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

Post by mcguire » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 10:40 PM UTC

malchow wrote: post #117

Gratsby wrote: post #54

I pay about that for rent - it's the most I've ever paid for housing by a long shot, and it regularly freaks me out. I just can't get used to it. The thing that gets me is that I'm barely paying the property taxes on the place I rent. The landlord isn't gouging me. It's just the way it is here. Housing is so expensive because everyone wants to be here, and for good reason. This is the most thriving technical communit…

Rents are where they are because of state and local governmental policy. I beg you to go out and find a real estate investor to talk to. In any city in the world with a functioning open market for land use, there are compelling profit opportunities in high-density high-rises, economy box living pods with beige walls, high-end glass condos with verandahs, and everything in between. Prices do not have to do with the Ba…

Post by eastbayjake » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 10:41 PM UTC

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.

Post by Falcon9 » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 10:43 PM UTC

rconti wrote: post #250

cubano wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still to this day argue that by a significant margin, the best thing about living in Vegas was the everything goes 24-hour lifestyle where you can literally do or eat anything you want 24/365.

I wouldn't argue against that being the best thing Vegas has going for it.

Post by mcguire » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 10:44 PM UTC

dionidium wrote: post #154

maxsilver wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

simple observation shows us that it doesn't work Quite the contrary. A pretty simple reductio proof demonstrates that more housing lowers prices. All you need is to imagine a market in which there is one more apartment available than there are people to rent it.

Post by nugget » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 10:46 PM UTC

nunez wrote: post #228

timr wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 have remained very reasonable, despite the rapid economic growth. This would have prevented exactly this problem where tech workers are forced to…

> I live in SF, but I wouldn't make the choice to move here today. It simply isn't worth Manhattan prices to live in a city full of tech bros where you can't get a good meal after 9:30. This one took me by surprise when I visited SF for the first time five years ago. I thought it would be booming with activity just like NYC, so I thought nothing of trying to find food when I arrived at ~11pm. NOTHING. Nothing was ope…