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

261–270 of 465 posts

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

#261

Post by bastawhiz »

sethbannon wrote: post #222

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…

> 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.

Is this surprising or useful? Most folks get their first apartment around age 21. Right now, that means there's roughly four years of Gen Z renting apartments. If the oldest members of Gen Z are 25, an increase of 21% is... pretty much exactly how many people you'd expect to be getting old enough to lease their first apartment in one year.

> Between 2020 and 2021, people who fall into Generation Z were filling out 21% more leases nationwide, as compared with the year before.

And this is less than you'd expect. If the oldest Gen Z is 25, two years ago they'd be 23. One new year of college grads should yield a 30-50% bump. But the pandemic happened.

> When that search is narrowed to San Francisco, Rentcafé says those 20-somethings had a 101% increase in rental applications.

Again, not super useful. Most 20-somethings leasing apartments during those years are definitionally millennials (and probably still are!). The pandemic changed who was looking for housing and who they lived with, and the change as it affects SF in 2020 is probably not a usual trend.

> They now make up more than a fifth of all people looking to lease in SF

If we assume teenagers aren't leasing apartments, this is again no surprise. If every decade of people (20-somethings, 30-somethings...) made up an equal share, this is very reasonable up to the average life expectancy. People lease less as they get older, which skews the numbers towards younger generations. I'm sure you could look up the numbers and find out the exact distribution, but 20%+ of renters being in their 20s seems...ordinary. Maybe even a bit low.

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

#262

Post by arcticbull »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #242
mikebenfield wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously there is some level of demand to live in SF, and that's part of the explanation for the high cost of living. But the factor really driving up rent and real estate prices is the massive resistance in SF and the Bay Area in general to building new housing.

It's being driven up everywhere. SF just started higher.

In part yes, but also, SF was especially resistant to building new houses. So much so it even has a Wikipedia article on its obstinance. [1]

> For example, from 2012 to 2016, the San Francisco metropolitan area added 373,000 new jobs, but permitted only 58,000 new housing units.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage

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

#263

Post by jdavis703 »

seaourfreed wrote: post #253

People vote if SF has a good or bad government, by voting with their feet. Cities across the nation can have people leave due to remote work. This isn't remote work. This is a vote on if SF's government is great or bad.

Rents are up 15% YoY, which is probably a leading sign that demand is back. I know some folks might blame higher rents on greedy landlords… But it’s quite clear that at work this year’s class of new grad hires is moving to the Bay Area.

What I think we saw is people left SF because there’s no point in doing remote work from a cramped, expensive apartment. So yes, it was a vote on governance. But for all SF’s problems it’s more nuanced than “people are fleeing a sh*t-hole city.”

(And even funnier, I live in Oakland. There was a noticeable surge in people parking bikes with Caltrain tags in the bike room. I’m back to being the only bike with a Caltrain tag now.)

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

#265

Post by fosk »

lmeyerov wrote: post #84
librish wrote: post #60

SF is probably hit the hardest by WFH. If you lived and worked in the city you probably had a pretty good commute, so you're not getting the biggest benefit. And while I know it's a less common preference on HN, a lot of people enjoy going in to a lively office and occasionally grabbing drinks with your coworkers after work. It's a great way to make new friends. But with WFH there's a prisoners dilemma where no-one g…

I've lived in the same spot in the mission for 10+ years (and been around longer), and other folks in the building for 20+: the mission hasn't regressed to the gang wars era (we have stories there...), but between the break-ins, homeless tents, poop & drugs, crazy people shouting at 4am, and occasional shootings, the neighborhood has slid back 10-15 years. Luckily I've only witnessed 1 murder, so the crime is merely…

> Luckily I've only witnessed 1 murder

Stockholm syndrome is real here.

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

#266

Post by rr808 »

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.

Agreed, California is pretty special. I think its easy to get hung up on "mild year-round weather", it actually gets boring and I prefer 4 proper seasons. I enjoy some snow and some hot summers which means most of the country is available.

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

#267

Post by trimbo »

So many houses in my SF neighborhood are currently empty. They're single family homes so I'm not sure of the impact on the overall population, but it's been weird around here.

- For sale and empty.

- Full renovations. Guessing more than half are flipping them, given the speed which construction started after sale.

- Investors buying homes and keeping them empty.

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

#268

Post by Karrot_Kream »

deltaonefour wrote: post #98
scelerat wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny, I moved to SF and landed a tech job, in that order. I moved to the Bay Area for certain things above a job. I know there are others like me, perhaps not a majority of the HN crowd, but I quite like it here and it would take a lot for me to change my mind about the place.

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…

> 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.

What makes you think those of us who enjoy living in the area haven't made the conscious choice? There are good reasons I chose to live in the urban parts of the SFBA, just like I presume there are good reasons several of my friends are happily running a household in Seattle, Austin, Chicago, Brooklyn, Columbus, or pretty much any other part of the US.

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

#269

Post by 0000011111 »

ghaff wrote: post #39
peckrob wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why it isn't being mentioned. I am not in the Bay Area myself, but about half of my friends there have relocated in the last couple years. A bunch to Washington or Oregon, some to Texas, one to Nashville, and a few others to places mostly in the northeast. All of them cited cost of living as the primary reason ... but all also mentioned full time remote work is what finally made it possible to move. When…

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.

It sounds like you are saying that if you move from SF to another city cost of living expenses will drop dramatically.

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

#270

Post by marvin »

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…

This is a spooky narrative, but the rent seekers can't be the majority. My understanding is that many Californian real estate markets are kept artificially tight due to various forms of NIMBYism.

If renters become the majority, it's suddenly no longer viable to limit new housing through regulation. Markets are nowhere near the fundamental limits of homes per square meter of the state that's good to live in.

Post reply on HN