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

San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

sfstandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 622 posts

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#491

Post by jjav »

yamtaddle wrote: post #153
tcmart14 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, this is me reaching back aways in memory. Walls with plumbing through them are held to different standards to other walls. Walls with plumbing use 2 by 6s. Builders and architects try to optimize by making as few walls as possible walls with plumbing because they are more expensive. Your regular walls use 2 by 4s. So yes, some walls have plumbing running through them, but not all. Any architect and contractor wil…

I've never seen a wall framed with 2x6s because it had plumbing in it. It's all 2x4 regardless, here—you almost never see a 2x6 wall. Is that a California thing?

> I've never seen a wall framed with 2x6s because it had plumbing in it. It's all 2x4 regardless, here—you almost never see a 2x6 wall. Is that a California thing?

My California home is all 2x4s everywhere and there's plenty of plumbing in most walls.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#492

Post by akavi »

nikanj wrote: post #316
pessimizer wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In both markets there is surprising silence on REITs and corporations buying up residential living spaces and flipping it. Wouldn't be surprised if those special interest groups also own/influence local media as well. I imagine that they're all financing YIMBY organizations, whose aims would do nothing but increase the value of their holdings.

Hold up, since when do YIMBY organizations increase the values? Isn't NIMBY all about protecting home values, and YIMBY about actually building more homes?

YIMBYs increase land values, decrease property values.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#493

Post by fakethenews2022 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #149
notch656a wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safety will always be a top argument to constrain and block off new housing. Look at current building codes. Sure all those things make us safer -- if you ignore the homeless left on the streets and the people who no longer have money left over for good food, education, and healthcare after paying the high price it costs to build an up-to-code house in America. You can restrict housing practically as tight as you wan…

China has a lot of people living in subbasements ("ant tribe", not just the immediate floor before ground, but the 3rd or 4th floor below ground). No egress, crappy ventilation (mold is a huge problem), but its cheap. Also, a lot of restaurants in Beijing have their staff sleeping out in their dining room after they close up as a form of worker dorms (people also sleep in their shops, which is why they cover the wind…

My opinion is that the problem with SF isn’t as much housing. It is more with mental health and drug addiction. You do know where many immigrants live right? It isn’t so much on the streets. It is 16 packed into a single apartment. So the mechanisms people talk about already exist. It is that the homeless can’t work because of mental or social issues that compound with drug abuse. You need to fix the mental issues, social issues, and the drug abuse. The housing helps a little but the underlying problems are still there. I think the results already show this.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#494

Post by coryfklein »

bragr wrote: post #2

Give the corresponding housing crisis in the Bay Area, one wonders if the solution is to "simply" start converting office space to living space until the corresponding demand for office space recovers from a combination of increased demand and decreased supply. Now I'm sure there are all kinds of challenges to doing that, engineering, zoning, other practicalities, but it seems overall reasonable to me, though perhaps…

What kind of imaginary universe would allow for converting downtown SF office space into residential, but not let you simply build new houses? Both are impossible for the same reason, doing just about anything in SF is impossible.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#495

Post by sangnoir »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #150
rapind wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A windowless room with a community bathroom doesn't sound appealing, but at a certain price point it's better than nothing. You make this legal and tomorrow every RE developer stops putting in windows.

> You make this legal and tomorrow every RE developer stops putting in windows This sounds like new housing supply. I'm failing to see the problem. Developers still have to sell the apartment, after all.

>This sounds like new housing supply. I'm failing to see the problem

The problem is the new housing supply was always imminent - only now, it's windowless, all because developers can increase margins by 1.07% and shorten build times by a day.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#496

Post by raydev »

lghh wrote: post #92
silicon2401 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe X should relax the legal requirements of Y That's a slippery slope. Lots of legal requirements exist to protect someone. Legal requirements for windows are pretty reasonable to ensure people have at least some bare minimum of access to natural light in their home, rather than just living in a box.

Seems to me like lots of people in SF would rather live in an indoor box than an outdoor box. Why not let those without homes choose if they are willing to take the risks associated with ignoring those rules over l king on the streets?

> lots of people in SF would rather live in an indoor box than an outdoor box.

Yes, and people voluntarily placed themselves under indentured servitude before it was made illegal.

