Cities of Love

February 1, 2006 10:08 AM

Cities of Love, Part 2: Tell me where to live in the SF area to find love. Filters: I have a specific plan, and specific critera. Help me hook up and win big prizes!

Soon I will pick up my life and move it to the SF/Bay Area. Once there, I plan on aggressively searching for love - hopefully, a wife (I'm a straight, 44 year old man).

I need your help in figuring out where to live in this area, to give me the best chances of this. However, I have a specific plan in mind, and specific criteria I hope to find in a woman. Please take a look at both before making your suggestions.

I am will be looking for a woman who is:
- 30 to 45 years old
- educated
- professional, or working in tech or the sciences
- using the same searching techniques/services I am

I plan on aggressivly using organized services to help my search. I will be using online services (Match.com type services, plus Craigslist Personals) and face to face services (dating services, matchmaking services).

I will *not* be relying on randomly meeting women, so I don't necessarily need to live in places where I will be bumping into these women in clubs, restaurants, shopping, etc. I just need to live close enough to get matched up with and date the ones I'm looking for.

So, given the plan I've described, I'm hoping you people can tell me:

1. Where do the women described above live, typically? Are they concentrated in the city itself, or nearby? Peninsula or South Bay? I'm talking about concentrations, places where I'll have the best chances, relative to the questions below.

2. For any of you who have used these types of services - when they help you find a match "in your area", how big an area do they encompass? Where do I have to live to be in the service area of the women I've described?

3. Ladies - how close does a man need to live for you to date him? When you look at a Craigslist personal, how far out of your "area" do you look? I'm assuming we're talking driving time here, as opposed to actual distance.

If there is something I've left out, please ask or suggest. I will monitor the thread.

I appreciate your help. If things work out over the next year, I'll come back to this thread, pick out one or more of the helpful answers, and reward you for your efforts. I'm notoriosly generous when I'm in love.

posted by Dunwitty to human relations (29 comments total)

You don't mention a budget for rent.

If it is on the higer end, I'd focus on getting a place with a nice view of the bay or some other "romantic" view - this will give you a slight edge in setting the mood when you have someone over for dinner/drinks.

In general, I'd say finding such a place in one of the pricier areas of town would increase your chances of surrounding yourself with those who are doing well in their careers.

Assuming a low budget, take some days to hang out in the different areas you can afford, pick one you like and find a place near a light rail line for maximum accessability.

I've only ever lived in the Outer Sunset, so I know that is not what you are looking for (not densely populated, lots of families, abundance of surfers (although I'd argue that is a science when attempted at Ocean Beach)).
posted by mikepop at 10:31 AM on February 1, 2006

Budget is not an issue. And I won't be buying anything right away - I will be renting for the first year, to see how the search works out. I just need to know where...
posted by Dunwitty at 10:34 AM on February 1, 2006

Why not look at the online personals and start noting where the women who attract *you* are living?
posted by occhiblu at 10:45 AM on February 1, 2006

Move to the Cow Hollow/Marina/North Beach area. Lot's of pretty straight educated girls reside in these areas. There is a frat-boy factor to contend with but if you can deal with that then you'll be ok. May I also suggest joining the Bay Club (http://www.sfbayclub.com/web/site/) to meet those pretty girls.
posted by quadog at 10:53 AM on February 1, 2006

first, I'd say you're overplanning this and it sounds like you're leading yourself either into frustration or some really weird conversations with your prospective mates (I want to use "business partners" since it sounds more like an interview process, lucky them).

either way, if you're living in the city, you're fine. there's public transit and tons of stuff to do anywhere.. finding a place in the pricier areas guarantees nothing about finding a mate that is well off, it only guarantees finding someone else who cares about living in a pricey area. maybe that's what you want.

but, if you're more interested in social opporitunities, skip anything out of the city - you mentioned some south bay areas. it's really just residential wasteland and you're wasting a lot of what your move will give you in this search - not that it can't be done.

finally, I think my standard advice here applies. while your ideas of searching are admirable, I doubt many of these women will be truly attracted unless you're happy doing what you're doing, so just find where you fit in and make the most of it (as advised above).
posted by kcm at 10:54 AM on February 1, 2006

I only offer this advice because I fit your desired woman profile, except I'm now married and no longer living in San Francisco.

