Between high school, college, and professional life I've worked in cities, rural areas, suburban wastelands, and urban areas like SF. The majority of the time, most of my colleagues were concerned more with commute than "what's around where I work". SF was a bit different, but parking and commute (late 90s early 2000s) were still top of list.

When I worked in SF, my getaway area was Grace Cathedral and the park near by. Uphill, no people, no trash, quiet overall.

But some office parks have walkable spaces, places to eat, etc. Some are easier to reach commute-wise than others.

Suburban does not rule out walkable. Walnut Creek is completely suburban, but the office complexes there have become (or been developed for) being walkable over the years -- one of the places I reference above was part of this.

And honestly, depending on the definition of "walkable" many suburban places are more "walkable" than big cities -- traffic, sidewalks, bums spread on the sidewalk etc.

Is the end goal a live/work situation where you don't have to commute a long way, have reasonable rent/mortgage, and a good quality of life? Honestly, pick two of three, if you want to be in the bay area.

Born here in South San Jose. Grew up/still live in in San Jose, Sacramento, the east bay, and Santa Cruz. Seen a whole bunch of things.