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

The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

tomtunguz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 417 posts

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#81

Post by poisonarena »

aphextron wrote: post #12
kevinburke wrote: post #6

Both top-level comments have mentioned housing prices. I grew up in the Bay Area and want to stay here and I am trying to work to change policy to help build more housing. Unfortunately due to law, bad policy and NIMBY's the market is not going to solve this problem on its own, without political change rents and housing prices will keep increasing. Here are some political actions you can take to help: - call your Sta…

It's almost comical how overcrowded BART has gotten at rush hour. Embarcadero and Powell stations become standing room only. I live deep in the east bay, and the new apartment building going up across the street has 1 bedroom layouts starting at $2800. Something has to give, or people will simply give up.

I live in Mexico City, riding the metro here.. well during rush hour... I wont go into it

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#82

Post by posguy »

toephu2 wrote: post #72
timothycrosley wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle. Lose ~2-5 thousand a year in income on average as a Software engineer, save 1-2 thousand a month on rent, and no income tax: https://www.codementor.io/blog/best-cities-software-engineer...

Every city has its pros and cons. Seattle is no exception. You move to Seattle so you can save a couple bucks, okay so what? Then you get seasonal depression because its overcast all the time.* *except during summer when it's beautiful

Ha, don't tell 'em about Seattle, remember its cold and wet and the sun never shines up here!

On a more serious note, after spending a few weeks in SoCal with the SO, I have no intention of ever moving to such a hostile climate. No onshore breeze + sunburns from driving for 40min = No bueno. At least it takes more than 40min to burn on a sunny day in Seattle :P

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#83

Post by posguy »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #73
toephu2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every city has its pros and cons. Seattle is no exception. You move to Seattle so you can save a couple bucks, okay so what? Then you get seasonal depression because its overcast all the time.* *except during summer when it's beautiful

Eh, I've been in LA for a year and it's too darn sunny. I can't wait to move back to Seattle and get some good pine scented rain again. But I get your intention, and it's been our strategy for a few decades now: over exaggerate seattle's rain problem to keep Californians from moving up and driving housing prices up even further. Unfortunately, it's no longer working, Seattle just keeps getting more popular and more p…

I feel ya there, I don't think I could do LA, but then again I was getting sunburned just driving around with the windows rolled up when I spent a few weeks down there.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#84

Post by posguy »

timothycrosley wrote: post #74
toephu2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every city has its pros and cons. Seattle is no exception. You move to Seattle so you can save a couple bucks, okay so what? Then you get seasonal depression because its overcast all the time.* *except during summer when it's beautiful

Sure that's true. I take Vitamin D, and have a light that I use during the winter. However, it's really both the Spring and Summer that are beautiful IMO, which is half the year. I make sure to take my vacations during the other half. I also tend to get more work done during that half, since staying indoors is conducive toward it. But, per the article I posted: it's not a couple bucks, on average - you end up after p…

IMO we still need to dezone Seattle, parking minimums and height caps are strangling new development and eliminating the possibility of affordable, unsubsidized housing for the average working person.

I hate seeing my old classmates and friends move from Fremont to Marysville or further, no good reason why we have to keep every single building in Seattle super short and build parking that will sit empty.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#85

Post by timothycrosley »

posguy wrote: post #84
timothycrosley wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure that's true. I take Vitamin D, and have a light that I use during the winter. However, it's really both the Spring and Summer that are beautiful IMO, which is half the year. I make sure to take my vacations during the other half. I also tend to get more work done during that half, since staying indoors is conducive toward it. But, per the article I posted: it's not a couple bucks, on average - you end up after p…

IMO we still need to dezone Seattle, parking minimums and height caps are strangling new development and eliminating the possibility of affordable, unsubsidized housing for the average working person. I hate seeing my old classmates and friends move from Fremont to Marysville or further, no good reason why we have to keep every single building in Seattle super short and build parking that will sit empty.

