11–19 of 19 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where will you go? When is your lease up? >"I could afford to live in the city if I was single." You're married with children? #hungryfordata
I like Phoenix October Yes two blackholes of food aka teenage boys #isthatenough ?
It also seems to declare that employment is the only source of housing occupancy. This is less true if you consider, for instance, real estate speculators (and with China's economy as well as it is and is expected to be, I don't foresee that slowing down), and also if you consider the new short-term rental market.
So, maybe the housing bubble will collapse. But I'm not convinced that either of those forces are as powerful as the author claims, and the author doesn't really give any text considering and dismissing other known forces, so you can consider me unconvinced by this article alone.
As a counterpoint although the article also mentions Manhattan's alleged drop in condo pricing, one could argue that San Francisco is smaller and therefore more constrained. It's my understanding that much more real-estate in SF is under rent control, so overbuilding is also less likely. And if Vancouver is any indication there still seems to be plenty of money interested in real estate coming out of China.
San Francisco: 46.9 square miles
Manhattan: 22.8 square miles
SF is a lot less tall than Manhattan all around too.
Did I mention that SF is hilly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like Phoenix October Yes two blackholes of food aka teenage boys #isthatenough ?
Well, if you lived in the City I might ask you for your address and if you like the place and the landlord, etc :D
I think there is a fair bit of "how to lie with graphs" here going on. For instance, the 'housing construction boom' very carefully does not show any context before 2014, and although it rockets up from the bottom left of the graph to the top right, that's only a delta of 25%, because the bottom is not zero. It also doesn't show how many housing units ever make it /out/ of the pipeline -- a perennial issue in San Fra…
I don't really know one way or the other what the ultimate trend will be for tech in the next few years but this is just numerology.
As a counterpoint although the article also mentions Manhattan's alleged drop in condo pricing, one could argue that San Francisco is smaller and therefore more constrained. It's my understanding that much more real-estate in SF is under rent control, so overbuilding is also less likely. And if Vancouver is any indication there still seems to be plenty of money interested in real estate coming out of China.
SF is actually bigger— San Francisco: 46.9 square miles Manhattan: 22.8 square miles SF is a lot less tall than Manhattan all around too. Did I mention that SF is hilly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SF is actually bigger— San Francisco: 46.9 square miles Manhattan: 22.8 square miles SF is a lot less tall than Manhattan all around too. Did I mention that SF is hilly?
Interesting! Not sure what's constraining supply to the point that SF's average cost per SQFT is so much higher than Manhattan's? Restrictions on building up? Rent control limiting supply?
More this one than the other one.. Here's a map of SF:
https://static6.businessinsider.com/image/5342ef126da811ef6a...
All of the yellow areas have 40-ft height limits -- even though huge corridors in the yellow areas have good transit, freeway access, etc.
The Western half of the city is all single family homes or 2/3 unit apartments, it's insane:
http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/imgs/512x768/1351_3151/4303/00...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting! Not sure what's constraining supply to the point that SF's average cost per SQFT is so much higher than Manhattan's? Restrictions on building up? Rent control limiting supply?
> Restrictions on building up? More this one than the other one.. Here's a map of SF: https://static6.businessinsider.com/image/5342ef126da811ef6a... All of the yellow areas have 40-ft height limits -- even though huge corridors in the yellow areas have good transit, freeway access, etc. The Western half of the city is all single family homes or 2/3 unit apartments, it's insane: http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/imgs/512…
"And this crushed the SF housing market." As far as I know even in the previous dotcom burst the housing market went down just a little, something around 10%. In some neighborhoods rents have been increasing more than that per year in the last 3 years. So even if there is a tech burst the size of the 2000 dotcom burst, I don't expect real estate prices to suffer that much. edit: here is a good analysis; http://www.pa…
The previous dotcom bust happened when the property bubble was just building in most of the US which crashed in 2007-8. So in a dotcom bust property prices might not follow the same pattern as previously. In todays silicon Valley most people apart from the tech workers have been priced out of the market and they have left. Now a bust won't have the support these buyers or renters to stave off a collapse.