Shaken by the latest digital gold rush, San Francisco struggles for its soul. • Hacker News Board

Re: Shaken by the latest digital gold rush, San Francisco struggles for its soul.

#21

Post by ryguytilidie » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 4:15 AM UTC

sakopov wrote: post #4

I was recently contemplating moving to the bay area from Midwest. Then a few months ago i shared a hostel room in Edinburgh with a guy from Portland. When we got to talking he told me that he is originally from San Francisco but decided to ran away to Portland to escape nearly insane cost of living. I don't know how much of this is true but he was telling me that some dingy studio apartments have 10-15 people in line…

"Landlords are reluctant to negotiate mainly because the next person in line is a Googler who will pay $1000/month above the asking price without thinking twice."

I actually lived in 388 Beale, right by the Google towers. My rent went up exactly $1,000/month when Google started renting units at insane prices for their interns/traveling employees. So yeah, pretty familiar with this and this is why I no longer live in SF. Also, it really feels like shit to get pushed out of your apartment so some sales exec at Google can stay there once a week. Yay efficiency?

Re: Shaken by the latest digital gold rush, San Francisco struggles for its soul.

#22

Post by gnosis » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 4:16 AM UTC

surrealize wrote: post #16

gnosis wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, efforts in other cities to build upwards to house poor people have been a failure. That strategy results in large populations where poverty is highly concentrated. This leads to those areas becoming breeding grounds for crime and hopelessness. Over and over again in the US, large scale projects have exhibited this pattern of failure. That's not to say that building affordable housing shouldn't…

> From what I understand, efforts in other cities to build upwards to house poor people have been a failure. You could always build upward to house the rich people instead. I'm sure a lot of the incoming startup-types are young and would be happy to live in a high-rise (The correlation between youth and high-rise-living coming, in my experience, from the fact that people with kids often want more space. But that's no…

"You could always build upward to house the rich people instead. I'm sure a lot of the incoming startup-types are young and would be happy to live in a high-rise"

You have to remember that San Francisco is a prime earthquake zone. I'm not sure how many rich people would want to live in what is essentially a death trap if a major earthquake (which is supposedly long overdue) were to strike California.

Also, gentrification tends to happen when wealthier people decide to move in to "hip", "happening" areas with "character". In other words, areas that the poor artists and the blue-collar melting pot have managed to just lift out of being a hellhole, through their hard effort. That's when the yuppie and hipster colonization begins. Witness the fate of the Greenwich Village and Williamsburg in NYC, and what's described in the original article in respect to SF.

So, I'm not sure how attractive high rises built for the rich would be to the rich themselves, as they'd be cultureless islands. No, they much prefer to take over brownstones and victorians that poor artists have fixed up, in an area full of "character".

Re: Shaken by the latest digital gold rush, San Francisco struggles for its soul.

#23

Post by surrealize » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 4:16 AM UTC

charonn0 wrote: post #6

surrealize wrote: post #2

Grrrr. Existing SF residents are facing an influx of newcomers, who are pushing out (pricing out) some existing residents. And somehow, it never occurs to them to just make room for more people, so that existing residents don't get pushed out. SF has plenty of opportunities to build upward , but as long as SF insists on being anti-development and anti-height, the housing supply problem is going to continue.

How are current residents being priced out? If they rent, then rent increases are limited by law and no-fault evictions are nearly impossible to get honestly. If they own, the no one can force them to move short of the city invoking eminent domain.

One of the examples in the article is a couple who have lived in san francisco for a long time, and feel the need to move to a bigger place because they now have kids. But they keep getting outbid on houses.

Re: Shaken by the latest digital gold rush, San Francisco struggles for its soul.

#24

Post by tomsaffell » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 4:18 AM UTC

charonn0 wrote: post #6

surrealize wrote: post #2

Grrrr. Existing SF residents are facing an influx of newcomers, who are pushing out (pricing out) some existing residents. And somehow, it never occurs to them to just make room for more people, so that existing residents don't get pushed out. SF has plenty of opportunities to build upward , but as long as SF insists on being anti-development and anti-height, the housing supply problem is going to continue.

How are current residents being priced out? If they rent, then rent increases are limited by law and no-fault evictions are nearly impossible to get honestly. If they own, the no one can force them to move short of the city invoking eminent domain.

I agree with your sentiment, but just for completeness, there are a few ways existing residents get 'priced out':

1) the 'assessed value' of owned property (used to calculate property tax) can be raised ~2% per year[a], so over a decade a home owner's property tax may increase ~22%

2) Not all of SF has rent control. Any building constructed after 1979 does not. [b]

3) Not all renters are savvy enough to not get kicked out by greedy landlords, despite the laws protecting them. Apparently landlords often use 'renovations' as a way to do that. Just last week I overheard a conversation in Trader Joes about someone who had fallen pray to that [c]

TLDR: money is like water - it will find its way through the cracks to the place it wants to be (the pockets of those with capital).

a: http://www.sftreasurer.org/index.aspx?page=66 b: http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol.html c: time travel to TJ's on 8th, ~8.30am last Sunday.

Re: Shaken by the latest digital gold rush, San Francisco struggles for its soul.

