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

351–360 of 417 posts

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#351

Post by ubernostrum »

vedanta wrote: post #348
ubernostrum wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a problem which will eventually leave shortsighted developers holding the bag if they're not forced to deal with it. Think of it like overfishing: you could just as easily say overfishing is a public problem that private fishermen shouldn't be "forced" to solve through quotas. Some fishermen used to believe that, too, right up until the day there weren't any more fish for them to catch because they'd destroye…

This would make sense if there was naturally 'cheap' housing and 'expensive' housing. There isn't. It's just housing. The fish analogy just doesn't work, we're talking about increasing supply of a durable good, not a natural resource. The only way is to make more. I'm sure tons of developers who don't bother playing the bay area would come back if cities lowered their BMR requirements. Leading to better designs, and…

This would make sense if there was naturally 'cheap' housing and 'expensive' housing. There isn't. It's just housing.

So luxury condos and basic apartments either don't exist, or are identical to each other?

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#352

Post by godzillabrennus »

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…

If you want help changing local policy I bet the folks behind http://sfbarf.org would be helpful to your fight.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#353

Post by vedanta »

ubernostrum wrote: post #351
vedanta wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would make sense if there was naturally 'cheap' housing and 'expensive' housing. There isn't. It's just housing. The fish analogy just doesn't work, we're talking about increasing supply of a durable good, not a natural resource. The only way is to make more. I'm sure tons of developers who don't bother playing the bay area would come back if cities lowered their BMR requirements. Leading to better designs, and…

This would make sense if there was naturally 'cheap' housing and 'expensive' housing. There isn't. It's just housing. So luxury condos and basic apartments either don't exist, or are identical to each other?

Are they both not housing? Can I not renovate one into another over a few weeks? I give developers more credit. If they want to make money, they need to figure out what the market will bare. And it's not their fault if only enough housing is being allowed that they can get away with making luxury only housing. If more was allowed without BMR conditions, there would be a much less price difference between what you find at avalon vs craigslist. The difference is actually not that much, everything is just very high and unaffordable period. Hence the dilemma we're in.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#354

Post by ubernostrum »

vedanta wrote: post #353
ubernostrum wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would make sense if there was naturally 'cheap' housing and 'expensive' housing. There isn't. It's just housing. So luxury condos and basic apartments either don't exist, or are identical to each other?

Are they both not housing? Can I not renovate one into another over a few weeks? I give developers more credit. If they want to make money, they need to figure out what the market will bare. And it's not their fault if only enough housing is being allowed that they can get away with making luxury only housing. If more was allowed without BMR conditions, there would be a much less price difference between what you fin…

Can I not renovate one into another over a few weeks?

Unlikely. I strongly suspect you don't actually understand anything about physical construction given your seeming belief that all housing units are fungible. So I'll simply state it for you clear and plain: they are not in fact all fungible.

And it's not their fault if only enough housing is being allowed that they can get away with making luxury only housing.

Ah, it's the evil gubmint's fault. Well, that explains a lot.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#355

Post by kevinburke »

pj_mukh wrote: post #253
narrator wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does everyone have to squeeze into San Francisco and the peninsula? Can't you tech workers gentrify West Oakland at least? Guess a few street thugs are a force more powerful than million dollar home prices. I bet those guys are really proud of the chaos they create that forces all of you to avoid their neighborhoods.

Oakland...takes a harder line against gentrification than most other parts of the Bay [1]. [1] http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/07/oakland-blaze-looks-su...

The fires are unfortunate but Oakland has approved a lot more market rate housing than SF or surrounding cities have, in part because rents have been appreciating more quickly than in SF. Oakland also wants to do more for housing.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#356

Post by Naritai »

amyjess wrote: post #144
Naritai wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you miss the part where BART is packed every commute hour? There are huge numbers of people in Oakland and the rest of the east bay. But the most efficient transportation system is one that doesn't have huge rush hour stresses, i.e. ones where people live close to where they work. So if the offices are getting built in SF, then so must be the housing.

> So if the offices are getting built in SF, This is the problem. Embrace edge cities, people. There's no reason to expect hundreds of thousands of people to commute to a downtown area. Scatter the businesses throughout the suburbs, dammit. Start locating new startups not just in Oakland but even farther out, in places such as Walnut Creek or Santa Rosa. Hell, maybe a tech influx could get the crime down in Stockton.

The problem with this is couples who get jobs in different edge cities (or buy/inherit a house then change jobs). I personally ended up in Pleasanton because I work in SV and my wife worked in Walnut Creek; public transit options aren't great out here so we each add to traffic with our single-person cars. If our jobs were in SF (or even Oakland), I'm confident we'd be living lower-impact lives right now.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#357

Post by Naritai »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #133
CodeCube wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so then build the offices in oakland ;)

This is actually what happened in parts of Westchester and Connecticut. All the executive staff were commuting from their suburban homes to their various headquarters in NYC, then they realized they could just move their office instead.

If you look at small-to-mid sized law (or other professional) firms in the Bay area, you see a lot that have 2 offices: One in FiDi, one in Walnut Creek (or somewhere similar). Guess where the partners are all spending any day that doesn't require a client meeting? :)

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#358

Post by vedanta »

ubernostrum wrote: post #354
vedanta wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they both not housing? Can I not renovate one into another over a few weeks? I give developers more credit. If they want to make money, they need to figure out what the market will bare. And it's not their fault if only enough housing is being allowed that they can get away with making luxury only housing. If more was allowed without BMR conditions, there would be a much less price difference between what you fin…

Can I not renovate one into another over a few weeks? Unlikely. I strongly suspect you don't actually understand anything about physical construction given your seeming belief that all housing units are fungible. So I'll simply state it for you clear and plain: they are not in fact all fungible. And it's not their fault if only enough housing is being allowed that they can get away with making luxury only housing. Ah…

Here's the economist saying housing is fungible, just for you: https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/04/housing...

Did you read what I said enough to make a counterpoint with new information or thinking? Care to be wrong about other things?

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#359

Post by nailer »

resu_nimda wrote: post #219
nailer wrote: post #115

This is excellent opportunity for anyone who wants investment from west coast VCs but doesn't want to deal with San Francisco, Oakland or the bay area. San Francisco frequently has human feces on the sidewalk in many areas right near the city center, high housing prices and a combination of startup bros and angry hard left outrage culture folk. The bay area is a cultureless void and Oakland is still dangerous. Better…

A cultureless void. That is honestly one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard. The bay area has culture coming out of its ears. Try getting outside of the tech/startup/VC bubble. For a very basic and accessible start go walk around First Friday in Oakland and talk to some people that you normally wouldn't.

Oakland is its own city, I wouldn't call it the Bay Area, I'd just call it Oakland. It certainly has more culture than places like Mountain View but it has its own issues too.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#360

Post by cbcoutinho »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #288
kasey_junk wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If housing was unconstrained in the Bay Area and at cost parity with the MidWest, wouldn't that remove any reason to live in the MidWest? That is hilarious. The Bay Area centrism to imply that there is no reason to live any where else besides cost is absolutely ludicrous.

There's some guys a few cubes over from me talking about how "Not for sale in California" is a marketable feature on engine powered equipment.

Does that mean that the product doesn't meet Californian regulations? How is that a selling point?
Post reply on HN