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

291–300 of 465 posts

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

#291

Post by alanh »

0000011111 wrote: post #269
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.

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

Yes, this is famously true, with SF's cost of living (especially but not only housing) being some of the very highest in the nation. Getting out of California helps even more.

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

#292

Post by nineplay »

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…

> let them know, "We're going to zone more areas for residential development,

Why? This may seem deliberately naïve but in the context of the current discussion, why should more areas be zoned for residential if people are leaving the Bay Area? If there are residents who hate the Bay Area, can't afford it, and are no longer stuck there now that they can WFH then it sounds like they are cheerfully leaving. The wealthy citizens keep their houses and neighborhoods and perhaps the rest of us get a break from the ceaseless complaining.

It's an easier solution than massive rezoning proposals.

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

#293

Post by nineplay »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #254
cbozeman wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Wealth of the area is being strangled by a magnitude

How so?

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

#294

Post by jethro_tell »

marvin wrote: post #270
jethro_tell wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think they are a majority and I think the main problem is lack of housing being built. But I do think that what housing is out there on the market faces stiff competition from companies not people. I'd assume there are a few people buying houses with cash but my guess is a lot of those stories you hear about people bidding 100k over ask and losing to a cash offer are mostly not people.

Theres a good number of companies that are open about increasing their housing portfolios. Even construction companies that built thousands of starter homes per year converting to rentals only.

These are long term changes, and not a quick cash grab at the bottom of the market.

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

#295

Post by seanmcdirmid »

givemeethekeys wrote: post #25
_fat_santa wrote: post #5

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,…

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.

SF is expensive. If SF was cheaper, it would be more attractive, more people would arrive, and rents would be pushed up again by the increased competition. This is just supply and demand at work.

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

#296

Post by geoalchimista »

jeffbee wrote: post #141
ttymck wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the point you are making, so I ask this genuinely: how confident are we in the census count? How confident are we usually, and how did that change given the hurdles the pandemic introduced?

Both the decennial census and the census ACS are estimates. All population counts are estimates.

All statistical inferences are estimates, and carry standard errors with them. What is your point?

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

#297

Post by sokoloff »

RC_ITR wrote: post #280
dominotw wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If everyone who left was living in a 2 bedroom with a roommate and now that space is a one bedroom with a home office, then why would rents fall?

Presumably the willingness to pay a given amount from just one person’s income is lower than that of two people’s income. Add in additional temporary uncertainty in big parts of the tech market and I can see a lot of currently occupied units having a tenant not willing to renew as-was.

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

#298

Post by eezurr »

ipnon wrote: post #162
hyperpl wrote: 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 "im…

The main reason they do it, IIRC, is because the banks handing out the landlords loans require some minimum rent prices on the leases in the loan contracts. The way they get around this is by offering a month or three of free rent. That way the leases signed by the tenants still me the contractual obligations of the bank.

In the end the tenant still gets screwed when the lease comes up to be renewed, unless they are willing to move out over negotiating another free month in the next cycle.

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

#299

Post by deltaonefour »

onetokeoverthe wrote: post #128
deltaonefour wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Around 2010 and before SF was very attractive. The southbay were where most jobs were located but everyone wanted to live in the city. That's what caused a huge amount of companies and startups to move to SF. The influx of techies, however, changed the city. And SF soon became what it is today.

The ahistorical techies destroyed sf by 2000. Sf became techietown in 2000. Instead of primarily being an alt culture capital. It became "a place to work".

No. It started in 2000 and proceeded into 2010 where around 2010 and before it became noticeable. By the mid 2010s it reached it's peak.

Prior to 2010 and a little after it was more than a place to work. It was a place where all techies wanted to live; but not because of work. Because they loved the city. That's why those shuttles from SF to mountain view google exist. Too many googlers wanted to live in SF and work in MTV.

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

#300

Post by fennecfoxen »

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…

As usual, the “speculators” and “out of towners” and others are convenient scapegoats, lest we have to face the underlying supply and demand and barriers to development.

You want to have a monopoly on housing in a major city? I’d be hard pressed to point out an industry where that would be harder. You have literally millions of competitors.

Post reply on HN