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

381–390 of 465 posts

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

#381

Post by mancerayder »

ceeplusplus wrote: post #83
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…

> like most major cities I have lived in or visited Boston, Chicago, North Carolina's RTP, and the Bay. Only in SF are there homeless camps with blatant drug abuse and public defecation being tolerated by authorities. Only in SF can you run into, with 100% probability, a mentally deranged person on your daily commute. When "specific streets" cover half the city (Financial district, Tenderloin, SoMA, Mission...) they…

Why is this so prevalent in wealthy U.S. cities but so much less in cities like Paris and London. These are more expensive (relative to income), dense cities with housing shortages and smaller GDP's.

Maybe there's something to be said for management of tax revenue and prioritization. Also petty theft is prosecuted in these cities.

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

#382

Post by inferiorhuman »

arcticbull wrote: post #262
bcrosby95 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Don't confuse the city and county of San Francisco with the whole bay area. There are NIMBYs just like everywhere else out here, but San Francisco is already one of the most densely populated cities in the country. You don't have to look very far (e.g. Brisbane) to see places with little-to-no housing fighting new developments tooth and nail.

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

#383

Post by brailsafe »

ttymck wrote: post #135
birken wrote: post #37

One thing to note is that the 2021 population is an estimate , and if you are a Census buff as I am, and compare the Census' 2019 estimates to the 2020 actual populations (as calculated from the census), there are often very large differences. The article also says that CA's estimate of the population decline is much smaller, and arguably CA itself would have more accurate data for this particular metric (residency a…

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?

As a census surveyer during the pandemic, I can say that questionnaires are pursued pretty relentlessly, at least in Canada. There will always be some people that refuse or can't be surveyed for some reason, but it's about as accurate as a human to human data collection process can be. The public only has access to somewhat lower resolution data, which probably nullifies the necessity of accounting for every single person anyway.

In some cases, especially with volatile/vulnerable populations living in apartments and what not, we'd revisit the same residence at least 3 times if we don't get it done the first time.

The less than 20% number in some neighborhoods seems like it'd be possible, especially if it's very dangerous, but unlikely, though I don't know the U.S system.

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

#384

Post by tshaddox »

iancmceachern wrote: post #367
tshaddox wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We've known multiple people whom their building was expecting they'd continue their lease at the higher rent while offering the lower rents to the general public for new tenants. I'd encourage you to find out what they're advertising rents at for new tenants and then hold them to that advertised rent.

The available units listed on the website are even slightly higher prices.

There’s another nearby building that’s extremely similar (same developer, I believe, and very similar floor plans, appliances, and amenities). Last summer comparable units in that building were priced the same as in my building, but are now a ludicrous 20-25% higher than my building.

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

#385

Post by smsm42 »

mjmahone17 wrote: post #238
xvedejas wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can probably get why it was banned (if abused, it can be horrible) but it is extremely common way of living, especially for young people without families in expensive places - so one would think the government would stop pretending it's not happening at some point...

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

#386

Post by inferiorhuman »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #342
synaesthesisx wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the difference is, NYC is constantly building new housing inventory, with constant construction and developments going up left and right. Meanwhile most of San Francisco is just streets of old single-family homes.

Do you mean streets of Victorian row houses? I didn’t notice many SFHs in SF unless you count row houses that are more commonly seen as town homes. See https://westlinevillage.com/townhouse-vs-single-family-whats...

I'd guess no. The neighborhoods west of Twin Peaks and south of the Mission are dominated by single family homes.

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

#387

Post by seanmcdirmid »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #386
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean streets of Victorian row houses? I didn’t notice many SFHs in SF unless you count row houses that are more commonly seen as town homes. See https://westlinevillage.com/townhouse-vs-single-family-whats...

I'd guess no. The neighborhoods west of Twin Peaks and south of the Mission are dominated by single family homes.

I guess you mean the housing that you see coming on Caltrain after pass through south San Francisco? 30% of SF’s housing is classified as single family, so there must be some in the city. Just not as common as it is say, here in Seattle.

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

#388

Post by inferiorhuman »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #387
inferiorhuman wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd guess no. The neighborhoods west of Twin Peaks and south of the Mission are dominated by single family homes.

I guess you mean the housing that you see coming on Caltrain after pass through south San Francisco? 30% of SF’s housing is classified as single family, so there must be some in the city. Just not as common as it is say, here in Seattle.

Not quite. The Brisbane project was an old Southern Pacific (Union Pacific?) yard that's right by the Caltrain station. AFAIK there's still nothing there.

South of the Mission take a look at Oceanview/Merced Heights/Ingleside (OMI). That's largely SFH. BVHP (Bayview + Hunters Point) as well and parts of it are visible from Caltrain. Heading west you'll find basically all of the Presidio, Forest Hill, Sunset, and Richmond neighborhoods are SFH or maybe low-rise apartment buildings.

A lot of the single family houses in SF have walls right up next to each other but do not actually share a wall. While Forest Hill properties historically had racially themed covenants, most of those neighborhoods predate HOAs and the worst of the covenants have been discarded.

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

#389

Post by ido »

iancmceachern wrote: post #370
acchow wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Largely SOMA and parts of the Mission and the Van Ness corridor. It's mainly areas which generally feel less like a neighborhood and more like a bustling city - mainly areas where renters are more OK with living in than homeowners would be willing to purchase in. A great example is the new Chorus building which opened in 2021 on Van Ness and Mission. It remained mostly empty throughout 2021 despite offering 10 weeks…

I would revise this statement: "mainly areas where renters are more OK with living in than homeowners would be willing to purchase in" To say: Areas that appear less like traditional neighborhoods with single family homes and more large modern condo buildings. Our building, and many around ours are largely condos, not rentals. They don't look like traditional houses, but even in this more modern area with multi story…

Is the word home not used to describe condos as well? I would have figured it’s a place with no houses to buy.

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

#390

Post by hsdrtjhwe45j »

_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,…

>...all these super visible indicators

I laughed a little at how hard the wording here is trying not to say "The homeless and druggies". Anyway, this explanation might have some grounding in reality but I don't know that it's actually saying anything useful since people and businesses choose remote work for a reason and they choose to displace themselves to embrace it for a reason. There are essentially two components in this scenario. There are the people who leave because want to work remotely and the companies that want to leave to hire remote workers (or move their current workers). The people want to work remotely because of the crime, toxic local culture, and costs. Companies want to leave because of the crime, incompetent governance, and costs. In either case, the fraction of people/businesses leaving because remote work is just so awesome and it's fun to get out and see new places is miniscule.

Tl;dr: People and businesses choose to work remotely for reasons and there's little evidence to show that a primary or even significant motivator of this is simply a desire for a change of scenery. Even if it was, the question still becomes what is the scenery being escaped from.

Post reply on HN