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

251–260 of 465 posts

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

#251

Post by mupuff1234 »

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?

I think we have plenty of working proof that mass transportation systems work at scale (NYC, Seoul, Tokyo, Berlin...)

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

#252

Post by twayt »

webwielder2 wrote: post #227

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.

> 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?

If you consider SF (the city) weather mild, there are a ton of cities in the US that match what you're looking for. They just don't have the tech orientation and cachet that you associate with living in SF.

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

#254

Post by nobodyandproud »

cbozeman wrote: post #218
themitigating wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know the excitement that surrounds stories like this on foxnews? They want liberal Democrat cities to fail so they can blame leadership as an example

That's because leadership is failing. The correct response of leaders is to ignore wealthy citizens attempting to prop up their multi-million dollar 3bed4bath properties and let them know, "We're going to zone more areas for residential development, sorry. 2500 square foot homes shouldn't be $3 million in any area in America." And all these rich liberals - and they are liberals - use the same bullshit line over and o…

Anger aside (directed more at liberals or NIMBYs?), California and San Francisco is limiting its potential.

Wealth of the area is being strangled by a magnitude.

As an individual owner, however, it’s irrational to not fight.

So how would you incentivize growth? It can be done, but I do think the lawmakers will have to be creative about it.

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

#255

Post by teebs »

sheepybloke wrote: post #213
iancmceachern wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in this boat. We moved apartments in SF during the pandemic and we now live in an amazing neighborhood, amazing building, for 40% less then we were paying for a below average apartment before. It's not one or the other (moving in or out), it's about getting what you (the individual) wants, and being smart about timing and using world events to your advantage, not disadvantage. Some people wanted to move away from…

Where have you been seeing the rent drop in SF? I'm in the south bay and have been interested in moving to SF now that I'm going remote, since I want a bit more active nightlife. Now that I'm remote, I don't have to stay in south bay.

Rents are definitely down - or at least they were 1.5 years ago when I last moved. Before the pandemic, 1 bedrooms were usually at least $3500 and often $4000+. When I looked last January, there were decent places between $2500 and $3000. I emailed some landlords saying "is there any chance you could go lower" and they offered me free rent for 1-3 months. I ended up with a pretty good deal on a large one bedroom in the Mission.

Rents have gone up since then from my understanding, but they're still below what they were several years ago. https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/san-francisco-ca

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

#256

Post by arcticbull »

tshaddox wrote: post #226
sheepybloke wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where have you been seeing the rent drop in SF? I'm in the south bay and have been interested in moving to SF now that I'm going remote, since I want a bit more active nightlife. Now that I'm remote, I don't have to stay in south bay.

I haven’t seen these supposed rent drops in SF or the Bay Area either. My lease in the peninsula is up next month and the rent is increasing about 8%, and that’s aligned with the prices I’m seeing elsewhere for comparable apartments.

Things are rising a bit now but if you jumped into a new place in like 2021, the discounts were pretty absurd.

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

#257

Post by lazide »

jethro_tell wrote: post #240
lazide wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 goin…

That assumes they'll get takers on the areas though.

With remote work becoming more of the norm, what if the labor market doesn't move back?

They'll have a monopoly that few ever pay rent on, and they'll go broke (while the houses rot).

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

#258

Post by khazhoux »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #117

The most regrettable thing is that it's those who bear the most responsibility for the city being less desirable (in a multitude of unrelated but compounding ways) are the ones with the most ability to just move elsewhere. I wish these people had to sleep in the bed they made.

Your comment could be read as a slam on rich techies, or the homeless, or even a specific race or ethnicity. Amazingly ambiguous! :-)

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

#259

Post by 650REDHAIR »

999900000999 wrote: post #13

With even hybrid work models your living a better life living up in Sac and driving down once a week. This is a good thing. People should vote with their feet.

You couldn’t pay me enough to live and work in Sacramento let alone live there and commute to the city.

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

#260

Post by teebs »

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.

Many of my friends who are tech workers who've worked at unicorns and tech giants for 5-10 years bought their first homes in SF during the pandemic. I would guess part of the drop in rents is a shift in demand from former renters to new homeowners. Also, there was a general increase in prices across all asset classes during the pandemic that continued to drive prices up. Finally, property prices have actually gone up less in SF than they have in the US as a whole, likely because of the general effect of people moving away - compare the change from January 2020 to today in this chart https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS vs this chart https://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-values/
Post reply on HN