Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech Boom Hits San Francisco Rental Prices

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 58 posts

Re: Tech Boom Hits San Francisco Rental Prices

#11

Post by _delirium »

planetguy wrote: post #8
_delirium wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they're prohibiting dense housing per se, just not approving/building enough of it. There have been several 50-story condos opened in the past few years, and several more currently under construction, but they're not enough to keep pace with growth in demand. It didn't help that there was a ~2-year lull in construction when a bunch of developers got into financial trouble during the financial crisis and…

Instead of a subway line, would it be possible to close off one of San Francisco's many east-west streets (Geary if you like, probably a couple north-south of there would be better) and run a light rail line (using Muni Metro or similar cars) on an east-west route? You could adjust the timing of the traffic lights to ensure that the rail line always (or usually) has priority and cross the whole city in ten minutes.

There's a plan currently under discussion for bus rapid transit on the Geary corridor, which is sort of the el-cheapo version of that idea (http://www.sfcta.org/content/view/37/70/). Give the bus a dedicated, physically separated lane to reduce traffic problems, and build light-rail-esque, less frequent stations in the median with level boarding. Not a full solution, but the hope is that it'll raise the average bus speed significantly.

Re: Tech Boom Hits San Francisco Rental Prices

#12

Post by planetguy »

quesera wrote: post #6
wunderland wrote: post #4

What should someone do if they're moving to SF and want to live in SOMA or nearby neighborhoods? Does anyone have any recommendations? It seems like there aren't that many choices for buildings, and a lot of them aren't that new. All of the reviews I have read (for almost all of the buildings) sound mediocre or negative.

Get roommates, get ready to pay, and don't expect much. There are some great old houses in South of Market, but turnover is rare, and they're all expensive. There are some great/awful new live/work buildings there too, but most of them are condos and all of them are expensive. Affordability comes in Outer Mission, Excelsior, Outer Richmond, Outer Sunset. Occasionally Potrero Hill toward Cesar Chavez. "Affordability"…

Also, remember that East Bay near BART is closer to South of Market than most of San Francisco city is, time-wise

Depends what part of the East Bay, of course. West Oakland is the closest BART station, but it is in some serious ghetto. Lake Merritt, Berkeley (esp North Berkeley) and Rockridge are your first good options, but they'll take a little longer to get to. My advice would be definitely to check out Rockridge, it's a surprisingly nice part of town.

Re: Tech Boom Hits San Francisco Rental Prices

#13

Post by JWhiteaker »

I experienced this first-hand as I just signed a place a little over a month ago. Compared to what was listed the apartment we ended up with was several hundred dollars cheaper, and we competed with at least 10 other applicants for the place.

However, as I talk to more people they think we are overpaying several hundred dollars based on what they are paying for comparable units, most of which were signed around a year ago.

Re: Tech Boom Hits San Francisco Rental Prices

#14

Post by michaelochurch »

tokenadult wrote: post #7
gergles wrote: post #3

I used to live in a building near a Google shuttle stop on the border of the TL. They wanted to raise my rent almost 20% y/y for a lease renewal, and the place was a trainwreck quality-wise (as was the neighborhood.) When I went to move out, the leasing agent just shrugged and said "Some Googler will happily pay even more than that." The real problem is SF prohibiting any dense housing from being built anywhere in th…

I think there should absolutely be a rent stabilization law -- everywhere Do you think this on the grounds of economic theory? The empirical finding is that rent control laws limit the supply of rental housing unduly wherever they are enforced. What's a successful example of a place with a "rent stabilization law"? http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html http://econjwatch.org/articles/rent-control-do-econ…

Rent stabilization (if applied fairly; New York's 1947-era rent control doesn't qualify) is a good thing, but it's a temporary fix. It's only one part of the solution, because it doesn't do anything to fix an intrinsic shortage.

More necessary is taxing landlords and owners of large amounts of real estate (anyone owning real estate at more than 12 times the average pre-tax income in an area qualifies) at very high rates and using the funds to build the best public transit system in the world-- a long-term solution that obviates the need for stabilization in the first place.

Re: Tech Boom Hits San Francisco Rental Prices

#15

Post by planetguy »

_delirium wrote: post #11
planetguy wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of a subway line, would it be possible to close off one of San Francisco's many east-west streets (Geary if you like, probably a couple north-south of there would be better) and run a light rail line (using Muni Metro or similar cars) on an east-west route? You could adjust the timing of the traffic lights to ensure that the rail line always (or usually) has priority and cross the whole city in ten minutes.

There's a plan currently under discussion for bus rapid transit on the Geary corridor, which is sort of the el-cheapo version of that idea ( http://www.sfcta.org/content/view/37/70/ ). Give the bus a dedicated, physically separated lane to reduce traffic problems, and build light-rail-esque, less frequent stations in the median with level boarding. Not a full solution, but the hope is that it'll raise the average bus…

I hope they plan to raise the average bus quality too; riding Muni is less like public transport and more like a homeless shelter. I couldn't imagine doing it every day.

Re: Tech Boom Hits San Francisco Rental Prices

#16

Post by _delirium »

tokenadult wrote: post #7
gergles wrote: post #3

I used to live in a building near a Google shuttle stop on the border of the TL. They wanted to raise my rent almost 20% y/y for a lease renewal, and the place was a trainwreck quality-wise (as was the neighborhood.) When I went to move out, the leasing agent just shrugged and said "Some Googler will happily pay even more than that." The real problem is SF prohibiting any dense housing from being built anywhere in th…

I think there should absolutely be a rent stabilization law -- everywhere Do you think this on the grounds of economic theory? The empirical finding is that rent control laws limit the supply of rental housing unduly wherever they are enforced. What's a successful example of a place with a "rent stabilization law"? http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html http://econjwatch.org/articles/rent-control-do-econ…

The first article you link actually suggests, sort of indirectly, that NYC is an example of a place with successful rent-stabilization. The article argues that the reason NYC hasn't been destroyed by rent control is that it liberalized rent control into the more flexible rent stabilization (which allows market-driven changes, just within certain year-to-year rate limits), which mitigated the worst problems of rent control.

