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

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#101

Post by gamblor956 » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 5:50 PM UTC

adaml_623 wrote: post #96

gamblor956 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In DTLA alone, we have foreign investment (mostly Chinese and Taiwanese) to thank for the construction of nearly 2,000 new apartment units over the past 3 years (including units still under construction), with an additional 2,000 apartments and 1,000 condos planned over the next 5 years.

You realise that you didn't answer the OP question. There is no point having new apartments if no one actually lives in them. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/04/property-inv...

DTLA has a less than 3% vacancy rate for apartments, and for 11 months out of last year there were fewer than 5 condos for sale downtown, so occupancy is not a problem.

My point was that foreign investment can help solve the problem, which supplements the post that I was replying to.

Also, I'm not sure what the point of your link was. London's housing market has little in common with SF's; housing-wise London's market is most like Manhattan. Wealthy foreigners frequently acquire London flats without the intention to live in them beyond a few weeks or days each year and primarily use the real estate as a way to store their wealth. London allows, and even encourages, uber-expensive housing developments that displace impoverished communities precisely to attract this type of foreign wealth. In DTLA, foreign investment under the EB-5 Visa program has been used to increase the supply of housing and non-industrial commercial usage in a space that historically had limited amounts of both.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#102

Post by Tunecrew » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 7:28 PM UTC

To me the huge problem in the Bay Area was (is?) public transportation more than housing prices. This may have changed as I have not lived there in a while, but I just remember the Caltraink, BART, Muny, etc. being horribly disconnected - to live in the city and work in the Valley or vice versa was impossible if you had to rely on public transport, unless you just happened to live or work near the Caltrain on the southeast side of the city.

The East Bay, etc. of course was worse to impossible.

I could never understand this, given the otherwise progressive nature of the whole area.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#103

Post by aaronchall » Wed, Mar 18, 2015, 4:00 AM UTC

Really well written. How do you tell the NIMBY's that they're the problem? How do we get more construction and improve the lot of everyone, not just the monopolist incumbents?

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#104

Post by collyw » Wed, Mar 18, 2015, 11:03 AM UTC

tormeh wrote: post #66

blfr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily mean public transportation. Any transportation. Employer-provided buses, cabs, rickshaws, or even just roads where you can drive your own vehicle. Whatever is appropriate.

But the only thing that really works is underground carriage transport, because: -It being underground means it's not in the way of everything and, more importantly, vice versa - it can go as fast as you want. -It being carriage based means there's no coordination with other drivers. No queue dynamics, crossings or whatever. Transport happens in constant time, independent of the amount of passengers (within reasonabl…

Most of the underground systems I have been on go pretty slow, and stop frequently. Pedal bike is the fastest way for me as long as you don't are willing to bend the rules (which in my opinion often make cycling more dangerous).