Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco • Hacker News Board

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#71

Post by jmckib » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 2:38 PM UTC

andrewfong wrote: post #51

jmckib wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point they make in the article is that the rich are going to move to SF anyway, but without available luxury housing they will have to buy up cheaper housing and have it remodeled. So you still get gentrification and network effects, but even higher prices for non-luxury housing than if you'd have just built more luxury housing in the first place.

> The point they make in the article is that the rich are going to move to SF anyway That's what I'm actually unsure about. The article states it as a given without data or addressing regional effects. There are at least some well-to-do individuals who would purchase non-luxury housing in the North Bay, Berkeley, and the Peninsula rather than SF proper. You can obviously point to activity in places like the Mission a…

> That's leverage the poor have in extracting some kind of negotiated benefit, like better public transit, education rights, re-distributive taxes, and so forth.

Blocking luxury housing from being built is bad for poor and rich alike. So I suppose the poor could use it as leverage, in the same way a bank robber could use a suicide vest as leverage, but is this really a good idea? :)

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#72

Post by nerfhammer » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 2:42 PM UTC

mblakele wrote: post #22

wozniacki wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the whole bay area is averse to build up. Mostly true. However, that somewhat diminishes the degree by which SF especially is averse to construction, and more worryingly is averse to outsiders of all kinds - not just culturally misplaced Midwestern-ers - which is quite telling. Its a special brand of NIMBYism not found elsewhere. The following comment is also from the Economist piece and sheds light on…

I think of it as parochialism, but there may be a better word.

nativism

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#73

Post by rayiner » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 2:48 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #59

mc32 wrote: post #14

By San Francisco, I suspect they mean the San Francisco Bay area. While building in SF proper would decrease rents there, we can't have everyone who wants to move to the Bay Area live in San Francisco proper. Keeping this in mind, SF proper has a natural and inherent economic rent. So there is only so much pressure more building could relieve in SF proper. That said, I don't think many people would have much issue wi…

The area of Manhattan is 90km^2. The population is 1.62 million, double that of SF. The area of SF is 600km^2. So yes, while there is some theoretical limit to the population that could be fit into SF, we are not even remotely close to it. We could triple the population of SF if we simply increased the density to that of Pune, a city with a small town feel that fits 2.5M people into 700km^2. (I.e., it's not remotely…

It's worth pointing out that the on-paper density of Manhattan is highly misleading. The daytime population of Manhattan on a weekday, including commuters and tourists, is 3.5-4 million people (versus about 1 million for San Francisco). The city is built to handle that amount of population, not the smaller resident-only population.

I was in Manhattan right after Sandy, when the trains were still not running, and it looked like a ghost town with just the 1.6 million residents there.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#74

Post by rayiner » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 2:57 PM UTC

andrewfong wrote: post #21

mc32 wrote: post #14

By San Francisco, I suspect they mean the San Francisco Bay area. While building in SF proper would decrease rents there, we can't have everyone who wants to move to the Bay Area live in San Francisco proper. Keeping this in mind, SF proper has a natural and inherent economic rent. So there is only so much pressure more building could relieve in SF proper. That said, I don't think many people would have much issue wi…

> While building in SF proper would decrease rents there I'm not sure that's a given. Building lots of luxury housing in SF might actually decrease rent in Oakland and other parts of the Bay Area but not have an appreciable effect on rent in SF proper, at least in the short term. In fact, you could even argue that because of network effects and gentrification, building more luxury housing in SF would actually increas…

The usual life cycle of high-rise luxury housing is that buildings move somewhat downmarket as they age. The bulk of your housing stock downtown is going to be 30-40 year old buildings that can't carry the premium rents of new luxury buildings. But you won't get to that point if you don't start building now.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#75

Post by zevyoura » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 3:09 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #48

mc32 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why, but there are a great many SFers who like to think of themselves as progressives (in the modern liberal sense) and have this weird affectation where they like to let you know what nth generation SFer they are. Like it makes a difference or as if I cared. What i can't parse is that these are the same people who say they are for more immigrant rights --whatever one thinks of immigrant rights, I can't…

I spent a year there during the dot com boom, and was frankly pretty happy to move to Italy. I'm somewhat liberal politically, but San Fran always felt like a different kind of 'progressive' than back home in relatively egalitarian, fairly moderate and generally well-run Oregon. When I got to Padova, it felt like coming back to the real world. I'd go downtown and see young and old, wealthy and the not-so-well off. Th…

> When I got to Padova, it felt like coming back to the real world. I'd go downtown and see young and old, wealthy and the not-so-well off. These days, thanks to immigration, it's also acquired some ethnic diversity: my daughter goes to a public school with children whose parents are quite varied.

I'm confused; are you saying this is in contrast with SF? The Bay Area generally is one of the most diverse places I've ever been; Oakland is often cited as the most diverse city in America.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#76

Post by mc32 » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 3:13 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #67

mc32 wrote: post #14

By San Francisco, I suspect they mean the San Francisco Bay area. While building in SF proper would decrease rents there, we can't have everyone who wants to move to the Bay Area live in San Francisco proper. Keeping this in mind, SF proper has a natural and inherent economic rent. So there is only so much pressure more building could relieve in SF proper. That said, I don't think many people would have much issue wi…

You really don't sound much different than those who seek to prevent people from moving in, let alone building to accommodate them. Meaning, come up with a neutral sounding reason to block undesirables from coming into the neighborhood. Density would be too high, we must preserve cultural heritage, green space laws, restrictions on building heights, builds designated as heritage sites, and on and on and on. If you bu…

I would disagree with that. I'm for building and renewal. Too many SFers want to keep SF preserved as if it was the turn of the past century. They want a small town bucolic feel. But reality is that the sleepy town is in the midst of a metropolis but many residents resist the notion, even those affected by the policies restricting growth.