When I lived in S.F. and used online dating services, I was willing to look all over the Bay area. I wouldn't worry to much about geography as long as it's within a 30-60 minute drive (non-rush-hour).

Be careful posting in your profiles that you are "looking for a wife." I mean, it's OK to say you are "marriage-minded" or looking for a long-term relationship, but when I was single and using these services, the phrase "looking for a wife" always made me stop cold. Probably because of my own hangups, I always read that as "want a free maid, housekeeper, and cook." Something like "looking for lifetime partner" seems better.
posted by Sorcia at 10:55 AM on February 1, 2006

Thanks, Sorcia, that part won't make it into the profile. And thanks for actually answering one of the questions! These are really the details I need.
posted by Dunwitty at 11:00 AM on February 1, 2006

Also, since it seems like you'll be doing a lot of dating you should find a place with a lot of restaurants you like nearby. As someone mentioned, just about anywhere in the city will be fine. Buy a guidebook, take a recon trip to see what feels right for you then find a nice clean apartment in that area.

For further reading:
San Francisco Neighborhood Guide
posted by mikepop at 11:04 AM on February 1, 2006

While the whole Bay Area is pretty close to each other, there are mental boundaries that have to be leapt at times. I lived in the East Bay over near Berkeley and worked over in San Francisco. As such, most of my friends lived in SF. While I had a car and it was only a short drive away, you start to develop mental barriers to getting over there. "The traffic will probably be bad. Do I have the bridge toll handy? Where am I going to park? Oh man, not the traffic again."

So my vote would be to find a place in SF itself, like kcm recommended. Even though everything's pretty close and BART is handy, it seems like everything happens in the city itself and that's where all the cool kids are.

As for specific neighborhoods, I'll third or forth the "anywhere's fine" notion. While there are bad parts around like any city, you can often find good parts a block or two away.
posted by Moondoggie at 11:22 AM on February 1, 2006

A lot of people who live in the city don't own cars, so they'd want to date people who live within public transportation range. I personally wouldn't ride the bus/train for more than a half hour to snog, especially if i wanted to see that person more than 2-3 times a week.
posted by matildaben at 11:24 AM on February 1, 2006

Like Sorcia, I used to fit your profile, until I got married.

Do live in San Francisco. That's where most of the women in your description are to be found. Anywhere in San Francisco is fine, really, but the different neighborhoods have their different personalities. Do some exploring, find the area that fits your temperament, the place that suits *you*. I would be a little weirded out by someone who chose a particular neighborhood in order to facilitate marriage. Don't go live in the Marina because that's where all the Marina chicks are. But if you do things that make living in the Marina make sense for you, then by all means go live in the Marina.

For a while I dated a guy who lived in Palo Alto, and I lived in the city. That was a pain in the ass, and when I signed up for match.com, I really wanted to limit the range to SF/East Bay. It was my impression that there are a lot of single guys in the tech industry living on the Peninsula.

If I can give you one piece of internet dating advice, it's this: when you are responding to someone's profile, say something that demonstrates that you actually read her descriptive paragraph and understood what she is seeking. Let her know you are paying attention to her, and not just reflexively firing off missives to a cute photo. The guy who did that was the one that I married.
posted by ambrosia at 11:25 AM on February 1, 2006

Ditto everything ambrosia said in her second paragraph. I've been trying to figure out a way to say all that for the last half hour, and she was much nicer than any of my various drafts of the same advice!
posted by occhiblu at 11:28 AM on February 1, 2006

let me second that there are a *lot* of single guys in the tech industry living in the South Bay / Penninsula area. a LOT. it makes being a workaholic much more attractive.
posted by kcm at 11:29 AM on February 1, 2006

Given that you're 44, I think setting your requirements to "she's 30-45" might make it tough. "She's 40-50" sounds more reasonable to me. A decade in age difference is probably too much.
posted by ChasFile at 11:30 AM on February 1, 2006

Okay, let's drop the marriage focus, it's freaking people out, and it's not that important. I was just trying to emphasize a real relationship, as opposed to "a series of hot flings".

The idea is to live in a the place where (a) the matching services will have the greatest chance of matching me with the women I've specified and (b) I'll be close enough that it will be easy enough for those women and I to date.

