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

371–380 of 465 posts

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

#371

Post by iancmceachern »

teebs wrote: post #255
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.

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 t…

Many buildings around us have not since raised their rents. Still bargains to be had.

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

#372

Post by corndoge »

mlindner wrote: post #344
Alex3917 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Census data is wildly inaccurate. The percentage of people who fill out the census form is less than 20% in some neighborhoods. Whereas the city knows every time someone flushes a toilet or flips a light switch.

You do know that if you don't fill out the census form they come knocking on your door, and if you refuse to respond they ask your neighbors and go based on that.

Is that a statement or a question?

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

#373

Post by refurb »

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.

Limited housing stock and people upgrading from rental to a home goosed demand and prices.

I’d also assume people who bought a place are less likely to sell and leave than someone renting.

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

#374

Post by diogenescynic »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #364
diogenescynic wrote: post #249

San Francisco has become a really hostile place to live even if you make $300,000+. My wife and I lived in Glen Park and it was still a shit hole. We had a meth head constantly breaking in and living in the parking garage of our building. Cops and landlord didn't care. I regularly saw people shooting heroin and smoking meth/crack on BART during rush hour. I was sick of seeing needles on the street and smelling urine.…

I'm really curious where you live in Glen Park for this to happen. I've never seen crime there. There's no needles anywhere, and kids everywhere.

Near Arlington and Richland. There's a walking trail there along Arlington that attracts a bunch of druggies and creeps. The Richland overpass also has homeless camps near it year round.

I think if you live further up the hill, there are fewer issues, but I was close enough to Bernal Heights, the J, 38, and BART, and the community garden--which all brought more riff-raff nearby.

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

#375

Post by diogenescynic »

rc_mob wrote: post #176
systemvoltage wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm pretty sure the non-republicans are just paid off by their "donors" to let republicans win. Democrats are just there to feign opposition.

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

#376

Post by ulfw »

8note wrote: post #139
99_00 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reasoning contradicts its self. I agree that remote work allows more workers to live where they want. You claim that workers left SF not because of any attribute of the city, but because they wanted a change. You imply that SF is desirable place to live, however it's population declined only because of a desire for change. However, there are more remote workers outside of SF than in it. If SF was in-fact desirab…

The price of rent shows its desirability. Lots and lots of people want to live there, but that doesn't mean they can, or that it's the best fit for their other requirements.

No it really doesn't. It's a supply/demand thing. A ton of jobs bring people into San Francisco, a lot of people coming into SF (with housing supply roughly steady) let to ever increasing prices. Simple as that. That's the majority of why people come to SF.

It's not the 1960s anymore as people fled to SF because of flower power, hippies or the gay movement. Sadly it's become a very different town.

As soon as jobs didn't require people to live in SF (thanks to Covid induced remote work) people moved out. Not everyone! Of course. But more people moved out than moved in, showing that the desirability of SF isn't as strong as you think it is.

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

#377

Post by mancerayder »

colinmhayes wrote: post #271
yodsanklai wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prices in NYC are just insane!

Apparently 3 beds are cheaper than 1 in new york. 3,695 vs 3,600.

That's probably a factor tied to area - dense Manhattan is more luxurious and expensive than Bensonhurst, where a three bedroom is more common and a fraction of the cost. A more meaningful metric would be, by borough, market rate housing. Then Manhattan three bedrooms will be 6,000 and not 3,600. They can easily reach 9 in a doorman building downtown.

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

#378

Post by mancerayder »

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…

There was a big price spike in late 2021 to the present for rents. There was an amazing opportunity in early 2021 for a super negotiation position.

Unfortunately the people came back all at the same time, seemingly.

The state is booming with low vacancy, that's the present state

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

#379

Post by mancerayder »

dahdum wrote: post #210
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…

It’s pretty easy for the highly paid and wealthy to insulate themselves from the problems of any city and live in a bubble of comfort. SF is becoming more challenging to do so in, but far from impossible. It’s the lower and middle classes that suffer most from SF’s problems, they can’t afford the rose colored glasses. Until the wealthy are truly inconvenienced they’ll continue with the feel-good ineffective measures.…

In places like NYC the feel-good measures (like not prosecuting low level crimes, like shoplifting and petty theft) cost the city tax revenue due to businesses leaving and tourists becoming more reluctant to come. Headlines have effects.

Ironically, that tax revenue can be used to reduce these very issues, a secondary effect not brought up often.

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

#380

Post by brailsafe »

mlindner wrote: post #344
Alex3917 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Census data is wildly inaccurate. The percentage of people who fill out the census form is less than 20% in some neighborhoods. Whereas the city knows every time someone flushes a toilet or flips a light switch.

You do know that if you don't fill out the census form they come knocking on your door, and if you refuse to respond they ask your neighbors and go based on that.

In Canada, it's also technically illegal to not fill out the census.
Post reply on HN