I moved to downtown Austin last week after spending 8 years in San Francisco (2014-2021) and 3 years in New Braunfels, Texas. As a technologist working in blockchain and AI, San Francisco is the obvious choice. But after spending 3 months in California this year testing the waters, I decided Austin is the better option.
Here’s why.
Austin has a real tech scene - significantly larger than most American cities. Tesla, Dell, and many other major companies have substantial operations here. There are more meetups than one person can attend.
But let’s be honest: it’s not San Francisco. The Bay Area has roughly 7 million people vs. Austin metro’s 2.5 million. Austin may have a slightly higher density of technologists, but the absolute numbers favor SF. More importantly, the world-leading talent and companies are concentrated in the Bay Area.
However, this matters differently depending on what you’re building. If you’re working on AI, you probably need to be in SF. OpenAI, xAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta are all there. The AI network effect is real and powerful.
But blockchain is different. Blockchain is global - there’s no geographic center. Capital comes from everywhere. If you’re in the blockchain industry (as I am), living in SF offers minimal advantages over Austin. The network effect doesn’t justify the costs.
This is enormous. Housing in Austin costs anywhere from one-fifth (in the exurbs) to half (downtown) of SF prices. A luxury studio apartment in downtown Austin runs about $2,500/mo vs. $4,000/mo in SF. A house in the exurbs costs $250,000 vs. $1 million in the Bay Area.
For bootstrapped founders or startups raising modest capital (around $1 million), this translates to 4x longer runway. That can be the difference between reaching product-market fit and running out of money. It’s literally life or death for a startup.
Texas also has no state income tax, while California’s top rate hits 13.3%. For high earners, this adds up to substantial savings.
Austin’s street life is thriving. There are restaurants, food trucks, and small businesses you can walk to everywhere. The city feels lively at all times of day.
San Francisco proper is different. During and after COVID, many small businesses shut down and never came back because the government forced them out with lockdowns. Most SF neighborhoods feel dead now. (The Bay Area suburbs are another story - many small towns there are actually doing well. SF city itself has the biggest problems.)
The homelessness difference is striking: roughly 8,000 homeless people in SF (population 800,000) vs. about 2,000 in Travis County (population 1.2 million). This translates to a noticeably better day-to-day experience on the streets.
I’m politically moderate. San Francisco is 90% Democrat. Austin is 66% Democrat, surrounded by red Texas.
This matters. During COVID, I passionately disagreed with the lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates. In SF, there was no room for conservative thought during those extreme conditions. It was left wing or ostracization. As an open-minded moderate, it was frankly difficult to communicate with almost anyone at that time.
The same problem exists in Austin, but to a far lesser degree. The red/blue mix creates policy moderation. If you don’t like one city’s approach, you can move to a more left or right neighboring town. There are more options.
This also affects business. In Austin, you can hire politically diverse talent and have an easier time marketing your business to people on both sides of the political spectrum. SF’s political homogeneity can alienate half your potential customers.
Austin is visibly building everywhere. Housing construction and commercial construction are happening throughout the city and all of Texas. There’s far more land around Austin to continue building, unlike the Bay Area which is completely full.
This is why Austin is the only major US city that decreased rent in recent years while most other cities increased. The city is keeping costs low by building massive amounts of housing.
Texas’s lighter regulatory environment makes this possible. SF faces higher regulatory difficulties that prevent new construction, creating a land-locked pressure cooker where everyone fights over limited space.
The weather and geography. The Bay Area has incredible natural beauty - bigger hills and mountains with fewer trees, giving you scenic vistas. The ocean, bay, forests, and grasslands all within one area. It’s stunning.
Austin is hotter in the summer and more unpredictable in winter. The geography is less diverse - basically hills and flat areas. It’s beautiful, but more homogenous.
I also used to love the Bay Area’s microclimates and dramatic coastal views. Austin doesn’t have that.
For most technologists, Austin is a better choice than SF. You get:
You give up:
For blockchain founders and most tech workers, Austin wins. For AI researchers and engineers who need daily face-time with cutting-edge labs, SF is still the place to be.
I plan to stay in Austin or the adjacent suburbs for the rest of my life, unless something big changes. Texas is business-friendly, with massive economic opportunity. Austin will continue to be a magnet for human capital for years to come.
SF will probably stagnate in population because there’s no more room to build under its stifling regulatory environment. But it will likely maintain its dominance in AI.
For me, the choice is clear: Austin.