Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 328 posts

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#291

Post by DanielDent »

eldavido wrote: post #247
windlep wrote: post #5

I'm sure the fact that there's an increasing trend of empty Chinese investment properties isn't helping. I grew up in Cupertino, and when I visit my parents there, I'm rather shocked at how downhill the neighborhood has gone in parts. It's crazy that these old 70's tract homes go for 1.5 million. Even more insane is that they're bought and then left empty to go downhill. Literally broken windows and paint falling off…

What's needed is a property management firm that caters to these people. There's no reason for houses to sit empty. They're much more economically productive (a nice way to say "profitable") with tenants in them.

There are plenty of property management & other real estate firms in Vancouver which cater to foreign owners. But the math on renting isn't actually so straight forward.

A 10-20 year old building in Vancouver will have many units with kitchens that have literally never been used. There's wear and tear and a lot of extra work and risk that comes from renting a place. And as odd as it may sound, the resale value can take a hit when a property is "used".

Unlike San Francisco, rents in Vancouver have not gone through the roof. Recently AirBNB seems to have put some upward pressure on rents, but rents still remain fairly detached from capital costs.

Frankly, the rental income is almost a rounding error. Vancouver real estate is about capital, not cash flow. It's a place to store capital (which in and of itself is quite valuable for many foreign owners), and current supply/demand trends also lead to price appreciation.

Traditional views of real estate market fundamentals are nearly irrelevant to the observed behaviour of the Vancouver real estate market.

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#292

Post by abalashov »

dmode wrote: post #257
jonstokes wrote: post #4

Please don't come to Austin. I moved from SF to Austin a little over two years ago, and I want to make it clear that it's terrible. The food is bad, the people are lame, and all the musicians are out of tune. I hear Chicago is where it's at, so please go there. Or New York. Or anywhere else, really. Just don't come to Austin.

I know you were being sarcastic, but Austin is very overrated. Low VC funding, small city, surrounded by Texas. Ironically, in another related study, the #1 place people want to move to from Bay Area turned out to be NYC - an even more expensive place. I guess the thought there was might as well stay in a big city if we are paying that much money

Perceived better value?

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#294

Post by more_corn »

davidw wrote: post #180
bkjelden wrote: post #163

I'm one of those in the 1/3rd, currently in the process of moving to the Denver/Boulder area. I knew on paper the housing would be cheaper, but what's stood out to me is how much less crowded it is: You can go to stores and find parking, and not wait 15 minutes at the cashier. You can go to restaurants and actually get a table. You can make unprotected left turns. Things are busy during rush hour, but outside of that…

Boulder has a NIMBY problem nearly as bad as San Francisco's: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11583455 https://journal.dedasys.com/2015/06/18/boulder-colorado-vs-b... Not sure about Denver, I never looked into it much - it's an order of magnitude too big for me.

Nimby or not it's quite a nice place. One of the fittest places in the nation, 300 plus sunny days a year. Hiking within a ten minute walk of downtown. I hated it till I moved here. Now I see the allure.

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#295

Post by GigabyteCoin »

bashinator wrote: post #264
GigabyteCoin wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>empty Chinese investment properties It's like this all over North America. Not just the west coast. I lived in a chinese-built condominium in Toronto a few years ago, and the rumor was that 50% or more of the building's units were owned by absentee landlords. Which made sense, because almost the entire building was seemingly vacant. Hardly any lights on at night. No furniture on most of the balconies. Never had to w…

Why aren't more people squatting in these? My understanding is that if you can maintain "tenancy" for 30-60 days(?) you gain all sorts of rights.

I suppose because there are security guards and cameras in these buildings and that nobody is able to knock on every door for months on end to determine which apartment is vacant and which one is not. Especially difficult for someone who fits the profile of needing a permanent residence.

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#296

Post by msoad »

DanielStraight wrote: post #189
khushia wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "you can make unprotected left turns" mean? I'm from the UK so I guess this is the US equivalent of turning right at a set of traffic lights... but what significance does "unprotected" have?

Unprotected means there is no traffic light. Typically it will look like this... = (end) =========== ^ ===================== ->---^ ===================== >> >> >> - - - - - - - - - - - >> >> >> >> ========================================

Nice ASCII work! :)

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#297

Post by nitrogen »

davidw wrote: post #255
cweiss wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true when you factor in utilities? IE - Where does all the water come from? At least in the burbs, you can set up your own well.

Yes, it is, especially when you consider utilities. Average house in the burbs has some lawn or shrubs or something that uses water, and it's not like well water is ultimately 'free' - it comes from somewhere. Also, it means less land developed, less extensive electrical and water distribution systems, and so on.

What makes cost of living so much more expensive in cities vs. suburban or rural areas if they're really so much more efficient?

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#299

Post by tomcam »

jandrese wrote: post #229
muzz wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not "a few years". Cities act very quickly on this since broken windows make the dwelling open to all sorts of problems like animals coming in, people coming in (trespass, drug den, etc).

It was 3 years in my case, and they were only fixed because the house was finally foreclosed and sold to someone else. Critters had definitely moved in, and there was lots of water damage too. It was a real problem for me because it was a townhouse attached to mine. That was the last time I ever owned an attached dwelling.

Painful to read. Sorry that happened to you.

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#300

Post by dredmorbius »

cweiss wrote: post #253
davidw wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities are greener than suburbs by and large, so actually putting more people in cities that otherwise would have lived in a burb is a win for the environment.

Is that true when you factor in utilities? IE - Where does all the water come from? At least in the burbs, you can set up your own well.

Yes. Cities, dense cities, are efficiency machines.

Look up Geoffrey West, of the Santa Fe Institute, who does all kinds of research on scale and scale effects. Including of cities.

Post reply on HN