If there's a housing shortage, the solution isn't to remove bare minimum housing standards for everyone.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#497

Post by xboxnolifes »

scarby2 wrote: post #223
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Housing is an investment that should only go up in price" will eventually kill any market It doesn't have to. Housing can be affordable while going up in nominal terms. Neither do I think most San Francisco homeowners think about housing supply strategically. They're pissed off about a specific view being blocked. Or construction noise. Or their area's average rent going up. (?!?) Alternatively, they're comfortabl…

> Housing can be affordable while going up in nominal terms. Housing cannot be affordable if it goes up in real terms though. In an ideal world house prices would increase 1:1 with wage growth from an affordable baseline. There are 2 ways to fix it: either crash the market or introduce policies which will cause either stagnation or below inflation growth in housing prices for at least 20 or 30 years.

> Housing cannot be affordable if it goes up in real terms though.

Yes it can. It just cannot be better than other comparable investments. If single family housing appreciated, on average, 0.25% per year in real terms, we'd likely be looking at an entirely different housing market.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#498

Post by SECProto »

TravHatesMe wrote: post #457
georgeecollins wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart, ethical people-- like the ones here-- can be YIMBYs. Suburb I live in everyone is mad about: "McMansions" (whatever that means), multi-family homes and any development particularly apartment buildings. These people need to be shamed for their selfishness. I am a homeowner and a YIMBY. Join me!

Great so will you volunteer to support a high rise behind you overlooking your house and backyard, a methadone clinic to your left, and train tracks to your right? Throw in a homeless encampment or two across the road to appease your bleeding heart. Sorry for being facetious, I sound like a jerk, but there must exist a threshold in willingness to devalue what is typically one's greatest asset and more importantly dec…

> Great so will you volunteer to support a high rise behind you overlooking your house and backyard, a methadone clinic to your left, and train tracks to your right? Throw in a homeless encampment or two across the road to appease your bleeding heart.

Your argument boils down to "if you allow anything more than a single family home this worst-case scenario is what will come of it".

Most of those issues are issues caused by current zoning practices. If moderate density was allowed almost everywhere, then there wouldn't be this stark divide between the 99 lots that are single family homes and the 1 lot that the developer has spent 12 years getting a development agreement for and needs to build a high rise to recoup the cost. If you can build more housing almost everywhere, you eliminate much of the housing and homelessness crisis. If there are specific land uses that are incompatible with residential areas, that can be addressed.

No one who is pushing for more development wants a chemical refinery in your back yard. But maybe your the house on the corner might get turned into a modest 8 unit apartment building, same as happened widely before the 1970s.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#499

Post by trcarney »

silicon2401 wrote: post #125
lghh wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me like lots of people in SF would rather live in an indoor box than an outdoor box. Why not let those without homes choose if they are willing to take the risks associated with ignoring those rules over l king on the streets?

> Why not let those without homes choose if they are willing to take the risks associated with ignoring those rules over l king on the streets? I'd rather have a government that enforces a high quality of life.

Or maybe it's government involvement that has caused the whole issue in the first place and more government involvement would lead to an even bigger problem.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#500

Post by teawrecks »

TravHatesMe wrote: post #457
georgeecollins wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart, ethical people-- like the ones here-- can be YIMBYs. Suburb I live in everyone is mad about: "McMansions" (whatever that means), multi-family homes and any development particularly apartment buildings. These people need to be shamed for their selfishness. I am a homeowner and a YIMBY. Join me!

Great so will you volunteer to support a high rise behind you overlooking your house and backyard, a methadone clinic to your left, and train tracks to your right? Throw in a homeless encampment or two across the road to appease your bleeding heart. Sorry for being facetious, I sound like a jerk, but there must exist a threshold in willingness to devalue what is typically one's greatest asset and more importantly dec…

Yes. In. My. Back. Yard. Please.

I don't see the point of adding homeless encampments. We already have those. What I want is a Housing First model as it's proven to effectively address homelessness in multiple countries around the world.

But yes, I would love public transit coming closer to my house, I would love a dense living situation that's walkable with cafes, pubs, and shops underneath. I want to live in a so-called "5 minute neighborhood" and/or "15 minute city". I hate having to drive 20+ minutes through traffic lights to do anything.

I wanted these things before I bought my house, but it's too expensive to buy a large enough space for my needs in a place that has all of these things nearby. Not because it has to be, but because zoning laws enforced by NIMBYs enforce it.

Post reply on HN