Renters and owners alike bristle at the possibility of their neighborhood changing its look and feel. They use words like gentrification, manhattanizatioon,; they also support restrictions on building as ridiculous as the ones which state that the shadow from new buildings shall not block the sun on a public park between specific hours. So its couched as nature friendly, in the meantime it is strictly anti building. People want to eat their cakes and have them too.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#77

Post by mc32 » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

andrewfong wrote: post #21

mc32 wrote: post #14

By San Francisco, I suspect they mean the San Francisco Bay area. While building in SF proper would decrease rents there, we can't have everyone who wants to move to the Bay Area live in San Francisco proper. Keeping this in mind, SF proper has a natural and inherent economic rent. So there is only so much pressure more building could relieve in SF proper. That said, I don't think many people would have much issue wi…

> While building in SF proper would decrease rents there I'm not sure that's a given. Building lots of luxury housing in SF might actually decrease rent in Oakland and other parts of the Bay Area but not have an appreciable effect on rent in SF proper, at least in the short term. In fact, you could even argue that because of network effects and gentrification, building more luxury housing in SF would actually increas…

That's a concern but peripheral. Yes foreign RE investment could dampen the effect somewhat, but so long as there is a place for the wealthy to buy, they will ease up pressure I. The east bay, south bay and peninsula. The issue right now is that while SF is quite unaffordable bur for the lucky ir wealthy, the south bay east ba hug and peninsula aren't much better.

If we had good transit and we had a regional govt capable of planning and building to accommodate a growing population, that the affordable housing would be in the east bay south bag or peninsula does not matter much to families. Only very few people care to have the 'cachet' of saying "oooooh, no, I live in SF, not dreadful san jose". Most people in the bay area just want an affordable place to live with good transit. Typically only rich folk care about the SF cachet --also nth generation natives, but I dont care much for them.

So the problem is that yes SF is stubborn about housing buy other cities in the bay area are no try far behind in this attitude and they all contribute to this issue.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#78

Post by yummyfajitas » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 3:25 PM UTC

areyousure wrote: post #70

yummyfajitas wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The area of Manhattan is 90km^2. The population is 1.62 million, double that of SF. The area of SF is 600km^2. So yes, while there is some theoretical limit to the population that could be fit into SF, we are not even remotely close to it. We could triple the population of SF if we simply increased the density to that of Pune, a city with a small town feel that fits 2.5M people into 700km^2. (I.e., it's not remotely…

Unfortunately, your area for San Francisco is 80% water. The more relevant data of land area is more like 60 km^2 for Manhattan and 120 km^2 for San Francisco. Edit: as a result, your comparison to Pune is significantly inaccurate. Indeed, Pune is only some 25% more dense than San Francisco, not three times as you suggest. This is easiest to check by looking at the "population density" figure on Wikipedia, but it's c…

You seem to be correct - the area number you get by googling does include water. My mistake. I guess the ultimate limit of SF might indeed be only 2x or 3x Manhattan (Manhattan could be considerably more dense than it is).

Nevertheless, I do stand by the claim that Pune has handled population and economic growth well by building more housing, and is likely to continue doing so.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#79

Post by klochner » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 3:27 PM UTC

andrewfong wrote: post #46

BurningFrog wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you could even argue that [...] building more luxury housing in SF would actually increase rents locally You can argue a lot of things. But the relationship between supply, demand and prices is very thoroughly studied. Facts are known! I have never heard of such an effect happening in the real world, but then again I'm no expert. If anyone can provide a reference to an example, I am willing to be enlightened.

Increasing supply lowers the mean price for the market as a whole . The laws of supply and demand do not rule out local changes that run contrary to the overall market depending on the nature of the new supply. To pick one particular example, Facebook's construction of 394 apartments next to its campus is actually driving up home prices in that part of Menlo Park because the apartments are nowhere near sufficient to…

because the apartments are nowhere near sufficient to meet the demands of Facebook employees

That's all you needed to say. Supply and demand works.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#80

Post by mc32 » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 3:29 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #73

yummyfajitas wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The area of Manhattan is 90km^2. The population is 1.62 million, double that of SF. The area of SF is 600km^2. So yes, while there is some theoretical limit to the population that could be fit into SF, we are not even remotely close to it. We could triple the population of SF if we simply increased the density to that of Pune, a city with a small town feel that fits 2.5M people into 700km^2. (I.e., it's not remotely…

It's worth pointing out that the on-paper density of Manhattan is highly misleading. The daytime population of Manhattan on a weekday, including commuters and tourists, is 3.5-4 million people (versus about 1 million for San Francisco). The city is built to handle that amount of population, not the smaller resident-only population. I was in Manhattan right after Sandy, when the trains were still not running, and it l…

Comparison with Manhattan is unhelpful. I think better comparisons are Singapore and Tokyo. Bay area residents bristle st the idea of tall towers --specially given the geological faults running beneath. Given that, Tokyo's approach of midrises interspersed with highrises would probably be the best hope. We could at least double or triple the population in SF proper. It would help tremendously if surrounding cities also went on a construction binge to relieve pent up demand.