
You mean Oakland residents, right? :P
There are boatloads of good hole in a wall place in SF. Some of them are excellent, just not by the standards of the guide that should have been dropped into a dust bin of history years ago.
Just visited San Francisco. There's over 7000 restaurants.
The 67 restaurants on the list this year hardly seems to touch the surface of what's available.
Breakfast or lunch seemed to be about $30-40 for two. Evening meals were easily double if not triple that, depending where you go.
If you go fancy, you'll get a fancy bill too.
LA was no different.
The 67 restaurants on the list this year hardly seems to touch the surface of what's available.
Breakfast or lunch seemed to be about $30-40 for two. Evening meals were easily double if not triple that, depending where you go.
If you go fancy, you'll get a fancy bill too.
LA was no different.
[deleted]
> “The issue is that the tech companies have million-dollar kitchens and budgets, they’re taking all the great talent and offering benefits and 9-to-5 hours. Meanwhile, the restaurant business is a grind, and the cost of doing business is insane in the Bay Area. Independent operators are getting pushed out. I cook accessible food, and you have to charge accessible prices for that.”
Wow, I wasn't expecting the restaurant business being affected by tech companies running their own canteens.
Wow, I wasn't expecting the restaurant business being affected by tech companies running their own canteens.
The usual rule of thumb for a restaurant: lunch pays your rent, dinner pays for labor and profit.
If you don't have any lunch business because everyone eats at work, you're done.
If your dinner seatings are empty before 8PM because nobody leaves work until 6:30 and the traffic is terrible, you're done.
If the rent keeps going up because the real estate market says so, you're done.
What survives: takeout, with low service overhead, small footprints and fast turnaround. High-end, where the money from a few tables each night pays for everything.
I think SV and SF are heading for a Shoe Event Horizon.
If you don't have any lunch business because everyone eats at work, you're done.
If your dinner seatings are empty before 8PM because nobody leaves work until 6:30 and the traffic is terrible, you're done.
If the rent keeps going up because the real estate market says so, you're done.
What survives: takeout, with low service overhead, small footprints and fast turnaround. High-end, where the money from a few tables each night pays for everything.
I think SV and SF are heading for a Shoe Event Horizon.
You can't have cheap food in expensive real estate. The rent for the floor area of chair and table occupied by the diner becomes prohibitive.
Cafe Zitouna on Sutter and Polk falls into this category. It's a family owned Tunisian/Moroccan restaurant. It's inexpensive and the food is top notch. It's been in the neighborhood forever. Go check it out and order a Breakfast Falafel Wrap, before it turns into a condo building.
https://www.yelp.com/biz/cafe-zitouna-san-francisco
https://www.yelp.com/biz/cafe-zitouna-san-francisco
I have thought this since I moved here. If you want great and inexpensive, San Diego is the city to go to.
LOLWHUT? San Diego is horrible for this. San Diego has a massive number of overpriced, aggressively mediocre restaurants. Yes, you can dig your way through the Chinese and Mexican restaurants to find good, cheap ones, but it requires real persistence.
For people coming from Pittsburgh, Chicago, or Houston, the San Diego selection in cheap food is laughable.
Houston Chinese food used to be terrifyingly cheap--we would hit our favorite dumpling house with something like a dozen people and the bill would be less than $40 for an absolutely enormous quantity of great food. Once we all graduated and were earning money from jobs, we would go back and we would leave tips of double, triple or more of the bill just because we never wanted them to go out of business.
For people coming from Pittsburgh, Chicago, or Houston, the San Diego selection in cheap food is laughable.
Houston Chinese food used to be terrifyingly cheap--we would hit our favorite dumpling house with something like a dozen people and the bill would be less than $40 for an absolutely enormous quantity of great food. Once we all graduated and were earning money from jobs, we would go back and we would leave tips of double, triple or more of the bill just because we never wanted them to go out of business.
>Yes, you can dig your way through the Chinese and Mexican restaurants to find good, cheap ones, but it requires real persistence.
Or, you know, just talking to a local who has already done the legwork
Or, you know, just talking to a local who has already done the legwork
You can get cheap dim sum on Clement. Half the reason I moved to the Inner Richmond. lol
If you have a family, your costs are astronomical. Mortgage, daycare, multiple cars, school-related fees.
If you're single, you're dealing both with the gender-imbalanced dating market (the imbalance hurting both men and women), as well as the difficulty of saving for a SV mortgage. If you plan ahead of time, coming into SV, that you're going to leave SV eventually because of the high cost of living, then that future move is going to come at the cost of most of the professional and personal networking that you built up and will have to say goodbye to, and build all over again after you move.
Sure, SV is the mecca for professional networking and VC funding, but a) you don't need to be in SV to be successful (counter-examples abound) and b) is it really worth it?
The death of cheap eats in the Bay Area is just a symptom. You're either making enough money not to care, or you're wondering anyway whether it's worth it to live there.