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

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

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 465 posts

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

#171

Post by lazide »

dominotw wrote: post #121
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually know several people who used this as an opportunity to move into the Bay Area. The sudden drop in rents made it more attractive and they jumped. They both work in industries where face to face communication is a competitive advantage. It’s easy to forget that not every job is naturally compatible with remote work like it is for those of us who type on computers all day.

> sudden drop in rents Curious, Why aren't properly prices droping to reflect the loss in population.

Speculators betting it will come roaring back afterwards, money still getting cheaper, folks with families that can’t move, inability to ‘just move’ if you own, all probably contributing.

Housing prices have been out of whack with fundamentals (cash flow) since at least ‘12-‘13.

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

#172

Post by ellard »

visarga wrote: post #107
akavi wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When population goes up: positive - the area is vibrant economically; negative - rent is spiraling upwards out of control What's endlessly infuriating is population going up in a city should be an almost unmitigated positive. It's just our unwillingness to allow building new housing turning it into a zero sum game that makes it a mixed bag.

But does the transportation capacity also scale linearly with size?

The argument I usually see is that there would be less need for transportation as the removal of explicit zoning would be part of the effort for increasing density and that would put people closer to the goods and services that they want/need.

(I don't have an opinion on this; the closest I ever got to city planning was playing Sim City)

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

#173

Post by ghaff »

xvedejas wrote: post #125
thebean11 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that like 2 hours each way..? That's like a quarter of your day, no thanks.

Yes, 2 hours from Sac. Quite rough to do every day, but I'd think pleasant to do twice a week; there's WiFi and a café on board, for what it's worth. That said, if you just want cheaper housing, Fairfield is only an hour away in the same direction, so there are plenty of intermediate options.

I had a 90 minute+ door to door commute (which I could do mostly by train) for about 18 months. I only had to do it about half the time and it was manageable but probably not sustainable long-term, especially for stretches when I was regularly going in more frequently. Once a week would be pretty doable; I go in for the day periodically but nothing like once a week.

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

#174

Post by gsibble »

lovehashbrowns wrote: post #123
gsibble wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leave. It's so much better elsewhere. I'm so happy in Boston.

Oh leave I did! I left after 11 months or so. Went out to Portland but it's not much better there nowadays. Still a fun city, at least. Might try Chicago now. I hadn't realized how relatively cheap some of the areas are. Boston might be fun, too!

Be careful. I have a lot of friends leaving Chicago due to outrageous crime rates.

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

#175

Post by ghaff »

adam_arthur wrote: post #137
RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #99

Could this be a potential source of a housing bubble collapse?

Given that work from office is the primary reason SF became so expensive in the first place, yes. How can SF home prices be justified vs SD or LA in a remote work world?

>How can SF home prices be justified vs SD or LA in a remote work world?

I don't live in SF or even in a city but, in the abstract, I'd pick SF from that triplet. LA is complete sprawl and a little bit of SoCal beaches goes a long way for me. And San Diego is nice enough but sort of soulless. I like the SF climate even when summer is the coldest winter you ever spent--and there are great recreational options and scenery.

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

#176

Post by rc_mob »

systemvoltage wrote: post #88
floren wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I voted for Shellenberger for Governor of CA. Felt right. Same, but note that this was only the primary... it's entirely possible we'll end up with Newsom and some other random Democrat on the actual ballot.

Unfortunately, yes. People have stopped voting based on rationale and policy, but instead based on team colors. For those who don't know Shellenberger, he is your classic liberal running as an independent. Pro nuclear alone gets a vote from me. But there are so many things he talks about that are just common sense in majority of large cities around the world. If you're fed up with CA, please look him up.

The only voting choices you have in America are Republican and not Republican. The non Republican party is a disorganized mess. Its the world we live in.

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

#177

Post by ghaff »

lovehashbrowns wrote: post #123
gsibble wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leave. It's so much better elsewhere. I'm so happy in Boston.

Oh leave I did! I left after 11 months or so. Went out to Portland but it's not much better there nowadays. Still a fun city, at least. Might try Chicago now. I hadn't realized how relatively cheap some of the areas are. Boston might be fun, too!

Boston/Cambridge proper is pretty pricey. Although if you don't need/want to live in the city, you can get to pretty reasonable housing fairly quickly. I live a bit further out still.

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

#178

Post by twiceaday »

peanut_worm wrote: post #138

San Francisco is the dirtiest city I have ever seen. It doesn’t seem like a great place to spend 1 million dollars on a house unless you work there.

1 million dollars might get you a two-bedroom condo. Median house price is 1.6 million

https://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-values/

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

#179

Post by DragonStrength »

themitigating wrote: post #154
ghaff wrote: 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, but most who leave SF will choose a smaller metro area, not a rural area. What I have found in my time in the Bay Area is a general ignorance of how many smaller metro areas have developed more vibrant urban centers over the past 10 years. The people from these cities who went home for the first time in a decade are finding surprisingly livable metros waiting for them, closer to aging family.

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

#180

Post by themitigating »

alar44 wrote: post #166
themitigating wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That's not an indication of frequency which is what matters.
Post reply on HN