San Francisco

GeorgeSelinsky · February 17, 2005

I've asked this question before on this forum and haven't gotten any replies. I have tried to research this question on the web but it's really hard to find anything out at all this way.

I'm looking into the option of moving out to San Francisco (at least temporarily). I'm based in New York right now but I like SF better as a place to live.

I am wondering if it's a good place to film in as a director/producer, especially doing studio work as in TV commercials and maybe even a low budget TV series.

New York is great because the permits are free, and there is more talent out here it seems. Monaco labs is more expensive out in SF, that's for sure, but I can always send my film to LA.

Can anyone who works out there just give me a basic idea of what it's like? I'd appreciate any input at all.

- G.

David Frank · February 17, 2005

It's raining today. <_<

Michael Nash · February 17, 2005

It's been over a year since I worked up there, but every time I've worked near there or with someone from there, they complain about how dead it is. Pretty much everyone has bailed for a market with more work. Oppenheimer camera closed its office there a couple years ago, and I'm not even sure if there's another rental house.

But my info is a bit out of date, so I too would love to hear from people in the Bay area. It's a great place to live (expensive though), and I'm looking forward to possibly shooting a low budget feature up there in a couple months.

February 17, 2005

Well if you live in NY then I assume you are familiar with OUTRAGEOUS rents.

Housing in San Fran isn't expensive, it's laughable!

Two of my friends just bought their first house there, built in the 1920s 1200 sq feet, needs a lot of work, price 700K!!!

Very nice city though.

As far as film work the reports I get are that it is DEAD. Nothing going on there.

Basically there are four options in North America. LA, NY, Toronto, Vancouver.

Frank

Edited February 17, 2005 by Frank Gossimier

Matt Pacini · February 18, 2005

I'm not exactly "in San Francisco", so, consider my statements as somewhat conditional.

I live in Sacramento (100 miles north of S.F.), and while theres more going on in S.F. than Sacramento, from everything I hear & see, still not much, and less all the time.

Almost everyone you hear of up here (sacramento) goes to L.A. for "serious" work, either temporarily or permanently.

Plus, you'll be competing with the over-abundant supply of people trying to get the few jobs there are.

There's a strange dynamic to Northern California, and that is that lots of people in the top half, hate the bottom half, (city haters, basically) and will NOT live there, and resent having to pay higher taxes and ration their water, etc. so the South can have all their money & water.

That's the general feeling among many, anyways, and it's no wonder.

(When there are droughts, which is often, they sometimes impose harsh restrictions on N. Calif, so that you can't even water your lawn, or they'll fine you.

Then you flip on the evening News, and they're showing people in Southern California floating in their swimming pools, because the they don't have the restrictions.

Why? Because there is a larger population in the south, and the politicians don't want to piss off their largest collection of constituents.)

The point of all this?

Lots of qualified and talented people get tired of living in the city (L.A.) and move north, for the cheaper housing, less dense population, etc., and you'll be competing with all of them for the occasional crumbs of business that exists anywhere north of L.A.

So if you move to S.F., you're probably going to be making that 300+ mile trip to L.A. all the time for work anyway, and it's ungodly expensive to live there.

That, and the government is making it harder to live there every day it seems.

The latest thing is, they're going to impose poll fees, so you have to pay just to drive into the city every day.

It's already impossible and expensive to park anywhere. I don't even go there anymore, it's such a pain in the keester just to get anywhere or do anything...

So bring a load of cash if you want to live in S.F., 'cause you're gonna need it.

Having said that, if you make the trip, give me a ring. We'll go to lunch! (so I can distract you and steal your Arri 35!!!) har har!

MP

GeorgeSelinsky · February 18, 2005

Thanks for the responses to everyone.

I was just in SF a few days ago actually (yes, it started raining but just before that the weather was absolutely fantastic - a far cry from a New York winter). I wanted to even drop by Monaco labs and ask them some honest questions about how work was coming in SF, but I didn't have time.

So it does seem that work in SF is on the dead side. I was under the impression that after NY and LA, SF was pretty active. But if they only have one lab there, and only one rental house, that's not a good sign. Being relatively close to LA probably makes it tough, everyone migrates down there. Francis Ford Coppola has an operation near SF though, so that's interesting. But that's the only major operation I've heard of there.

I was wondering if soundstage rental was cheaper in SF than in NY or LA, but thusfar no results.

Real estate in New York is pretty costly, actually VERY costly, especially if we're talking Manhattan. You can't even think of a decently located studio apartment in Manhattan for under $1400/month, in Frisco you can still find such a place for under $1000, and it can be in a nicer, quieter neighborhood.