#25

Post by ryguytilidie » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 4:18 AM UTC

zinssmeister wrote: post #3

blaming the "rich" techies for the over priced rental market in SF and the rest of the Bay Area is terrible. The real reason rent is sky high in my opinion is because SF is acting like a small city when it's not. Real estate development is pretty much kept flat. Yes they are adding units but if you look at the expected growth, we will stay flat at best. This results in bidding wars for rentals and real estate purchas…

I can tell you that my SOMA apartment's rent went up 1k because Google wanted to rent some units in it. This pushed me out of San Francisco. I don't think most of these Embarcadero/SOMA startups are interested in high rises in the Sunset or in West Portal, they want high rises in SOMA, which is where they're being built.

Re: Shaken by the latest digital gold rush, San Francisco struggles for its soul.

#26

Post by joeblau » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 4:24 AM UTC

A little over a year ago, I moved out to San Francisco from D.C. because I knew this was the hotbed of innovation and start-ups. Before moving here, I had no prior knowledge of any of the culture or neighborhoods (beyond a little about the Mission) but after being a resident of this city for a little over a year I love it. The people I've met since I've been here are some of the smartest people I've associated with; the food is better than any city I've lived in, the people are friendly, and I feel like I can have intellectual discussions with like minded people that understand my passions.

One thing I do struggle with is making this a permanent home. I feel like right now, people are coming here (as I did) because frankly, this is where the money is. Even Y-Combinator advertises that if they invest in your company; They want you to move here and encourage you to stay here.

> If we invest in you, your group is expected to move to the Bay Area for January through March 2013. (You can of course leave afterward if you want, but it's a good place for a startup to be.)

I'm curious to see what happens when/if the bubble pops. Will people stay or will they go back home? For people that have been here 15+ years, could you shed some insight into what happend in between 1999 and 2003 as the last influx of innovation left the area? I feel like those were the years when giants such as Apple, Yahoo, Google, Sales Force, and Mozilla were essentially minted.

Re: Shaken by the latest digital gold rush, San Francisco struggles for its soul.

#27

Post by w1ntermute » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 4:25 AM UTC

ryguytilidie wrote: post #25

zinssmeister wrote: post #3

blaming the "rich" techies for the over priced rental market in SF and the rest of the Bay Area is terrible. The real reason rent is sky high in my opinion is because SF is acting like a small city when it's not. Real estate development is pretty much kept flat. Yes they are adding units but if you look at the expected growth, we will stay flat at best. This results in bidding wars for rentals and real estate purchas…

I can tell you that my SOMA apartment's rent went up 1k because Google wanted to rent some units in it. This pushed me out of San Francisco. I don't think most of these Embarcadero/SOMA startups are interested in high rises in the Sunset or in West Portal, they want high rises in SOMA, which is where they're being built.

How does this change the fact that if you allow more high rises in SoMa, you can accommodate both the existing tenants and the new techies moving in, all without raising rents?

Re: Shaken by the latest digital gold rush, San Francisco struggles for its soul.

#28

Post by probablycorey » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 4:28 AM UTC

gnosis wrote: post #22

surrealize wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From what I understand, efforts in other cities to build upwards to house poor people have been a failure. You could always build upward to house the rich people instead. I'm sure a lot of the incoming startup-types are young and would be happy to live in a high-rise (The correlation between youth and high-rise-living coming, in my experience, from the fact that people with kids often want more space. But that's no…

"You could always build upward to house the rich people instead. I'm sure a lot of the incoming startup-types are young and would be happy to live in a high-rise" You have to remember that San Francisco is a prime earthquake zone. I'm not sure how many rich people would want to live in what is essentially a death trap if a major earthquake (which is supposedly long overdue) were to strike California. Also, gentrifica…

In earthquakes Taller buildings are safer than smaller buildings http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/25/opinion/op-little25

Also, go to the the hip neighborhoods in NYC (LES Williamsburg), notice the tall buildings being built. Units in these buildings are being bought for large amounts of money.

I think

Re: Shaken by the latest digital gold rush, San Francisco struggles for its soul.

#29

Post by jstalin » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 4:28 AM UTC

charonn0 wrote: post #13

citricsquid wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is SF (I assume you mean local government?) anti-height? Are there downsides to building upwards (environmental? taxation?) or is it just a refusal to allow the landscape to change?

After a building boom in the 70s-80s the city passed anti-Manhattanization laws.[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattanization

So the government passes laws to limit housing stock, then passes laws to artificially keep rent low, then people complain about prices going up and a lack of housing stock? Has anyone in SF read an Economics 101 textbook?

Re: Shaken by the latest digital gold rush, San Francisco struggles for its soul.

#30

Post by jlgreco » Sun, Dec 30, 2012, 4:28 AM UTC

gnosis wrote: post #22

surrealize wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From what I understand, efforts in other cities to build upwards to house poor people have been a failure. You could always build upward to house the rich people instead. I'm sure a lot of the incoming startup-types are young and would be happy to live in a high-rise (The correlation between youth and high-rise-living coming, in my experience, from the fact that people with kids often want more space. But that's no…

"You could always build upward to house the rich people instead. I'm sure a lot of the incoming startup-types are young and would be happy to live in a high-rise" You have to remember that San Francisco is a prime earthquake zone. I'm not sure how many rich people would want to live in what is essentially a death trap if a major earthquake (which is supposedly long overdue) were to strike California. Also, gentrifica…

Isn't building earthquake safe highrises pretty much a solved problem? When I think "ring of fire", I don't think "flats".