100% agree. We are doing better than most tech cities right now, but that's unfortunately a low bar. I want us to build so much that anyone who wants to live or start some crazy business here can without hesitation.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#86

Post by mattm »

timr wrote: post #80
pcwalton wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simple fact is that there are a lot of people who need to live in the Bay Area. Wishing people would just leave is what the NIMBY organizations have been trying for decades. It doesn't work, and it inflicts undue hardship on everyone who wasn't one of the lucky ones who bought in early. The only thing that does work is confronting the fact that a lot of people need to live here and encouraging housing supply to m…

"Wishing people would just leave is what the NIMBY organizations have been trying for decades." ...and yet, this crisis is only about 5 years old. Between 2008 and 2012, San Francisco rents were going down , not up. San Francisco's population declined in the 1980s. Say what you will about construction rates, but this is an acute housing crisis, brought on by an asset bubble, instigated by historically low interest ra…

AirBnB is a huge factor. Take a look at http://insideairbnb.com/san-francisco/ and the chart under Activity and see it go up after 2012.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#87

Post by posguy »

smashingfiasco wrote: post #37
stale2002 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. And the best way to fix Bart overcrowding is to build apartments near where people work so they don't HAVE to commute.

Just want to point out that Detroit built itself this way through the 1950's and 1960's. At the time, urban planners thought it would be efficient and sensible design. What ended up happening, though, is that as factories shuttered, the neighborhoods that were built around them started to collapse. The net result was pockets of localized decay, that eventually led to the entire urban area rotting as more people left.…

Detroit was built as low rise slum though, density was not on the list when urban planners designed Detroit. Thus how you end up with a highly dispersed population requiring infrastructure you can't maintain and could never afford to (were it not for federal grants up front).

Lafayette, Louisiana is in a similar state, all this suburban infrastructure investment that is ultimately a giant waste: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#88

Post by richardknop »

hossbeast wrote: post #32
vidoc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Riding BART into and out of SF as a commute is ridiculous at a new level nowadays. Especially given the shocking number of uneducated people who insist on keeping their backpacks on their shoulders despite the train being packed. Totally pisses me off!

How do you know they're uneducated?

He meant "uneducated" on how to behave in the tube. We would say the same thing in Europe if somebody is walking on the wrong side of escalators or similar, it doesn't mean we are literally saying they are uneducated.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#89

Post by posguy »

timothycrosley wrote: post #85
posguy wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO we still need to dezone Seattle, parking minimums and height caps are strangling new development and eliminating the possibility of affordable, unsubsidized housing for the average working person. I hate seeing my old classmates and friends move from Fremont to Marysville or further, no good reason why we have to keep every single building in Seattle super short and build parking that will sit empty.

100% agree. We are doing better than most tech cities right now, but that's unfortunately a low bar. I want us to build so much that anyone who wants to live or start some crazy business here can without hesitation.

Yeah, I'd much rather see an apartment or condo building go up in the city limits rather than up in say Bothell. Dense complexes where a 3bed/2bath is in the low $1600s shouldn't be held 15 miles outside the city limits, there is no reason beyond terrible zoning that that couldn't be built in Ballard or Magnolia or the Central District.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#90

Post by Decade »

timr wrote: post #80
pcwalton wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simple fact is that there are a lot of people who need to live in the Bay Area. Wishing people would just leave is what the NIMBY organizations have been trying for decades. It doesn't work, and it inflicts undue hardship on everyone who wasn't one of the lucky ones who bought in early. The only thing that does work is confronting the fact that a lot of people need to live here and encouraging housing supply to m…

"Wishing people would just leave is what the NIMBY organizations have been trying for decades." ...and yet, this crisis is only about 5 years old. Between 2008 and 2012, San Francisco rents were going down , not up. San Francisco's population declined in the 1980s. Say what you will about construction rates, but this is an acute housing crisis, brought on by an asset bubble, instigated by historically low interest ra…

5 years. How cute. Prop 13, a law with horrific long-term consequences, was passed by the voters in response to the housing crisis. 40 years ago.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-housing-supply/

San Francisco rents have sometimes gone down slightly, but they never returned to sane levels, and affordable housing for the poor hasn’t been abundant in many, many years.

Post reply on HN