Live data from Hacker News

Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

businessinsider.com

111–120 of 352 posts

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#111
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is. Keep in mind this was more shorter term (3-4 months) rental of a fully furnished room. If it was a long-term lease of just an empty room it would be closer to $1300.

that's cheap if it's a decent place in a nice neighborhood. i was doing 1500 (utilities included) on nob hill with 3 other roommates and 1 bathroom a year ago. and that was the cheapest i could find in a decent location, and that's including many of my emails that went unanswered.

This was in the Glen Park/Noe Valley area, so a desirable neighborhood for some.

And yes, $1300 would be cheap. Go back and year and it would have likely been ~$1600.

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#112
I'd be curious to know what the breaking point is for luxury condo developers, i.e. how far do prices need to sink before they're in trouble? As an extension of that, who are the investors that will take the hit?

Presumably, the capital put down for the construction of these condos gives landlords and developers a hard floor on the prices they can accept. Is their solvency dependent upon charging luxury rents, or could they get by leasing at more moderate rates?

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#113

Have there been any experiments in legislating ceilings for housing prices? If so, what has been the effect?

> Have there been any experiments in legislating ceilings for housing prices? If so, what has been the effect? As Assar Lindbeck put it, "next to bombing, rent control seems in many cases to be the most efficient technique so far known for destroying cities." For instance, in 1970s when the Bronx was burning, a major contributing factor was New York City rent control. In some neighborhoods of the Bronx and in Harlem,…

it was easier to just walk away and let the building rot than to take any action to repair it and continue to collect rent-controlled rents.

My parents and I lived in a rent-controlled apt in Manhattan in the early 1970s. Rent was $80/month. The 1973 oil embargo happened and heating oil prices went up. Oh, did I forget to mention that the $80 rent included heat?!!!!

Basically things were so bad for the landlord that it cost as much to heat the average apt in the building as that apt paid in rent. Clearly not a sustainable situation.

We moved out of the city the next year. But in retrospect we should have bought our apt (for about $7,000) when the building went coop/condo.

So the tenants not only enjoyed below market rents for decades, but after the landlord was bled dry they were able buy their apts for a pittance.

Hmmm ... 12 apts, maybe two voters each, vs an older couple, the landlords, only two votes. I wonder why rent control existed for so long? (that was sarcasm, I know exactly why it existed!).

As Maggie Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. I'm sure the tenants saw some large cost increases once they went coop, because now they had to pay 100% of all the building costs. But that only moved them into fair value territory. All the money they "stole" from the old landlord in the previous decades would never be paid back.

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#114

Amazing, supply and demand actually works! Someone should tell all the protestors who opposed construction of new luxury condos because they thought it would somehow increase rents.

There's nothing saying that increased supply always leads to higher supply in relation to demand, which is what affects price.

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#115
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "historic boom" is big compared to the very low rate of new construction of the last few decades, but still small compared to the need and potential. There is a fair amount of construction downtown, but most of the city remains frozen in time. That said, I wouldn't blame it all on NIMBYs. Few changes of any kind get done in this town.

Lots of it is nimbys, just not sf nimbys. The entire peninsula dumps their housing problem onto sf and san jose. viz linkedin and google building millions of ft2 of new campuses for tens of thousands of employees in a town of 80k that is possibly going to study maybe building some housing. Potentially. So where do the employees go? The only places there is housing available.

SF has a net commuter inflow so it's better characterized as the peninsular becoming more like SF when it used to be more like SJ.

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#116

Amazing, supply and demand actually works! Someone should tell all the protestors who opposed construction of new luxury condos because they thought it would somehow increase rents.

Yes, rents are set by wages as you have to pay them out of your wages.

Supply and demand also works for buying. Because central banks have ran with ultra-loose monetary policy since forever credit supply is huge and prices detach from wages.

What a total mess these guys have created. Easy on the way down, chaos on the way back up.

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#117
post #17

I know nothing about the San Francisco housing market apart from what I've heard in discussions here on HN. The received wisdom here seemed to be that powerful NIMBY lobbies in SF were preventing needed development and causing the sky-high rent. But this article is talking about an "historic construction boom". Did something change regarding development in SF? Or was the NIMBY effect always a bit over-stated? Anyone…

The NIMBY effect in SF is very real and there is lots of strong evidence from both academic and industry analysis. For example there are several indices of construction regulation and SF is usually near the top:

http://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/research/papers.php?pape...

So despite this why is there a building "boom"? Basically prices (rents and sales) have gotten so very, very high that it again makes sense to build in SF. And as mentioned this "boom" is relatively modest.

To give you some flavor: the new housing (and office) construction is almost exclusively at the high-end of the market. This is because NIMBY and other policies have made it cost around $750,000 to build a unit of housing in SF. So as long as prices and rents can justify this spending taking into account risk, time, required return, etc. developers will build.

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

London, I believe, has a big problem with the Brexit because many banks plan on or are already leaving the country. No banksters, no tenants for outrageously expensive properties.

Hmm, I haven't heard of any banks leaving yet.

You need to erase from your memory all the other times all the banks threatened to leave the one country that waves through financial crime.

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#119
post #17

I know nothing about the San Francisco housing market apart from what I've heard in discussions here on HN. The received wisdom here seemed to be that powerful NIMBY lobbies in SF were preventing needed development and causing the sky-high rent. But this article is talking about an "historic construction boom". Did something change regarding development in SF? Or was the NIMBY effect always a bit over-stated? Anyone…

Speculation that this is the case in SF, but is an effect I've seen: You can get a dip in average rent without (sufficiently) dropping bottom quartile rents, which is what NIMBYism tends to block, by having a lot of nice condos built. The top quartile of rents dips heavily as places jockey for condo buyers, everyone moves in to a nicer place as the wave spreads, but the price at the bottom remains (mostly) the same (…

This is a theory, but wouldn't dropping upper quartile rents automatically flow down to lower quartiles?

Let's say you have a market with 3 apartments for rent. $100, $200, $300 per month.

Luxury apartment is created and starts at $400 per month, but no one rents, so they drop it to $300 per month.

The guy renting a non-luxury apartment for $300 says "screw that" and moves to the luxury apartment. Plus, the guy renting the non-luxury apartment looks at comparables and says "jesus, a luxury apartment is $300, mine is maybe worth $200". And so on, all the way down the line.

Sure it's not a perfect example, but I can see how cheaper luxury apartments could cause prices to fall overall.

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#120
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's about the cost of a studio in DC.

Odd. 4 years ago I paid almost $2400 for a 700sqft studio in DC. Have things changed? (Haven't lived in DC since).

I had a 2 bedroom lease in Adams Morgan, one block off 18th, for $2500 last year. We've since bought a place a few blocks away, so I'm unsure if it's risen.
Post reply on HN