Live data from Hacker News

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

sfchronicle.com

231–240 of 465 posts

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

#231

Serious question: what's another place in the US with mild year-round weather, walkable neighborhoods (haven't driven a car in 12 years), and easy access to an international airport? That's what SF offers me. The "SF is an unlivable hellhole" drumbeat is so loud that I almost feel compelled to move (my own experience be damned), but I'm not sure where to.

Too bad the USA has practically no livable cities.

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

#232
post #54

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.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Consider that the reason many people were in SF in the first place was because their job required them to be there and they didn't have a choice; now that they have a choice, perhaps many of them find SF attractive and stay, while a minority don't and leave.

> Consider that the reason many people were in SF in the first place was because their job required them to be there and they didn't have a choice

I’m not sure how big of a factor that is/was though. I know plenty of people in their 20s who worked in the peninsula or east bay but deliberately took on the high costs (and long commutes!) of living in SF for the usual reasons related to SF being a cultural center.

I think it would be fairer to apply your claim to the reason many people live in the entire Bay Area, but not specifically in SF.

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

#233

Serious question: what's another place in the US with mild year-round weather, walkable neighborhoods (haven't driven a car in 12 years), and easy access to an international airport? That's what SF offers me. The "SF is an unlivable hellhole" drumbeat is so loud that I almost feel compelled to move (my own experience be damned), but I'm not sure where to.

Don't feel compelled to move. If you don't know why you want out of SF, don't leave.

Everybody who is saying how horrible it is aren't going to live your life for you. Don't try to live theirs.

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

#234

Those that have "made it" are moving out of SF and the young and hungry are moving in. SF has seen a wave of Gen Z inbound recently. I'll take that trade anytime. "the number of rental applications by people who fall into Gen Z (defined as those born between 1997 and 2012) have increased by 21% in the past year. Meanwhile, as we just discussed, rental applications from every single other generation have been lessenin…

Majestic take. More than likely, the ones that "made it" are staying where they are, having bought whatever property they've been able to and are now renting it out to the Gen Z'ers to pay it off. The older generation, wisely, realizes there's no future there and have ended their rental terms to go elsewhere where they can actually afford to buy something, not having gained any real estate ownership of their own. Cal…

I think there's a middle ground. I'm sure gen Z is hungry. Good chunks of every generation are, on the other hand, counting rental applications is a little odd.

There's a good chunk of millennials that are settled. They aren't moving in or out. an 8% drop for a generation that is about to turn 40 during a 2.5% interest rates seems a lot like a few people collected the cash to buy the homes and aren't renting any longer. But we'll never know because this is a single stat in a whole sea of stats regarding housing by generation.

*edit, I mean, we could know, we could go out there and find meaningful data to get a full picture of what's going on but I don't really care that much. Just saying that looking at one stat and crafting a wonderful narrative is pointless.

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

#236

Serious question: what's another place in the US with mild year-round weather, walkable neighborhoods (haven't driven a car in 12 years), and easy access to an international airport? That's what SF offers me. The "SF is an unlivable hellhole" drumbeat is so loud that I almost feel compelled to move (my own experience be damned), but I'm not sure where to.

Have you ever been to Santa Monica or San Diego?

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

#237

Those that have "made it" are moving out of SF and the young and hungry are moving in. SF has seen a wave of Gen Z inbound recently. I'll take that trade anytime. "the number of rental applications by people who fall into Gen Z (defined as those born between 1997 and 2012) have increased by 21% in the past year. Meanwhile, as we just discussed, rental applications from every single other generation have been lessenin…

Majestic take. More than likely, the ones that "made it" are staying where they are, having bought whatever property they've been able to and are now renting it out to the Gen Z'ers to pay it off. The older generation, wisely, realizes there's no future there and have ended their rental terms to go elsewhere where they can actually afford to buy something, not having gained any real estate ownership of their own. Cal…

> The older generation, wisely, realizes there's no future there and have ended their rental terms to go elsewhere where they can actually afford to buy something, not having gained any real estate ownership of their own.

Wise > No Future > Makes biggest investment there anyway.

Does not compute.

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

#238
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.

This is not a strategy for everyone, but I definitely pay less in SF than I would in most cities because I know people willing to live with me long-term (and split rent) here. Generally it's easier in SF to find a roommate who is high-earning and willing to split an apartment or house compared to other cities, where similar people would just pay a little more to get their own place.

You (and those like you) have informally recreated boarding houses. It’s a shame that Single Room Occupancy is basically illegal to build in any major US city: most cities require building “single family units” that must have their own bathroom(s), kitchen and bedroom(s).

It would be nice if people who are OK sharing common spaces were able to have housing built specifically with them in mind.

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

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see far more California vehicle tags in Central Florida than I would've expected.

That is probably more a function of population. I regularly see Florida plates in Washington.

I live in Missouri and people who have lived on my street for decades have Florida plates. They must have property there and claim it as residency for tax purposes

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

#240
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Here's another more bleak option. Just like in 2008 when corporations bought up huge swaths of the housing market for cash while no one could get a loan. (which is part of the current issue with not enough homes to buy)

They aren't betting the market will come roaring back, they are betting that they can corner the market and housing will be a subscription just like everything else they sell.

Rent seekers aren't going anywhere, and the cost is really immaterial to them for the most part. They don't need cashflow, they need a monopoly.

Post reply on HN