- This topic has 65 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 6 months ago by
Former SD resident.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 9, 2011 at 10:59 PM #695196May 10, 2011 at 4:11 AM #694124
zzz
ParticipantI would definitely vote against Hayward. It is an industrial area and not particularly nice in my opinion. I have spent some time there for business reasons and all the people I know who work there don’t live there nor would want to.
I also agree commuting via car in the Bay Area sucks. I’d go with south SF or somewhere on the BART line.
Some friends who work in south SF rented a large million dollar home in San Mateo for about $3500/month and then later bought in Foster City and are very happy with Foster City for raising kids. They paid in the low 800s for a 4/3,~ 2200sq ft. Perhaps try renting in those areas before deciding?
May 10, 2011 at 4:11 AM #694730ParticipantI would definitely vote against Hayward. It is an industrial area and not particularly nice in my opinion. I have spent some time there for business reasons and all the people I know who work there don’t live there nor would want to.
I also agree commuting via car in the Bay Area sucks. I’d go with south SF or somewhere on the BART line.
Some friends who work in south SF rented a large million dollar home in San Mateo for about $3500/month and then later bought in Foster City and are very happy with Foster City for raising kids. They paid in the low 800s for a 4/3,~ 2200sq ft. Perhaps try renting in those areas before deciding?
May 10, 2011 at 4:11 AM #694877ParticipantI would definitely vote against Hayward. It is an industrial area and not particularly nice in my opinion. I have spent some time there for business reasons and all the people I know who work there don’t live there nor would want to.
I also agree commuting via car in the Bay Area sucks. I’d go with south SF or somewhere on the BART line.
Some friends who work in south SF rented a large million dollar home in San Mateo for about $3500/month and then later bought in Foster City and are very happy with Foster City for raising kids. They paid in the low 800s for a 4/3,~ 2200sq ft. Perhaps try renting in those areas before deciding?
May 10, 2011 at 4:11 AM #694043ParticipantI would definitely vote against Hayward. It is an industrial area and not particularly nice in my opinion. I have spent some time there for business reasons and all the people I know who work there don’t live there nor would want to.
I also agree commuting via car in the Bay Area sucks. I’d go with south SF or somewhere on the BART line.
Some friends who work in south SF rented a large million dollar home in San Mateo for about $3500/month and then later bought in Foster City and are very happy with Foster City for raising kids. They paid in the low 800s for a 4/3,~ 2200sq ft. Perhaps try renting in those areas before deciding?
May 10, 2011 at 4:11 AM #695231ParticipantI would definitely vote against Hayward. It is an industrial area and not particularly nice in my opinion. I have spent some time there for business reasons and all the people I know who work there don’t live there nor would want to.
I also agree commuting via car in the Bay Area sucks. I’d go with south SF or somewhere on the BART line.
Some friends who work in south SF rented a large million dollar home in San Mateo for about $3500/month and then later bought in Foster City and are very happy with Foster City for raising kids. They paid in the low 800s for a 4/3,~ 2200sq ft. Perhaps try renting in those areas before deciding?
May 10, 2011 at 7:43 AM #695256Anonymous
GuestHi Former,
We moved from Rancho Penasquitos to Belmont (mid-peninsula) about 2 years ago. Housing much more expensive up here, older stock, smaller houses. We were school-district shopping so I can chat about that, as well as local prices if you want. We also lived in San Bruno (still own that house) years ago. But we’ve never lived in the city (we lived in London, but never found city life in SF compelling enough). We rented in PQ (4br, 3ba, built in ’87, $2100) and we’re renting in Belmont (3br, 2ba, built in 1907, $2800) until we decide to do something permanent.
Message me if you want to chat more.
Good luck!
May 10, 2011 at 7:43 AM #694902GuestHi Former,
We moved from Rancho Penasquitos to Belmont (mid-peninsula) about 2 years ago. Housing much more expensive up here, older stock, smaller houses. We were school-district shopping so I can chat about that, as well as local prices if you want. We also lived in San Bruno (still own that house) years ago. But we’ve never lived in the city (we lived in London, but never found city life in SF compelling enough). We rented in PQ (4br, 3ba, built in ’87, $2100) and we’re renting in Belmont (3br, 2ba, built in 1907, $2800) until we decide to do something permanent.
Message me if you want to chat more.
Good luck!
May 10, 2011 at 7:43 AM #694067GuestHi Former,
We moved from Rancho Penasquitos to Belmont (mid-peninsula) about 2 years ago. Housing much more expensive up here, older stock, smaller houses. We were school-district shopping so I can chat about that, as well as local prices if you want. We also lived in San Bruno (still own that house) years ago. But we’ve never lived in the city (we lived in London, but never found city life in SF compelling enough). We rented in PQ (4br, 3ba, built in ’87, $2100) and we’re renting in Belmont (3br, 2ba, built in 1907, $2800) until we decide to do something permanent.
Message me if you want to chat more.
Good luck!