By the way: congratulations to the women for actually reading my post and answering the questions I've asked! Men - you're lagging. (dammit how do you make tiny text)
posted by Dunwitty at 11:40 AM on February 1, 2006

One thought: another vote for "you're over-thinking this". If this was a movie, you'd be searching the internet and going on dates and planning to move cities to find a woman who meets your exact criteria and all the time you'd be falling in love with your Guatemalan cleaning lady who can't even speak English.

Another thought: there's a story by James R Tiptree Jnr. about a guy who's lost his girlfriend. "She was one in a million!" he moans to his friend, who points out that logically there must be eight like her in NYC alone.

Any large metropolis will have hundreds of women who meet your criteria, so stop micro-managing your life and obsessing over the details and just get out there.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 12:06 PM on February 1, 2006

I'm in L.A. and met my boyfriend through Salon/Nerve personals last spring (back when their personals services were still good). Distance-wise, I initially was willing to meet guys within 50 miles, but in reality that's just too impractical with L.A. traffic/drive times (50 miles could mean a couple of hours in the car in rush hour!), so I limited it to 25 miles.
posted by scody at 12:10 PM on February 1, 2006

scody, I love you. Thanks for getting it.
posted by Dunwitty at 12:14 PM on February 1, 2006

Nerve is actually good again. It did suck for a while, but they fixed the sucking, and it brought me a lucky find. Thanks to the guy who actually read my profile and responded to something in it, rather than sending my cute picture an e-mail that he was looking for a wife. Second that recommendation by the way.

I live on the East Coast, but I was generally searching for guys within a 10-25 mile radius. Any farther than that would have been a real strain. IT's nice to hear stories about people in different states who relocate for one another and all; but I didn't want to count on that.

As to age, I completely agree that 30-45 may not be the best range to shoot for. When I read profiles that list requirements like that, I wonder why the guy is interested in women so much younger than himself. Is it because he fantasizes about being with some young hottie? Is it because he's afraid a woman his own age will be too challenging? Is it because he thinks women his own age are 'past it', or ugly? No matter what the true answer, just listing the age requirement that low brings up a lot of unpleasant thoughts, and it's not attractive. Not only do I not want to date that guy, I don't want to be that woman, either. I don't fancy being someone's trophy, or hanging around with their fifteen-years-older-than-me friends and feeling odd because they're a completely different generation from me. I'm 36, and in my profile I said I was interested in men 33-40. The only guys I've responded to have been in that range, and it's nice to know that they are comfortable with someone whose maturity will closely match their own.
posted by Miko at 12:33 PM on February 1, 2006

Oh yeah, the age range thing. I don't think being willing to go as young as 30 is necessarily a problem for you (at 44), but not being interested in women more than a year older than you might raise a teeny bit of a flag for me (though you're certainly not in the category of those guys in their 40s who indicate they are only interested in women aged 18-29! Yuck.).

There are plenty of women in their mid-to-late 40s who you might find just as attractive and have just as much (if not more!) in common with than someone 14 years your junior. I very much tended to respond only to guys who had a preferred age range (for their matches) that didn't skew significantly younger, even when I actually fell within their preferred age range (like Miko, I'm 36 too, and I was interested only in guys in their early/mid-30s to early 40s). I know you're probably wanting to cast your net pretty wide, so why not just open up the maximum age range (say from 45 to 50)?

Again, just speaking purely from personal experience over the years, I never dated anyone more than 10 years older, and in fact usually dated within a few years of my own age either way (2-3 years younger to 3-5 years older; my bf's actually about 7 years older).

Hope this helps, and of course I wish you great luck!
posted by scody at 12:52 PM on February 1, 2006

I appreciate these concerns, but I would love to avoid derailing the intent of the Ask. If it would help, imagine the Ask never mentioned my age or the word "marriage".

So far, consensus for Question 1 has been "the city". Are there no enclaves of educated, professional/tech/scientists outside the city? No communties of post-docs around the universities? I have a thing for women who work in lab coats :-).

For #2, nobody has talked about how the services constrain or group you. Are you allowed to specify as wide a geographical range as you want?

