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

Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

socketsite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 562 posts

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#491

Post by iso8859-1 »

diogenescynic wrote: post #478
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the input. Can you please tell me which are those suburbs with 200k homes outside of Paris? I'd definitely move there at that price, sounds like a steal. Though I'm a bit skeptical as 200k is enough for a house in Eastern Europe on the outskirts of Bucharest, but in Austria where I am now and average house outside of Vienna is way over 600K so the Paris suburbs you describe seem suspiciously cheap to me at…

Auxerre is one such city. I have a coworker who has bought a few apartments there because it’s where he’s from and eventually plans to return to.

But it is 2h30m outside Paris, does it really still count as a suburb?

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#492

Post by tibiahurried »

The title is misleading, it should be "average rent in SF downtown ... " . I have been monitoring craigslist/zillow for the last 2 years or so in finding of a good deal, that I eventually found. Yes, it took that long!

I noticed that although apartments stay listed for months, their price hardly drops; at least in more residential areas. Eventually, some will lower by just as little as ~$100 after ~1 month of listing.

I think landlords prefer to keep the units vacant rather than adjust the rent. They think/hope things will go back as they were next year. Honestly, I would not be surprise if they do.

Though, they perhaps confuse stock market with real economy.

That said, newer, remodelled, bigger (+office) units go almost immediately.

The average old SF dump stay listed longer. No surprises there.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#493

Post by Tiktaalik »

Kalium wrote: post #458
Tiktaalik wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're wrong. There's easy parts (ie. publicly traded equities) and hard parts (eg. art collections). I've been skeptical of skepticism (lol) of the wealth tax mostly because the easy parts dominate the hard parts. Most wealth is in the easily identifiable areas (ie. equities and property) not the hard areas. Even with private companies like some startup, surely the shares have some known valuation righ…

Do you think it's perhaps worth looking at places that have tried wealth taxes? I think it possible that there might be some lessons to be learned from the well-intentioned and sincerely tried efforts of others. Perhaps our basic assumption that what works for real property will surely work for everything might not be trivially true, for example.

Yeah sure, but we should also be aware that the wealthy do not want these taxes, and will use every means to ensure they are not enacted. This includes spreading FUD about their implementation and results.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#494

Post by Tiktaalik »

kelnos wrote: post #481
Tiktaalik wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're wrong. There's easy parts (ie. publicly traded equities) and hard parts (eg. art collections). I've been skeptical of skepticism (lol) of the wealth tax mostly because the easy parts dominate the hard parts. Most wealth is in the easily identifiable areas (ie. equities and property) not the hard areas. Even with private companies like some startup, surely the shares have some known valuation righ…

My -- perhaps overly cynical -- expectation is that a "focus on the easy stuff" wealth tax would just cause wealthy people to move their assets into the "hard stuff" as much as possible.

Yeah that'd be my expectation as well.

I think the hope would be that there'd be would be some limit to the willingness for someone to shift money into relatively illiquid assets (ie. cars) that aren't really that good of investments instead of keeping their money in equities and simply pay the tax. There's a balance to find there in the policy.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#495

Post by Kalium »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #493
Kalium wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think it's perhaps worth looking at places that have tried wealth taxes? I think it possible that there might be some lessons to be learned from the well-intentioned and sincerely tried efforts of others. Perhaps our basic assumption that what works for real property will surely work for everything might not be trivially true, for example.

Yeah sure, but we should also be aware that the wealthy do not want these taxes, and will use every means to ensure they are not enacted. This includes spreading FUD about their implementation and results.

I, personally, hesitate to characterize the lived experiences with policy choices of other polities as FUD. I understand that this is a deeply personal choice, and as such some might differ.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#496

Post by Tiktaalik »

chrisseaton wrote: post #475
Tiktaalik wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of historic reasons for why Canada and the USA build with wood, but beyond that and going forward, I expect we're going to see even more of a pivot toward wood buildings as both countries try to meet their climate goals. Concrete is a big CO2 emitter while wood is CO2 storage.

I wonder how brick adds up?

Hm. No idea. Probably the worst material for the earthquake zone cities on the west coast tho.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#497

Post by lmeyerov »

bwest87 wrote: post #87

Oakland relaxed a lot of zoning, and permitting regulations about 5 years ago, and so now you're starting to really see production sky rocket. This article [0] mentions 2019 was had 15x more units completed than 2018. And 3x the total units from 2013-2018 combined . Anecdotally, I have several friends who've all moved to Oakland in the last year or so. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and maybe, hope…

I'm not sure it's so rosy in Oakland. For commercial real-estate in oakland, we were hit with the reverse -- rent kept going up as folks like Uber were eyeing it. Community housing groups were rightfully concerned for the relatively poor community as well. It reached the point that we moved to a spot in SF (union square) because prices reached a similar level. We went fully-remote right before covid as we had a remote culture, so not sure how it is now.

If true, good to hear Oakland is fixing the path it was on..

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#499

Post by chrisseaton »

monocasa wrote: post #498

Rent will jump back up just as soon as the vaccines are out and the people who moved to Boise or wherever this year can go back to restaurants they're missing without it making them feel sad.

Maybe the places they moved to will get their own high-quality restaurants and we'll all be better off?

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#500

Post by kelnos »

tartoran wrote: post #437
finikytou wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see. I am in NYC and read my lease break to see if I could brake it. Im from europe and this clause looks like illegal in my country but I guess USA is on a whole other level... If I move I could end up paying 1200$+ double rent for months... "In the event the lease is broken during the middle of the term, and the applicant did not pay a year up front due at lease signing, the lease break fee is $1,200.00 made paya…

Sublet for a smaller amount till the lease runs out, at least you will lower your loss or even come even (considering that you'll be paying way less in the new place you move to)

Assuming that's allowed: many lease agreements in major cities in the US explicitly disallow sublets, or require landlord approval. Landlord wouldn't have any (financial) incentive to approve since they get money either way, and taking on a temporary subtenant is usually higher-risk than a regular renter.

Then again, if the current tenant has a lead on someone to potentially take over the lease and become a long-term tenant, then everybody wins.

Post reply on HN