May 10, 2011 at 7:43 AM #694149GuestHi Former,
We moved from Rancho Penasquitos to Belmont (mid-peninsula) about 2 years ago. Housing much more expensive up here, older stock, smaller houses. We were school-district shopping so I can chat about that, as well as local prices if you want. We also lived in San Bruno (still own that house) years ago. But we’ve never lived in the city (we lived in London, but never found city life in SF compelling enough). We rented in PQ (4br, 3ba, built in ’87, $2100) and we’re renting in Belmont (3br, 2ba, built in 1907, $2800) until we decide to do something permanent.
Message me if you want to chat more.
Good luck!
May 10, 2011 at 7:43 AM #694755GuestHi Former,
We moved from Rancho Penasquitos to Belmont (mid-peninsula) about 2 years ago. Housing much more expensive up here, older stock, smaller houses. We were school-district shopping so I can chat about that, as well as local prices if you want. We also lived in San Bruno (still own that house) years ago. But we’ve never lived in the city (we lived in London, but never found city life in SF compelling enough). We rented in PQ (4br, 3ba, built in ’87, $2100) and we’re renting in Belmont (3br, 2ba, built in 1907, $2800) until we decide to do something permanent.
Message me if you want to chat more.
Good luck!
May 10, 2011 at 1:37 PM #694997bearishgurl
ParticipantI want to add that a young family (3 kids) whom one of my kids went to school with in here Chula Vista was from Pacifica, where they had inherited a house (bought long ago). They leased it and moved here for a job. After about five years in SD County, they returned to Pacifica and are still there. The parents DID tell me that the schools were very good in Pacifica but of course it is more pricey than the other areas I mentioned.
I also thought of mentioning Sunnyvale for schools but feel it will usually be out of your 45 min commute range, in traffic. The housing inventory in Sunnyvale includes 60’s and 70’s two-stories, mostly on 5000 sf lots.
In addition, I feel a commute from Union City on south (East Bay) will hit the 45-min mark on most days.
Like some other posters, I vote for the City or San Bruno and other close surrounds simply because life is short and commuting takes away so much from the worker’s already long day. Proximity is far more important than size in this instance.
Former SD resident, it would help a lot if you posted your price range.
May 10, 2011 at 1:37 PM #694849ParticipantI want to add that a young family (3 kids) whom one of my kids went to school with in here Chula Vista was from Pacifica, where they had inherited a house (bought long ago). They leased it and moved here for a job. After about five years in SD County, they returned to Pacifica and are still there. The parents DID tell me that the schools were very good in Pacifica but of course it is more pricey than the other areas I mentioned.
I also thought of mentioning Sunnyvale for schools but feel it will usually be out of your 45 min commute range, in traffic. The housing inventory in Sunnyvale includes 60’s and 70’s two-stories, mostly on 5000 sf lots.
In addition, I feel a commute from Union City on south (East Bay) will hit the 45-min mark on most days.
Like some other posters, I vote for the City or San Bruno and other close surrounds simply because life is short and commuting takes away so much from the worker’s already long day. Proximity is far more important than size in this instance.
Former SD resident, it would help a lot if you posted your price range.
May 10, 2011 at 1:37 PM #694162ParticipantI want to add that a young family (3 kids) whom one of my kids went to school with in here Chula Vista was from Pacifica, where they had inherited a house (bought long ago). They leased it and moved here for a job. After about five years in SD County, they returned to Pacifica and are still there. The parents DID tell me that the schools were very good in Pacifica but of course it is more pricey than the other areas I mentioned.
I also thought of mentioning Sunnyvale for schools but feel it will usually be out of your 45 min commute range, in traffic. The housing inventory in Sunnyvale includes 60’s and 70’s two-stories, mostly on 5000 sf lots.
In addition, I feel a commute from Union City on south (East Bay) will hit the 45-min mark on most days.
Like some other posters, I vote for the City or San Bruno and other close surrounds simply because life is short and commuting takes away so much from the worker’s already long day. Proximity is far more important than size in this instance.
Former SD resident, it would help a lot if you posted your price range.
May 10, 2011 at 1:37 PM #694245ParticipantI want to add that a young family (3 kids) whom one of my kids went to school with in here Chula Vista was from Pacifica, where they had inherited a house (bought long ago). They leased it and moved here for a job. After about five years in SD County, they returned to Pacifica and are still there. The parents DID tell me that the schools were very good in Pacifica but of course it is more pricey than the other areas I mentioned.
I also thought of mentioning Sunnyvale for schools but feel it will usually be out of your 45 min commute range, in traffic. The housing inventory in Sunnyvale includes 60’s and 70’s two-stories, mostly on 5000 sf lots.
In addition, I feel a commute from Union City on south (East Bay) will hit the 45-min mark on most days.
Like some other posters, I vote for the City or San Bruno and other close surrounds simply because life is short and commuting takes away so much from the worker’s already long day. Proximity is far more important than size in this instance.
Former SD resident, it would help a lot if you posted your price range.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.