Getting good responses so far on #3. "How far I'd be willing to drive to date" really means something here. Unfortunately, I'm not yet familiar enough with the Bay Area to know match "travel time" to "miles" yet, but I'll learn, I'm sure.
posted by Dunwitty at 1:07 PM on February 1, 2006

I'm below the age range but when I met my partner I lived in San Jose and had a car, he lived in San Francisco and didn't. I had to do the driving. On a weekday evening the drive from SJ to SF is about 2 hours. SF to SJ is even longer but I've never done it so I'm not sure by how much.

I also dated a girl who lives in Oakland. The drive from SJ to Oakland on a weekday evening was about 3 hours, maybe 3 and a half. It was hell, that's all I remember.

I recommend living in the city as it's centrally located, everything awesome is here, but own a car. If your dates are out of the city you'll probably want to have the autonomy of a car.

Parking, however, sucks. Get a place with a garage.
posted by birdie birdington at 1:14 PM on February 1, 2006

You're over-moderating the thread.

Palo Alto, being the home of Stanford and the epicenter of the tech industry, is an obvious enclave of educated professionals (science, academia, tech, law, VC, etc.) The rest of the Silicon Valley corridor on the Peninsula is similar (San Mateo, Redwood City, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Sunnyvale all the way down to San Jose). The problem I found with Palo Alto and the surrounding area is that it tends to be somewhat of a residential wasteland, as others here have said. But as far a residential wastelands go, it's one of the nicest. I'm quite a bit younger than you, but all my social activity involve SF despite the fact that I lived in downtown Palo Alto. I imagine this is the case for active singles of any age. My friends and I constantly moaned about the ubiquity of "couples" in Palo Alto.

Within SF, I'd be most likely to live/socialize in the Marina/Cow Hollow area. However, I'll throw out a contrarian suggestion here - SoMa. A lot of people scoff at the area because it's full of new yuppie-style condos and chain restaurants/stores. But it's very convenient for those who want to live in the city and commute to the Peninsula (freeway access is key and the Marina is the most difficult area from which to access the freeway).
posted by mullacc at 2:02 PM on February 1, 2006

This does not directly answer your question, but FYI, when I was dating, I would automatically cross off any guy whose desired age range was similar to yours -- i.e., would date a woman 15 years younger but no older than him or only a year or two older. And I dated a few significantly older guys, actually -- just not any older guys who went to great lengths to orchestrate dates only with much younger women. Maybe you are making this specification because you want kids, but fyi, it will creep some of your target audience out.
posted by onlyconnect at 2:13 PM on February 1, 2006

Or, what Miko and scody already said, though I see now you'd rather not take responses on this question. Oh well.
posted by onlyconnect at 2:19 PM on February 1, 2006

It's cool, onlyconnect. It was good feedback, and I'll fix it when that time comes. I just didn't want it to dominate the feedback. And, as mullacc says, I'm clearly over-moderating here. It's my first Ask and also extremely important to me.
posted by Dunwitty at 2:41 PM on February 1, 2006

I live in SF and have dated several men who lived in Mountain View, which is about an hour south. Not ideal, but not a deal-breaker either. I'm not sure that this sort of anecdotal info is helpful, though. I will warn you that Craigslist, likely because there is no cost barrier to entry, is mostly regarded as useless. Most women I know look at Nerve or Match instead. Also, any of those online services will let you view listings at any distance radius you choose, though they will only "match" you with people if you have matching radii. I wouldn't worry about that in advance.
posted by judith at 5:29 PM on February 1, 2006

hasn't anyone ever told you, there is no geographical cure!
posted by brandz at 6:57 PM on February 1, 2006

hasn't anyone ever told you, there is no geographical cure

I have to completely disagree with that. The pickings were very slim where I used to live: it was family-and-retiree suburbia. I think I knew every single man in CT under 40. As soon as I moved to the progressive, young city I live in now, I couldn't believe how many great men were here, available, and looking. I've been like a kid in a candy shop - I thought the game was all over, but it's totally not. You have to be where the demographic and lifestyle has some potential of meeting your needs.

So where you live does matter, and if establishing an LTR comes to the top of your priority list, it's probably worth moving to where the chances are better.
posted by Miko at 7:02 PM on February 1, 2006