Landlords are trying not to rent to startups in San Francisco

Post by jakejake » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 4:35 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #10

fredkbloggs wrote: post #3

This is a great analysis and the argument makes perfect sense in every respect. The only thing I find dubious is the idea that the bust is 2-4 years out. I think if you polled most SF commercial landlords, they would tell you that they expect most of their startup tenants to start having difficulty paying the rent in no more than 18 months. It would be interesting to see some actual data on this. After all, there's n…

Agreed, many landlords seem to feel like the trouble is a mere few months away, although often any attempt at getting them to discuss how they arrived at that conclusion gets something like "I just know it." So one wonders about the whole "wisdom of the crowds" or "herd" in this case, and whether or not they can sense something that isn't showing up in other indicators. I've been looking but other than the extensivel…

Post by pgspaintbrush » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 4:40 AM UTC

untog wrote: post #23

meatysnapper wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the advantage of a massive skilled labor pool and investors within walking distance is a nearly insurmountable advantage. For a small company, I'd say the time/cost of hiring a few good engineers is way more than a few months rent. You'll certainly pay a respectable headhunter quite a bit.

It both helps and hurts - just yesterday Yelp admitted that the "Unicorn bubble" was hurting their profits: http://recode.net/2015/07/29/yelp-admits-the-unicorn-bubble-... For some reason it has only occurred to them now that hiring for offices in cities other than San Francisco might help them get talented developers.

Post by prostoalex » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 4:41 AM UTC

AlexeyMK wrote: post #158

One solution that is not being discussed is for VCs to offer office space for start-ups. VCs have longer time-horizons (a typical VC fund will be spent over 5 or so years) and appear more stable to landlords. In addition, one of the toughest problems for VCs as I understand is dealflow - when it comes to a super-competitive round, Andreessen or Sequoia will often push other VC firms out of the round by throwing their…

Post by prostoalex » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 4:48 AM UTC

khuey wrote: post #125

rconti wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to pile on too much, but the Fed has been amazingly slow to raise rates and only shows signs of doing the most timid increase. It's the cheap money that's fueling the mad rush, yes, but it's a blunt policy tool being used to help along parts of the country that are really still struggling. Until Detroit and Stockton and Pittsburgh are doing well again, aggressive policy is going to continue to fuel massive growth…

What happens if those areas simply don't start doing well again? Large parts of America have been declining for generations (West Virginia, much of Ohio, etc)

Post by _delirium » Fri, Jul 31, 2015, 4:53 AM UTC

op00to wrote: post #225

ebiester wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on who you are. Consider someone who likes walking to work, groceries, and everything they need; hates driving and owning a car; loves having top caliber arts and entertainment; feels more alive living in a place where people are on the street; and enjoy an evening walking bar to bar drinking with friends and not having to worry about a DUI on the way home, cities offer a lot. That is Boston, Manhattan, an…

And Philadelphia. And Portland ME. Even Burlington VT. The list goes on. All of these places have lower costs of living than NY, SF and Boston.