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

391–400 of 465 posts

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

#391

Post by ido »

CSMastermind wrote: post #358
jdhn wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you look in the cars, are they older people? Where I live (western Florida), it's generally older people and not the demographic that you'd expect to find on this site.

I just moved NYC to Florida and I've been shocked how many other people have done the same. Florida is doing a relatively good job of attracting high end tech talent as far as I can tell. Texas is the other place I hear mentioned a lot.

Assuming you’re moving long-term, aren’t you worried climate change is going to make Florida (especially coastal southern Florida) a lot less attractive?

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

#392

Post by acchow »

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…

I use the word "home" to also include condos. Home does not mean "house".

Hayes Valley has tons of condos - homeowners want to buy here. Homeowners don't really want to buy at 6th and Mission and a Condo there would be heavily discounted per sqft.

Mission Bay also feels like a neighborhood - calm, some park space, all condos

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

#393

Post by acchow »

ido wrote: post #389
iancmceachern wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yes, buying/owning a home does include condos.

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

#394

Post by esprehn »

mikebenfield wrote: post #196
alar44 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you want? Pictures? This is commonly known to be an issue there. If I was there right now, I'd say give me 5 minutes and I'll post a picture. Was in SF last week. If you do a lot of walking there, you WILL see not only a shit, but someone actively shitting. Edit: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=b6fab72091...

Granted I've only spent about 6 months of my life living in SF, but I did a decent amount of walking around and never saw human feces.

Same. We lived in SF for 10 years and saw something like that maybe twice? On the whole the city is pretty clean, and most of the dirtiness is because it rarely rains. That's what's keeping many of the other popular cities looking cleaner.

For reference we've been in DC for a year now and we saw someone literally pull their pants down and poop in the middle of the sidewalk the other day. I don't think that's any indication of the city though.

I think it's the kind of thing where many folks visiting would end up in the rougher part of downtown, see something unfortunate, and not really experience the rest of the city. And then the whole city is painted with that brush.

The bay area has many problems (housing policy is probably the worst in the country), but it's also a beautiful and vibrant place to live.

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

#395

Post by jjav »

Schnitz wrote: post #331
marvin wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Homeowners are a reliable political cohort, they tend to organize quickly as soon as any issues are on the agenda that might affect the value of their land and they will reliably push for whatever increases land values. They show up at city hall to make sure they are at least the loudest group on the issue. Homeowners are also diligent voters. You’ll need more than 50% of people to be renters to counter this, unless…

> Homeowners are a reliable political cohort, they tend to organize quickly as soon as any issues are on the agenda that might affect the value of their land and they will reliably push for whatever increases land values.

I feel like this is a myth, do you have research to back this?

As a 20+ year home owner, I've never been asked to support anything to increase land/housing value (not that I'd want to, since that means higher taxes for me, which I'd rather not).

I don't think this homeowner cabal to increase values actually exists. If it does, nobody invited me and nobody invited any of my homeowner friends (which is all my friends) either, so it can't be a very large group.

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

#396

Post by themitigating »

ghaff wrote: post #181
themitigating wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine but the parent implied it was objectively worse than living elsewhere

I think the parent was me :-) I actually like SF but some of the most expensive housing in the country is a high bar if you don't either have enough money that it's a non-issue or have to live there for employment or other reasons. There are many cities with solid city activities that aren't SF.

I'm aware there are options. It's subjective

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

#397

Post by themitigating »

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…

Are you calling me a "lying fuck" because I offered my opinion about the situation?

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

#398

Post by newbie2020 »

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…

Where are the good areas? I work from SF occasionally (SoMa), but many of my post-work exploration (of restaurants and bars) lead me to walk through or near places that are aptly described by the “hellscape” comparisons. I get skeeved out to the max.

Are there better places to hang out for rich people/people in the know? Random walks are rarely fruitful for me here in SF compared to other large cities I’ve been to.

Also, for what it’s worth, I’m not sure people who live in the city have noticed the decline from its prepandemic “peak”. As someone who visits a few times a year, the changes are far more dramatic.

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

#399

Post by arcticbull »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #382
arcticbull wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While I agree, being among the most densely populated areas in a country that's mostly empty ain't much to write home about. It's basically just apologism. I know it needs to happen everywhere, I just have a particular disdain for SF city politics.

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

#400

Post by tekknik »

brailsafe wrote: post #383
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?

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 p…

Canada != US
Post reply on HN