I don't really have a worked-out position on the question, but I'd tentatively think that stabilization that doesn't amount to de-facto freezes would avoid some of the worst problems, since prices would track the market, just with a lag, as opposed to never doing so. For example, the problem with CA's Prop 13 isn't that it limits the y-on-y assessment increase for property-tax purposes, but that it limits it to 2% per year, not accounting for inflation, which is such an absurdly low limit that assessments will never track market prices, even in a delayed sense. Esp. since in years with >2% inflation it actually mandates a cut in real valuation. (Also, if I had my way, I'd remove the inheritability of rent-stabilized rents and Prop-13 valuations, to avoid any weirdness crossing generational lines.)

Re: Tech Boom Hits San Francisco Rental Prices

#17

Post by quesera »

planetguy wrote: post #8
_delirium wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they're prohibiting dense housing per se, just not approving/building enough of it. There have been several 50-story condos opened in the past few years, and several more currently under construction, but they're not enough to keep pace with growth in demand. It didn't help that there was a ~2-year lull in construction when a bunch of developers got into financial trouble during the financial crisis and…

Instead of a subway line, would it be possible to close off one of San Francisco's many east-west streets (Geary if you like, probably a couple north-south of there would be better) and run a light rail line (using Muni Metro or similar cars) on an east-west route? You could adjust the timing of the traffic lights to ensure that the rail line always (or usually) has priority and cross the whole city in ten minutes.

> You could adjust the timing of the traffic lights to ensure that the rail line always (or usually) has priority and cross the whole city in ten minutes.

Not if you wanted to pick up or drop off passengers. :)

But I've ridden N-Judah, and not loved it. Unless it's elevated or subterranean, it's going to be slow.

Re: Tech Boom Hits San Francisco Rental Prices

#18

Post by bbrian »

quesera wrote: post #6
wunderland wrote: post #4

What should someone do if they're moving to SF and want to live in SOMA or nearby neighborhoods? Does anyone have any recommendations? It seems like there aren't that many choices for buildings, and a lot of them aren't that new. All of the reviews I have read (for almost all of the buildings) sound mediocre or negative.

Get roommates, get ready to pay, and don't expect much. There are some great old houses in South of Market, but turnover is rare, and they're all expensive. There are some great/awful new live/work buildings there too, but most of them are condos and all of them are expensive. Affordability comes in Outer Mission, Excelsior, Outer Richmond, Outer Sunset. Occasionally Potrero Hill toward Cesar Chavez. "Affordability"…

Any figures? I live in Dublin, Ireland, and pay €500 ($624) per month for a room in a two bed apartment in the centre of the city. That's cheap for the area -- I live within walking distance of all the bars.

Re: Tech Boom Hits San Francisco Rental Prices

#19

Post by ubernostrum »

tokenadult wrote: post #7
gergles wrote: post #3

I used to live in a building near a Google shuttle stop on the border of the TL. They wanted to raise my rent almost 20% y/y for a lease renewal, and the place was a trainwreck quality-wise (as was the neighborhood.) When I went to move out, the leasing agent just shrugged and said "Some Googler will happily pay even more than that." The real problem is SF prohibiting any dense housing from being built anywhere in th…

I think there should absolutely be a rent stabilization law -- everywhere Do you think this on the grounds of economic theory? The empirical finding is that rent control laws limit the supply of rental housing unduly wherever they are enforced. What's a successful example of a place with a "rent stabilization law"? http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html http://econjwatch.org/articles/rent-control-do-econ…

You seem to be conflating "rent control" and "rent stabilization", which are two different things.

Also, these economists appear to be ignoring a simple practical matter.

The idea behind most rent regulation is to avoid pricing low-income-but-necessary-to-basic-function people out of an area. These are, basically, the garbagemen and janitors and cooks and such, who can quickly find themselves priced out of anything within a reasonable distance of the city.

This results in a corresponding shortage of those services in the city, and prices for those services increase until even the wealthy -- who can still afford the higher rents -- are not willing to bear those costs to remain in the area, and begin leaving.

This can happen surprisingly quickly. In modern environments where many lease agreements come up for renewal at essentially the same time, it can happen frighteningly quickly, far more quickly than new construction can hope to "correct" the housing shortage.

Re: Tech Boom Hits San Francisco Rental Prices

#20

Post by juiceandjuice »

bbrian wrote: post #18
quesera wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get roommates, get ready to pay, and don't expect much. There are some great old houses in South of Market, but turnover is rare, and they're all expensive. There are some great/awful new live/work buildings there too, but most of them are condos and all of them are expensive. Affordability comes in Outer Mission, Excelsior, Outer Richmond, Outer Sunset. Occasionally Potrero Hill toward Cesar Chavez. "Affordability"…

Any figures? I live in Dublin, Ireland, and pay €500 ($624) per month for a room in a two bed apartment in the centre of the city. That's cheap for the area -- I live within walking distance of all the bars.

You can't get a room share in most of SF for under $700, for SOMA and the Mission you'll be lucky at $850. A studio you might be able to get for $1200-$1500, 1BR $1400-1800, 2BR $2000-$$$$$.

This is assuming you don't want to live in Bayview.

Post reply on HN