Live data from Hacker News

S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

sfchronicle.com

161–170 of 465 posts

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#161

If you compare rent trends of SF vs NYC or LA https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/san-francisco-ca https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/new-york-ny https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/los-angeles-ca You'll notice a huge difference between in SF and the other cities. Rent prices still hasn't gone back to pre pandemic level.

Well, thank you for confirming my suspicions. I wish I saw this before posting https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31533926

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#162
post #67

Anyone know stats on NYC? I'm having trouble understanding the current true state wrt to apartment rental pricing: many people left during Covid but I'm not quite sure if many of those in fact returned. Furthermore, it would seem as though rental inventory is quite low or at least demand is through the roof (typically one needs to be ready to sign on the spot) with little to no room to shop-around. Prices are also qu…

There are many incentives in NYC that prevent rents from dropping. What we saw during the pandemic was static rent prices with increased benefits that lowered the actual price, for example last month is free so in effect rent has been lowered by 1/12 while still being listed as 12/12. Landlords do this for a variety of completely [redacted] reasons, including price controls, taxes, vacancy regulations, credit for "improvements", advertising histories. Rents do not fall in NYC, they merely stop rising for a time.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#163
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you like San Francisco on balance, it's hard not to ask yourself if you like it so much that you're OK with paying for some of the most expensive housing in the country when you don't have a reason you have to be there.

For cities in general there's much more to do compared to low density areas. Restaurants, entertainment, other people. All of this within a decent traveling distance.

Sure. Cities lend themselves to different sorts of activities and have different pros and cons than do rural areas. Personally I get all the city stuff I want in short visits. I can see a play in a large city that is an hour drive away without living there.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#164
post #153
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even worse, the blob of suburbia is spread out in a ring around a giant body of water, and it's almost certain that the place you want to go is on the other side. So now it's 1+ hours on trains (assuming they even run near your destination) or dealing with the eternal traffic jams at the chokepoints across the bay.

Are there no water taxis? In Vancouver you just hop on a small boat and get a quick trip across, I think with your bus pass

There are water taxis, but I think they only go along the SF waterline, between say Fisherman's Wharf and the baseball stadium.

There are ferries, but they only go from a very few points in SF to a very few points in Alameda, Oakland, and the north bay.

Seems like most of the time, the places you're trying to get to aren't close to the water anyway.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#166
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just pointing this out. This post was quickly up +4 and then instantly went down to -1. Someone seems to be brigading here.

He doesn't live in San Francisco but is claiming that if he commuted to work he would always see human feces on the ground. He provides no evidence, not even a personal experience

What do you want? Pictures? This is commonly known to be an issue there. If I was there right now, I'd say give me 5 minutes and I'll post a picture. Was in SF last week. If you do a lot of walking there, you WILL see not only a shit, but someone actively shitting.

Edit: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=b6fab72091...

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#167
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For cities in general there's much more to do compared to low density areas. Restaurants, entertainment, other people. All of this within a decent traveling distance.

Sure. Cities lend themselves to different sorts of activities and have different pros and cons than do rural areas. Personally I get all the city stuff I want in short visits. I can see a play in a large city that is an hour drive away without living there.

That's fine but the parent implied it was objectively worse than living elsewhere

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#168
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of reasons why people hate SF. The homeless problems, the petty crime. The smell, the dirtiness, the shitty weather, the actual danger of stepping on human feces, the drug use. To each their own, but I think it's important for people to get out of their headspace and see things from a more general perspective as well. There are very good reasons why people don't like SF and unless people who love the city acknow…

Except the weather lol I lived in Bernal for years and never experienced any of that...

This is what I mean by people not getting out their headspace. I literally find it impossible not to experience every single thing I mentioned above on a daily basis just by walking through the city.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#169

I think remote work is often understated in reasons people move away. When you go into the office every day, it's pretty obvious that you have to live in whatever city you live in. But with remote work, the question becomes "if I don't have to live here, do I want to keep living here". For many (including myself), the answer was a definitive NO. Sure many headlines and news segments make it seem that it's the crime,…

The even more obvious thing is the lockdowns. Regardless of whether you think the lockdowns were appropriate or not, it’s pretty clear that many of the advantages of living in a dense cultural center like SF go away when you’re mostly confined to your home and can’t participate in night life, the art/music scene, restaurants, etc. Heck you barely even benefit from the weather any more.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If SF was attractive, then people would want to remotely work from SF. But it isn't. So, they're leaving. On the other hand San Diego seems to be blowing up.

If SF was unattractive, it wouldn't cost $2,500-$3,000 to live in mediocre housing with 6 housemates. Even people that don't have high paying tech jobs are lining up to pay these kinds of insane prices. They don't want to pay the prices, but it's worth it to live in an area like SF. One of the only places on the planet in human history that people put this much energy and money into just living somewhere.

"Nobody drives in LA. There's too much traffic!"
Post reply on HN