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

Housing in the Bay Area

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 407 posts

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#301

Post by timr »

BurningFrog wrote: post #281
timr wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Increased supply always leads to lower prices" Not in real estate economics. Housing isn't a commodity market. There are firm price tiers, different methods of construction, different fixed costs for those methods, and drastically different markets for individual neighborhoods. Real estate isn't fungible and it's isn't particularly liquid. Basically none of the requirements of Econ-101-style supply and demand are me…

> Not in real estate economics. Increased supply leading to higher prices would be something that Economist would crawl over each other to study, if true. So where are these studies? Who are the professional economists who support this view?

Pretty much all of them. Nothing I've said is controversial -- the gains are long-term, but the short-term effect is often just displacement:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/12/the-p...

"None of this dismisses the fact that displacement from specific homes happens when low-income housing is literally knocked down to build high-end towers. A good amount of new supply in cities, though, can rise on under-utilized land (former industrial plots, surface parking lots, abandoned properties, etc.). And the cumulative effect of all that new supply can hold down rents across neighborhoods and cities, including for the poor."

Nobody thinks that new housing is bad - in the long term. Where economists start to disagree is how to prioritize low-income housing and market-rate construction in the near-term:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/19/how-t...

"To be sure, more supply is needed, but unless it is targeted to those who need it most, it will only help wealthier residents."

"'Filtering,' where older housing units trickle down to lower-income families as they age, can happen in the broader metropolitan context. But it can take decades for filtering do deliver truly affordable units to lower-income households. As apartments age, the rent of a typical unit – not in a hot area - declines an average of 0.31 percent per year so even after 30 years, the rent will have fallen by only 9 percent."

"In gentrifying neighborhoods, filtering does not work at all, because land values and rents rise as the neighborhoods become more desirable and developers bid up land values. So lower-income households must look in other neighborhoods where services and schools are likely to be much weaker. Hence the gentrification process can reconstruct economic segregation."

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#302

Post by eloisant »

morgante wrote: post #165
jevinskie wrote: post #160

There is so much pressure, career-wise, to move to either the Bay Area, the West Coast in general, or a major urban hub. I honestly like living in a semi-rural part of the Midwest. I like seeing fields and forests while driving to work. If I want to get out to some wilderness, I can do so in 15-30 minutes. I travel in a car that, I feel, offers me freedom. To boot, I have a nice, reserved spot in the garage below my…

> My cost of living is very cheap. My commute is 15 minutes. I live close to my family. Why should I want to leave? You shouldn't. If you have a good job in such a location and are happy with the opportunities available, enjoy! The problem is that markets naturally congregate in distinct locations so anyone who is looking to advance their career needs to make their way to a hub.

If you're a developer, like many here, you can work remotely.

Of course you will have less opportunities that if you're willing to move to Bay Area or NYC, but that's a choice to make. Do you prefer to prioritize on your career completely or are you will to compromise on that for a better living environment for you and your family?

Nobody said it's a obvious choice to live in a smaller city, but it's important to know that (if you're a developer) you have that choice. You can opt out of the rat race and make less, or work on less exciting projects, but still make a decent living.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#303

Post by avar »

abalone wrote: post #260
davidw wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't live in SF, but having spent most of the past 15 years in Europe, which is dense: it's almost completely a supply problem. SF is not really very dense at all for a place with such a high demand for housing. Random place in SF: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7718267,-122.4388549,3a,75y,... Near where I lived in Padova, which is way smaller than SF, and way, way less well off: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3…

Apples to oranges. SF has always been more of a boomtown. Neither of the cities you mention have experienced the sudden, massive surge in demand that SF has in recent memory. When you have sudden surges in demand you can't just pin it on supply. You have to think about macroeconomic objectives for the city (i.e. preserving low and mid income housing) as well as how to plan for the long term, like when the boom turns…

    > Neither of the cities you mention have experienced
    > the sudden, massive surge in demand that SF has
    > in recent memory.
They haven't? According to what? I just looked this up for Milan real quick:

SF had 350k people in 1900, and 800k in 2010[1], a growth of ~2.3x. Milan had 550k people in 1900 and 1.3 million in 2010[2], a growth of ~2.35x.

I don't understand how you think SF is the exception in this example. Both of these cities have had similar population growth, Milan slightly more actually. It seems the difference is that Milan decided to build up.

1. http://www.sfgenealogy.com/sf/history/hgpop.htm

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Milan

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#304

Post by afarrell »

grappler wrote: post #210
jevinskie wrote: post #160

There is so much pressure, career-wise, to move to either the Bay Area, the West Coast in general, or a major urban hub. I honestly like living in a semi-rural part of the Midwest. I like seeing fields and forests while driving to work. If I want to get out to some wilderness, I can do so in 15-30 minutes. I travel in a car that, I feel, offers me freedom. To boot, I have a nice, reserved spot in the garage below my…

I have intelligence and programming ability, and a desire to further my career. I want a good high paying job in the epicenter of my chosen industry. I do not want to move to a city where I can't afford to buy a good home within walking distance of my workplace. The world should provide this for me.

