San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down • Hacker News Board

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

#321

Post by EternalFury » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 10:53 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #164

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…

>>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. I've never understood this crazy, if not outright insane obsession with home ownership. Why does everyone want to tie significant amounts of their lifetime earnings into physical property that historically has had very low appreciation in value? It's like pe…

Renting has also become unbearable, unless you are ready to shack up with roommates to bear the $3-4K monthly rent.

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

#322

Post by 31reasons » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 10:55 PM UTC

727374 wrote: post #269

31reasons wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The nice parts of LA are just as expensive as SV (e.g. $1mm Santa Monica cottages) and transportation is equally bad.

I know but there is plenty of space between LA and San Diego. Irvine, Huntington Beach, Orange County should be enough to accommodate most of SF!

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

#323

Post by brigade » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 10:58 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #235

JonFish85 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, exactly, is "crazy" about it? As a renter, you don't control your own destiny. You're at the whim of your landlord. As a home-owner, or better yet, a property-owner, you have much more control over your living situation. Don't like the paint color? Change it. Don't like your stove? Get a new one. Want to plant some new flowers? Go for it. As a renter, you're going to be dealing with rents rising year over year.…

>>What, exactly, is "crazy" about it? As a renter, you don't control your own destiny. You're at the whim of your landlord. As a home-owner, or better yet, a property-owner, you have much more control over your living situation. Don't like the paint color? Change it. Don't like your stove? Get a new one. Want to plant some new flowers? Go for it. This is hilarious. As a home-owner, you have control over your own home…

> there isn't a single thing you can do about it.

There are laws against most of the things neighbors could do to annoy you. Which means you can involve police and/or the courts, until your neighbors stop annoying you.

If you're renting, especially in an apartment complex, and go to sue, that likely means involving the landlord, and thus getting kicked out as soon as the legal retaliation period is up.

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

#324

Post by EternalFury » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 10:59 PM UTC

muzz wrote: post #264

zaroth wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What forrestthewoods, api, and zanny are saying is that too few units have been getting built for many years. What you are saying is 'wait, they are coming'. The first is most certainly true. The second may be true, but we'll have to wait and see how it impacts pricing. For now, you can't live in a building permit. BTW, here's a graph of permitting and completions in SF for the last 60 years: http://www.spur.org/file…

There were plenty of foreclosures and short sales in 2010-11, indicating overbuilding (be it because of over-buying / over-lending, regardlesss) in the previous few years (2006-2008). The article is from 2012. There are 140 projects under construction RIGHT NOW.

These don't indicate overbuilding. It just means you are off the cliff as soon as your cash flow turns negative. Buying a house in this area is like condemning yourself to walk around with a huge sword hanging above your head.

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

#325

Post by angersock » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 11:00 PM UTC

31reasons wrote: post #156

zanny wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There have been no advances in structural engineering since 1906.

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

#326

Post by cookiecaper » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 11:01 PM UTC

hoov wrote: post #219

enraged_camel wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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. I've never understood this crazy, if not outright insane obsession with home ownership. Why does everyone want to tie significant amounts of their lifetime earnings into physical property that historically has had very low appreciation in value? It's like pe…

> I've never understood this crazy, if not outright insane obsession with home ownership. And, I don't understand why so many people on HN seem to think it's insane. I'd like to be more in control of my environment. I don't want to be at the whims of a landlord, particularly in the future, when I have children. I want a place that is mine to customize as I see fit. I don't want to have to ask if I can paint, I want t…

Neither option is actually insane, but the prevalent opinion that renting is an unacceptable waste of money that should only be utilized as a last resort is not correct.

I don't live anywhere near SF and I rent because I got a good deal on the monthly payment, I have a great landlord who fixes all issues promptly (which is awesome for me, since I am not much of a fix-it guy) (and relatedly, I'm not that interested in making renovations at this stage), and I don't want an asset that'll tie me down since I'm not sure I want to live in my current living area forever.