- G.

February 19, 2005

in Frisco you can still find such a place for under $1000, and it can be in a nicer, quieter neighborhood.

yes, you can find a cheaper apt. and there is probably less air pollution, but the general economy in the bay area is not all that good, and there are potentially vast quantities of unemployed people still.

i recall in 1994 there were 5,000 applicants for a city bus washing job.

the bay area is historically one of the toughest employment situations in the country...great

weather, good culture, in a picturesque setting make it one of the most attractive places

to live...but there can be outrageous competition for decent jobs.

i know one person who, after the downturn was applying for work, and did not even

have a single interview...for 1.5 years. not even an interview.

the way to transition is probably to pick up a low paying, but stable job, and then try to build on that. (yes, like bagging groceries) one of my old professors told me that berkeley has more grocery baggers with advanced degrees than any other place in the country.

LA is cheaper, BTW, not more expensive than the Bay Area. i find the traffic and air pollution levels to be a bit much down there though.

GeorgeSelinsky · February 19, 2005

i recall in 1994 there were 5,000 applicants for a city bus washing job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If that's the case, I imagine how many people want a job in film :D

Actually, what I've discovered is that a LOT of people seem to do well working in real estate for some reason. It's really a very big job down there, it seems almost every third person is in real estate.

- G.

February 19, 2005

Well you can always do what I do and apply it to NY, LA, SF.

I live 1.5 hours north of Toronto. I go in when I need to for film transfers and post work, which is usually 3-4 times a month. That's it. Otherwise I avoid the dump like the plague.

I've spent time in NY and LA, they are both huge dumps as well. SF is clean, but too expensive, and an earthquake may send your house built on the hill sliding down the hill very fast.

So I have a major film hub at my door and easily accessible, but I sure don't and won't live there. I don't do series work so I can get away with it.

Frank

PS: I enjoyed reading the S. Cal vs N. Cal post, very interesting. You N. Cal folk better watch what you say, the S. Cal folk may come up there and kick your asses!! :o

Matt Pacini · February 19, 2005

... You N. Cal folk better watch what you say, the S. Cal folk may come up there and kick your asses!! :o

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not likely!

You've obviously never been to some of these little gold mining towns.

There are places up here that are still the wild west. These people are armed for Armageddon!

I stopped in the town of Cool a few years ago (yes, there's a Cool, California), and there was a horse tied off in front of the saloon!

Anyway, they don't need to kick our asses. They're already doing it to us by virtue of the fact that they're such a huge voting block, so they pass laws that benefit them, and make us suffer (like the water issue I mentioned)

Matt Pacini

February 19, 2005

I lived in The SF bay area for six years before moving to NYC myself. In short don't move there destroying your bridges in NYC, sublet your place in New York, then test the waters in SF. Rental house: there is Lee Uterbach and some dps with their own pkgs, Monaco isn't very flexible with rates for processing and transfer; they are the only guys in N.CA. As for rent, yes you pay less for a studio in SF than Manhattan. BUT, you will need a car+gas+insurance+parking/tickets. In bay area the rapid transit trains aka BART shut down at midnight so if you are stuck in the east bay, it'll be a $50 cab ride or more. One good place for docs and super low budgets is film arts foundation aka FAF(filmarts.org), I used to intern there and they give good rates for certain prod/post needs.

As for the job market (production wise) it is very divided. You either have super high budgeted FX features shooting in the city and in the hangers on some islands, those jobs are rare and union. then you have the super low budgets who shoot all over the city and would love your labor but probably can't pay anything or what they pay covers your BART ticket which is expensive( one round trip between the east bay and SF will cost 7-8 bucks, no monthly subway cards like NY).

Between the high budget and no budget stuff you do get some commercials or one or two TV shows shooting ( the one with the Nash bridges guy). however they are very competative and rare. If you are in the tech sector of film ( ie: avid technician, FCP trouble shooter) you might have more chances, but the tech market also took a beating after 99.

Good things are the landscape, the relaxed enviornment and many locations to shoot in. If you go there consider the east bay (Oakland and Berkeley) for cheaper rents. Also there is the Saul Zants(English Patient) film center on 10th street in Berekely. Food is cheaper than NYC and you are a couple of hours from Lake Tahoe, nice beaches and Muir woods. The night life kind of sucks, but I guess after bar hopping here I miss the house parties of California.

I personnaly think NY is much better for work, production wise than SF. For shooting low budget stuff NY is not very flexible. But for getting work on other jobs it is much better than Bay area, where it could take you a while to even find a shoot going on and getting contacts.

Hope this helps

Yousef