Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks
sfchronicle.com
Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks
1–10 of 272 posts
Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks
#2The market is telling you everything you needed to know.
People aren't in San Francisco because they don't want to be in San Francisco.
Even the people that "loved San Francisco" didn't even like things in the actual city limits, talk to nearly anybody about what they like there and they'll pick an endless list of things from the Pacific Ocean to the border of Nevada. Other cities aren't like that. Red Flag 1 through 10.
There are people that like things in the city limits, 30 years ago. You'll know because they'll tell you about how a nice neighborhood used to be the most hellish thing you could ever imagine and would never visit, but at least artists used to lived there. Which is what they fawn over. As if someone else was going to pay for this $100 haircut, but if I see any gentrifiers I'll bark at them for you! scouts honor.
And finally you begin to notice that almost all the other people that think they like(d) that city don't have an objective view of other metropolises to compare it with. Oh, I get it, this is "The City" for that region that people aspire for, because its 600 miles of frontier from there to Portland, Oregon. A couple aspirational people from Central Valley, "escaping" (their words), a bunch of economic migrants from across the US, visa holders that have no choice in the matter. Okay. Interesting. There were very few people from other cities that really just liked all the nature, and again, fewer of those are talking about the nature within the city limits. All that masked by actual geographic scarcity exacerbated by artificial scarcity to make the high prices seem like there was something to covet? Yeah, everyone that could leave has left.
> The transit system’s looming deficit has given rise to whispers of a new regional tax to fill the gap.
death spiral.
Obviously this is just my experience, I bet many will have seen something similar. I don't think the city government policies are as big of a factor as people think. People saw an option to leave due to the nature of their work, and did.
Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks
#3I think this is a blessing. Cities have been designed for commuters instead of the people living in them since white flight in the 20th century. Just look at all of the metrics in the article. It's all about commuters and the city's dependence on them. Now, macroeconomic factors are forcing cities across the country to actually serve the people living in them. And it's great. Yeah there will be growing pains and this decade could get ugly, but the cities that come out of it healthy might be great places to live.
Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks
#4Not one mention of the recalled DA.
Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks
#5I really hope L Breed and her leadership approve more residential conversions of office spaces in downtown. A few developers are interested but there seems to be a holdup for whatever reason. SF has already had some successful conversions like 100 Van Ness.
While I don't think that is a surefire way of fixing dtsf but it is a start. The superdense neighborhood of chinatown and somewhat dense neighborhood of little italy are pretty lively still, probably because everyone lives above the commercial and retail spaces that exist there.
(There's not much commercial offices in those neighborhoods but there's a few, especially between california and bush)
Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks
#6It was a crazy valuation-driven fashionable thing to have high tech offices in a city center. The whole Bay Area went from being a reasonably efficient place for high tech businesses to an irrational "that's how we do things" consequence of funders wanting everything within a stone's throw of Sand Hill Road. Urban revival is good but it was taken waaay too far and made unaffordable. "Affordable" isn't going to come back without a crisis.
Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks
#7I'm still absolutely furious that SF managed the boom times by handing over massive amounts of cash to landlords and property owners, by restricting construction, that came directly out of the pockets of workers and has resulted in massive displacement.
Sure, the tax revenue looked great, but it happened in a way that caused great human suffering by making occupancy in the city zero sum, and awarding it to only those who had the most money to pay. That's not how it had to be, and choosing a zero-sum economic system rather than positive sum was foolish, and only meant to appease those with conservative views on construction. And by basing tax revenues on the business cycle, SF is now at such great risk, with huge social spending needed to repair the damage it inflicted with this unnecessary zero-sum system.
Sadly, those who will be hurt the most by a potential downturn are not those who benefited by setting up a bad system. A downturn will help nearly no one, and cause great suffering. I feel a little sick in my stomach when I hear some hoping for a downturn, either as a chance for them to finally buy real estate, or as a chance for S.F. to be made great again by returning to some imagined past. Both of these are very unlikely, especially the second.
Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks
#8The market is telling you everything you needed to know. People aren't in San Francisco because they don't want to be in San Francisco. Even the people that "loved San Francisco" didn't even like things in the actual city limits, talk to nearly anybody about what they like there and they'll pick an endless list of things from the Pacific Ocean to the border of Nevada. Other cities aren't like that. Red Flag 1 through…
This doesn't make any sense at all when you look at the prices of real estate. People want to be there, but they are not allowed due to pricing reducing demand.
Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks
#9I really hope L Breed and her leadership approve more residential conversions of office spaces in downtown. A few developers are interested but there seems to be a holdup for whatever reason. SF has already had some successful conversions like 100 Van Ness. While I don't think that is a surefire way of fixing dtsf but it is a start. The superdense neighborhood of chinatown and somewhat dense neighborhood of little it…
Why would people want to live in relative expensive housing if there are no jobs in the city for them?
Converted apartments are not going to be "affordable" (by say the likes of students, and people just out of college not in finance or tech.
Once the white collar workers leave, there is less demand for service workers to live there. Sure maybe some salaried workers like in emergency services and policing might choose to live there. If I were a service worker, living in SF proper would not be the thing I'm looking to do.
Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks
#10The market is telling you everything you needed to know. People aren't in San Francisco because they don't want to be in San Francisco. Even the people that "loved San Francisco" didn't even like things in the actual city limits, talk to nearly anybody about what they like there and they'll pick an endless list of things from the Pacific Ocean to the border of Nevada. Other cities aren't like that. Red Flag 1 through…
This doesn't make any sense at all when you look at the prices of real estate. People want to be there, but they are not allowed due to pricing reducing demand.
> The transit system’s looming deficit has given rise to whispers of a new regional tax to fill the gap.
This is a reference to the rental prices. I can see how I didn't make that clear. SF fell the hardest out of metropolitan areas and has grown the slowest.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-21/san-franc...