People constantly bug me to buy a house, but rent works out fine for us for now. I imagine at some point I will want the freedom to modify my home, but that'll be a little ways down the road, and I'm content "throwing my money away by not building equity" at present, especially since I don't necessarily consider significant real estate appreciation a forgone conclusion, as others mistakenly have (see: 2008) and many mistakenly continue to do.

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

#327

Post by greghinch » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 11:03 PM UTC

diydsp wrote: post #224

greghinch wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean this to play into stereotypes etc, but just as a matter of experience, every single person I know who's lived in Oakland for any significant amount of time (say 1 year or more), over the past 5 years, has been robbed at gunpoint at least once, usually while walking within a few blocks of their home. It's not a huge sample, I probably know half a dozen people/couples who live/have lived there. But the fac…

One of my close friends has been living and working in tech from home for about 10 years in various parts of Oakland. I visited him there (from MA) many times and aside from some intimidation from his neighbors (including an 18-year-old who got in my face, lunged his body toward me and provoked me saying "Fuck you," and numerous additional smaller incidents), I found it lovely and enviable. Things were going well unt…

I will agree with what you're saying to an extent, but I think the threshold of lifestyle you're talking is quite low by your average SF tech worker's definition. All of the people I know who encountered crime in Oakland were certainly not flashy or even driving remotely fancy cars. They were all a) white b) mildy yuppie c) to varying degrees "not intimidating" looking

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

#328

Post by geebee » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 11:05 PM UTC

woah wrote: post #24

The really interesting thing about SF is that it's not 7x7 as people claim- it's actually more like 3x3. The "City" is confined to a tiny area downtown and in the Mission and SOMA. The entire southern and western parts of SF are low-density suburban sprawl. This is a result of terrible planning in the 50's and shortsighted opposition to new housing and transit ever since.

I'm guessing you're talking mainly about the outer richmond, outer sunset, and maybe the excelsior? There are a few truly suburban-ish spots in the hilly parts in the middle of the city (like Monterey Heights, for instance), but I don't think those are very extensive.

Population density of the outer sunset is: 16,489

Monterey heights: 9,639

btw, I'm getting these from

http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Monterey-Heights-San-F...

Now let's take a really sprawly place

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioch,_California

about 3,500/sq mi

This might not be completely fair, since I'm taking all of antioch whereas I'm doing SF in a neighborhood-by-neighborhood way... but all in all, I just don't think you can call any part of san francisco "suburban sprawl" without stretching the term beyond what people typically mean when they say it.

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

#329

Post by khawkins » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 11:07 PM UTC

DanBlake wrote: post #8

The reason for San Francisco's high rent/home price is very simple, despite how others like to complicate it more: 1: Its desirable for most people to live here. Possibly the most desirable place in the USA, depending on your tastes. As a result, people are willing to pay more to live here. There are jobs, culture, food, art and much more all in this great city. 2: Rent Control. I wont get too much into it, but my ta…

It seems to me that it is even more simple. Economics 101: scarcity of a highly demanded product drives up costs. There's just no room for significant expansion, the bay area is surrounded on 3 sides by water. Furthermore, a good majority of the San Francisco peninsula is undevelopable since it's state park.

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

#330

Post by prostoalex » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 11:08 PM UTC

gkop wrote: post #50

dmix wrote: post #3

> The recent BART strikes are just a single data point in a larger trend: we’re alienating everyone who isn’t in technology. I'm not from SF but from an outside perspective: Taxes have increased 33% in the bay area since 2008 [1] and BART is "running at a surplus"...but BART transit workers have not had a pay raise since 2008? Can someone explain to me why the SF tech community are the bad guys here? ...Besides a few…

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…

This is on top of them covering passes and encouraging employees to live closer to work, and just reflects on low quality of Bay Area's of transportation grid.

If Muni, or SAM or VTA ran buses from SOMA/Mission to corporate campuses, those would definitely be used. But after a three-hour one-way commute that involves Muni+BART+Caltrain+city bus (an example would be a Google employee in Mountain View who lives in the Mission) even a die-hard public transport fan would switch to a company bus.