If others can make a profit providing this for you, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

Maybe there are good answers to that question, but that should be the default.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#305

Post by afarrell »

abalone wrote: post #294
threatofrain wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that tech has been a major political player with respect to housing laws? If anything, restrictions on housing supply hurt tech companies who wish to import workers to their area. Restrictions on housing supply hurts everyone who isn't a landowner. If you're saying that a few tech elites are players in politics, fine, but that has nothing to do with the rest of the world who aren't elites. It's almos…

> restrictions on housing supply hurt tech companies who wish to import workers That may be true, but a city needs more than just tech workers to function. The goal is balanced growth. > Restrictions on housing supply hurts everyone who isn't a landowner. Objectively false. Affordable housing requirements help lower income people. > whatever tech elites are doing, they don't look like they're winning the battle to up…

> want more affordable housing

Then they should support as-of-right construction. Mandating affordable housing doesn't actually increase its availability if a developer's plans to build affordable housing keep getting shot down.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#306

Post by nazgob »

jevinskie wrote: post #215
jballanc wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not work remotely?

I'm hesitant because I have never worked remotely nor studied how to effectively do so. The biggest names in tech (which are interested in my specialty) also seem uninterested in remote workers, even after positive interviews.

Forgive my ignorance but are there biggest names in tech near your place? You should pitch remote work against your local market not the best companies in the world. That said, remote work can be hit or miss. I started working remotely for a company I worked before when my SO had to move for a PhD. We switched countries and I can't wait when we come back, I just miss home. 6 more months and I'm back. I had better and worse periods, overall I'm quite happy I did it but glad to be back in the office soon. In a regular company, when you're one of the few remote workers, you're always THAT remote guy. I guess its much better in companies with robust, mainstream remote culture.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#307

Post by khuey »

neilsharma wrote: post #272
calbear81 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of living is definitely infinitely higher than living in the midwest but you certainly can find fields and forests (and actual mountains!) in the SF area. For example, the minute you cross the Golden Gate bridge, you are in Marin County, a county with a rich agricultural history, amazing natural places like Muir Woods (the setting for the ape's home in the latest Planet of the Apes), and 85.5% of it's land p…

^ this is true. I was born and raised in south bay area and went to school in Berkeley. The Bay Area is an ecological treasure trove. But over the years I've seen the hills dotted with houses, untouched swamp land (great for the local wildlife) turned into generic commercial offices, and roads developed deeper into the outskirts. Noise and air pollution is getting worse. Parking and congestion is a nightmare anywhere…

The point of building infill development in our cities is to not pave over greenfield land on the urban fringe.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#308

Post by abalone »

jevinskie wrote: post #160

There is so much pressure, career-wise, to move to either the Bay Area, the West Coast in general, or a major urban hub. I honestly like living in a semi-rural part of the Midwest. I like seeing fields and forests while driving to work. If I want to get out to some wilderness, I can do so in 15-30 minutes. I travel in a car that, I feel, offers me freedom. To boot, I have a nice, reserved spot in the garage below my…

You're right, you can't have anything like that in SF. (Well, there are some pretty nice forests nearby.)

You also can't have any of the culture and city life that a major city like SF has. You see easily 10x as many people in a day in SF than you see all week in a semi-rural town in the Midwest. There's 10 cafes within a 10 minute walk. The nightlife is extensive and amazing. The restaurant scene, world class.

And that's fine if it has no value to you. But clearly for many there is more to consider than just cost of living and space. There is a reason startup hubs happen in major cities.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#309

Post by zeemonkee3 »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #126
carapace wrote: post #65

I'm in favor of how "building in the Bay Area is approved by discretion", I call it having some power over what gets built. "Democracy" y'know? I'm from SF. I grew up here. I'm also a computer nerd. To me, the tech "industry" has been ruining the city I love since the Dot-Com boom. To me, they are an invading army culturally speaking. In a very real sense my home is being destroyed. The saddest part is, this city kin…

Sounds like you want to live in the past. Unfortunately this is not how life works. The more you try to keep something from happening that is inevitable the less effective your attempts will become until you lose. NYC experienced this yesterday. SF is experiencing this today. Many cities will be experiencing this tomorrow. As population density grows this same scenario will repeat everywhere over the next century. Th…

His point though was that SF isn't particularly suitable as a city for startups; there's no magical "tech gold" that you can't get elsewhere, like West Virginian coal - people go there just to be in the game, because that's where the VCs chose to be. Historical and geographical factors in fact make it a particularly unsuitable place for a bootstrapped startup to exist.

The difference perhaps is that although Hollywood is the place to make deals and host awards ceremonies, the actual work of filming is done around the world, from New Zealand to Ireland to Vancouver.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#310

Post by abalone »

avar wrote: post #303
abalone wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apples to oranges. SF has always been more of a boomtown. Neither of the cities you mention have experienced the sudden, massive surge in demand that SF has in recent memory. When you have sudden surges in demand you can't just pin it on supply. You have to think about macroeconomic objectives for the city (i.e. preserving low and mid income housing) as well as how to plan for the long term, like when the boom turns…

> Neither of the cities you mention have experienced > the sudden, massive surge in demand that SF has > in recent memory. They haven't? According to what? I just looked this up for Milan real quick: SF had 350k people in 1900, and 800k in 2010[1], a growth of ~2.3x. Milan had 550k people in 1900 and 1.3 million in 2010[2], a growth of ~2.35x. I don't understand how you think SF is the exception in this example. Both…

First, you are looking at the wrong time scale. Second, population growth is not the same as demand. In just a few years SF has experienced a massive surge in demand, i.e. the price new residents are willing to pay for housing.
Post reply on HN