Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

tomdale.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 458 posts

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#151

Post by muzz »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #138
api wrote: post #30

I've got a possibly great job offer on the table from SF/SV, but may turn it down. I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. The real estate market is certifiably, utterly bat-dookie insane. NYC is often considered more expensive, and Manhattan is certainly... well... Manhattan. But taken collectively…

San Francisco real-estate is absurdly corrupt. From 2004 to 2007 only an average of 2,220 units were built. From 2008 to 2012 a mere 1,710 units were built [1]. New construction has been impossible. It looks like it's picking up slightly, but not nearly as much as it would in a fair market. [1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-apartment-construc...

New construction ABOUNDS

"22,000 residential units are in various stages of approval and construction."

More units are under way now than have been built from 1993-2011.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#152

Post by msutherl »

enraged_camel wrote: post #131
ryguytilidie wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I just bought a house in El Cerrito last week and while we paid above asking, it was 1/3 the price of what my friends on the peninsula are paying for a great place. The fact that people seem completely unwilling to commute 30 minutes for a life changing job is pretty bizarre to me.

No matter how life-changing a job is, the fact of the matter is that long commutes are almost always soul-sucking time-sinks that have a significant negative impact on the psychological well-being of those who do them. Besides, the longer the commute, the less free time you have, which takes away from your personal projects and massively decreases your chances of innovating or inventing something new.

Bring a book? I get a lot of reading done on my 1-hour commute.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#153

Post by doktrin »

ionforce wrote: post #105
gkop wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically on the subject of transportation, many wealthy tech companies have deployed private buses that benefit only their employees and not the community. I don't think it's evil by any means, merely rational (at least in the short-term), but also still a missed opportunity to strengthen the community by covering employees' public transit passes, encouraging employees to live closer to work, or moving work close…

Well there must have been an underlying reason why companies would go out of their way to invest in their own transportation system than invest in the one that already exists. Maybe they were met with resistance? What is this resistance?

This sounds a bit like asking why anyone buys a Brita pitcher instead of investing in water & sewage sanitation.

The cost and effort involved in chartering a few buses is pretty minor next to re-tooling the Muni, BART & Caltrain systems. The results are also instantaneous. They need to attract employees now, and not in 5-10 years time.

It's worth noting that a public transit commute between SF and SV can involve up to 3 distinct transportation systems. For instance, when I worked for a startup based in Menlo Park I contended with a trifecta fail-fest of Muni (bus) -> Caltrain -> local shuttle, totaling 2 hours each way.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#154

Post by muzz »

zanny wrote: post #121
potatolicious wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about stopping prices from going up, it's about stopping them from going up at an uncontrollable rate. Many desirable neighborhoods are seeing market rents increases in the double-digit percentages, every year . Some parts of SF are experiencing >20% YoY growth. That's real estate hyperinflation, far in excess of the normal appreciation you'd expect in a healthy economy with increasing population. And the so…

Too bad you can't build more in SF because of the building height limits, which is the principle reason housing rates are absurd. If the city made sense they'd build some highrise condos downtown and house the entrepreneurs in studio apartments.

You'd better tell that to builders who are putting up thousands of units in high rise buildings right now.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#155

Post by dnyce »

jaysonelliot wrote: post #60

I don't understand why the author would move to Portland when we've got our own affordable, culturally rich, tech-friendly cities in the East Bay. Come to Oakland. It's beautiful here. The weather is better than San Francisco, you can ride your bicycle anywhere, public transit is good, and it's easy to get to SF as well as Silicon Valley (which I do regularly). There's no need to leave the entire Bay Area just becaus…

2nd this and push it up. I live in the area of Oakland, known as lake merritt. It's bordered by Piedmont, still has that "true diversity" as in ALL the colors of the rainbow feel, 20 min commute into San Francisco, AND I have a Damn patio! I love this little neighborhood for all of its nuances.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#156

Post by 31reasons »

zanny wrote: post #121
potatolicious wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about stopping prices from going up, it's about stopping them from going up at an uncontrollable rate. Many desirable neighborhoods are seeing market rents increases in the double-digit percentages, every year . Some parts of SF are experiencing >20% YoY growth. That's real estate hyperinflation, far in excess of the normal appreciation you'd expect in a healthy economy with increasing population. And the so…

Too bad you can't build more in SF because of the building height limits, which is the principle reason housing rates are absurd. If the city made sense they'd build some highrise condos downtown and house the entrepreneurs in studio apartments.

The earthquake in 1906 nearly ruined the entire San Francisco. It can happen again at anytime. Limiting the building heights and number of housing is a precautionary measure. The best thing the SV tech community should do is realize the limitations and move out to other cities. LA/San Diego could be the great replacement/extension for SV.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#157

Post by GFischer »

potatolicious wrote: post #109
GFischer wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to look up "stabby".. Is this what you were talking about? www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stabby‎ or http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stabby ?

He's referring to high crime rates. Parts of Oakland does have extremely high crime rates, much higher than even SF's notably elevated violent crime rates. Many Oaklanders would point out that not all of the city suffers from extreme violent crime, but it would also seem that the areas convenient to a SF commute generally tend to be worse, and the good areas aren't that cheap.

Thanks for all the replies. It was an honest question - I'm not a native English speaker and I get occasionally confused by slang.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#158

Post by potatolicious »

patio11 wrote: post #135
potatolicious wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't speak for OP, but for me it's much more of the former than the latter. When I lived in Seattle, and later SF, I loathed to tell someone my job. Firstly because in that city it automatically paints a "has a truckload of cash" target on one's head, regardless of whether or not it's true. Secondly because the tech folks in the city are blamed for basically all of the city's woes (this is true in both Seattle and S…

Being blamed for things they self-evidently do not control? Eye rolls? These are classic markers of low status.

It's tricky I think. There are really two orthogonal statuses at play. There's the status conferred by being far wealthier than typical for the area. There's also the status conferred by having a respected/liked job.

In Seattle/SF your wealth status is high, but your interestingness status is low. Dirt low even.

In NYC your wealth status is middling, but your interestingness status is relatively high. I prefer this setup far, far more.

But I'm also not a sociologist - maybe we're defining status differently.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#160

Post by johnward »

jusben1369 wrote: post #71
johnward wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an Ohio home owner who is thinking about moving to California and renting I agree. The dream of home ownership often overlooks the costs and insane amount of work involved in owning home and keeping it nice. I love having a 4 acre yard, but it takes me 7 hours to cut grass.

Well CA will certainly take care of that 4 acre yard problem for you :-) And the climate is sooo mild you'll be shocked by how little house work you need to do vs the rest of the country. No hard freezes or high humidity, no real bugs of infestations. A good exterior paint job will get you 10 - 15 years not 5 - 10.

I'm cool with just a few days of sunshine :). Even in the summer that's a rare occurrence here.
Post reply on HN