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

San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 542 posts

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#131

Post by zzz157 »

tryitnow wrote: post #110

Yes, rents are high, but if you invest even a little bit of time you can find a fine residence in the Bay Area for a lot less than $4,500. I rent a two bedroom house in Oakland for $2,200. My commute is not too much longer than it would be if I live in certain parts of San Francisco. There's simply little advantage to living right in the heart of a major city. You have to ask yourself: "Instead of renting in a high-p…

Well you also have a significantly higher probability of getting shot when you live in Oakland. So there's always that.

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#132

Post by quanticle »

lettergram wrote: post #118
whack wrote: post #111

It's hard to overstate the impact this is going to have on San Francisco, long-term. As Technology becomes the most important industry in America, a well-governed San Francisco could have positioned itself as the next NYC. The hub where all of tech gathers, the same way all of finance gathered in Wall St. Replace the 70 year old 2-storey homes with Manhattan style apartment buildings, and rent in San Francisco would…

I have to say... I'm already nervous in my 3 story building when there is a earthquake. I'd be even more nervous around buildings, when I know the ground is basically sand.

I would argue that a taller building would actually be safer in an earthquake, given that for a taller building you'll need pilings driven down to bedrock in order to support the weight of the structure. Also, taller buildings receive more attention from safety inspectors and the like.

A new 50-story apartment building is far more likely to survive an earthquake without damage than a 3-story apartment built in the '70s or '80s (even with retrofitting).

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#133

Post by markcerqueira »

lettergram wrote: post #118
whack wrote: post #111

It's hard to overstate the impact this is going to have on San Francisco, long-term. As Technology becomes the most important industry in America, a well-governed San Francisco could have positioned itself as the next NYC. The hub where all of tech gathers, the same way all of finance gathered in Wall St. Replace the 70 year old 2-storey homes with Manhattan style apartment buildings, and rent in San Francisco would…

I have to say... I'm already nervous in my 3 story building when there is a earthquake. I'd be even more nervous around buildings, when I know the ground is basically sand.

I hate this train of thought; you can have tall builds and be safe even in earthquake-prone areas. I spent a month in Tokyo in 2015 and experienced at least three pretty good shakes. Once I was in the apartment on the 9th floor of a tall building. The swaying was very disconcerting and scary, but I think it's wrong to believe that you can't build tall in earthquake-prone areas. Tokyo has tall buildings and gets hit with earthquakes often.

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#134

Post by nostrademons »

maxsilver wrote: post #81
dionidium wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They go into higher-density buildings, just like everybody else. That, or nothing changes and they get priced out. Those are the options.

Except higher-density buildings still equally price people out. There's no such thing as new urban apartments/condos that are cheaper than the houses they replaced. A 500k house never gets torn down to become 3 400k condos. It becomes 3 600-800+k condos. We should build more, because we need it. But "build more" can't be the only tool to lower prices, because simple observation shows us that it doesn't work.

There is if you take a step down on the housing ladder. Replacing a 1BR with a 3BR that you share with 2 roommates will reduce your rent. So will replacing a 2BR duplex with a 2BR apartment, usually. So will replacing a 3BR with a 2BR and having the kids double-up.

...which explains a lot about why residents dislike this

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#135

Post by Alex3917 »

ethanbond wrote: post #98
yolesaber wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly skewed because there's so much luxury housing in Manhattan? Anecdotally NYC has always been much cheaper for me than SF. You can still get one bedrooms for under 2k in the East Village and LES

Yeah, as someone running like hell from the Bay Area (to Manhattan), I think this is the key. It's actually possible to get cheap, bad, but livable housing in NYC. It would be difficult to get a plot of floor with a roof over it of any quality at $2k in SF.

It's possible to get cheap, good, and liveable housing in NYC too. I just got a nice 1BR in the Bronx for $1525 that's in a great neighborhood and is less than a block from the express lines. As long as you're not in one of the top-10 trendy neighborhoods there are plenty of great apartments that are within 30-35 min of midtown.

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#136

Post by ghaff »

whack wrote: post #111

It's hard to overstate the impact this is going to have on San Francisco, long-term. As Technology becomes the most important industry in America, a well-governed San Francisco could have positioned itself as the next NYC. The hub where all of tech gathers, the same way all of finance gathered in Wall St. Replace the 70 year old 2-storey homes with Manhattan style apartment buildings, and rent in San Francisco would…

Why is extreme population and industry concentration such a great thing? Yes, there are certain virtues to the concentration of talent and energy which happens in major cities generally--but I'm unconvinced that doing some Singapore-style 20-year plan to transform San Francisco into a western Manhattan is either necessary or desirable.

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#137

Post by kbenson »

TylerH wrote: post #113
dionidium wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, of course, but this sentiment amounts to little more than stomping your feet and wishing the world were different. As long as there is high demand, you can either build more or expect higher prices and more sprawl. I get that people don't like those choices, but that's what's on the table.

Or you can do neither. It's not like the false dichotomy you're presenting is true.

Not in a free market. If demand is high, and supply doesn't raise to meet it, then prices will increase unless artificially suppressed.

Rent control could do that for rent, but has its own problems. As for owners, how do you tell someone they aren't allowed to sell their house for what someone else is willing to pay them?

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#138

Post by TranquilMarmot »

TylerH wrote: post #113
dionidium wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, of course, but this sentiment amounts to little more than stomping your feet and wishing the world were different. As long as there is high demand, you can either build more or expect higher prices and more sprawl. I get that people don't like those choices, but that's what's on the table.

Or you can do neither. It's not like the false dichotomy you're presenting is true.

If you do neither, are you implying that the third option would just be to tell would-be tennants to go look elsewhere because your neighborhood is full and you're not going to price out the people currently living there?

Sounds like it would work, until you realize most of the buildings are owned by landlords who want to cash in and get as much money as they can with the property they've invested in. They don't particularly care who is living in the property, just that somebody is there and that they're getting paid.

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#139

Post by vosper »

zzz157 wrote: post #131
tryitnow wrote: post #110

Yes, rents are high, but if you invest even a little bit of time you can find a fine residence in the Bay Area for a lot less than $4,500. I rent a two bedroom house in Oakland for $2,200. My commute is not too much longer than it would be if I live in certain parts of San Francisco. There's simply little advantage to living right in the heart of a major city. You have to ask yourself: "Instead of renting in a high-p…

Well you also have a significantly higher probability of getting shot when you live in Oakland. So there's always that.

It's not like the Mission, Tenderloin or SOMA are especially safe, either. In SF, as in Oakland, there are good spots and bad spots. I haven't felt unsafe in Lake Merritt, and my place is way nicer than what I got for the same price in Cole Valley. And the weather's better (it really is).

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#140

Post by Apocryphon »

whack wrote: post #111

It's hard to overstate the impact this is going to have on San Francisco, long-term. As Technology becomes the most important industry in America, a well-governed San Francisco could have positioned itself as the next NYC. The hub where all of tech gathers, the same way all of finance gathered in Wall St. Replace the 70 year old 2-storey homes with Manhattan style apartment buildings, and rent in San Francisco would…

One of the problems is the lack of city governments and wealthy homeowners here to think beyond just SF. The Bay Area as a whole, from San Francisco to Oakland to San Jose, should work together to solve the housing and infrastructural issues we have here. It's not even just SF that needs to build. The entire Bay needs to pitch in, from San Jose to Novato. (https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/zprpe/the_actual_o...)
Post reply on HN