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

San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 640 posts

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#71

Post by Spooky23 »

mxcrossb wrote: post #26

> The figures underscore how the pandemic has roiled property markets and changed renter preferences. With companies allowing employees to work from home, people have fled cramped and costly urban areas in droves, seeking extra room in the suburbs or cheaper cities. I am skeptical. Yes a lot of Bay Area companies are allowing work from home for now, but are people really weighing that so heavily that they’re moving?…

Bay Area is insane. I pay $850/mo for a 4B/2BA house in upstate NY.

I work locally and telecommute now, but I used to commute regularly to the Boston and NYC metro areas with commute times similar to what I hear about from some colleagues in the Bay area. 2 hours on Amtrak (+10m drive) is much more pleasant than 90 minutes in the car to me. The haul to Boston was truly awful, but the pay was too good to pass up.

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#72

Post by joosters »

cft wrote: post #59
baskire wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saw friends of friends leave sf and together rent a mansion in Hawaii. If the bars, clubs, gyms, and even beaches shut down why stay if you are renting at market rate. It’s literally cheaper to move your belongings into storage and move into a vacation home with friends. Also most sf apartments don’t have office space for all the tenants.

If there was no rent control, prices would drop even more. Firstly landlords are afraid to permanently lock down at a lower price, offering free months of rent instead. Secondly rent controlled tenants are afraid to lose their apartments, that are still below the market rates.

That makes no sense. Rent controls don't specify a minimum rent, all your reasons apply equally to rent controlled and uncontrolled rentals.

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#73

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

chrisseaton wrote: post #53
einpoklum wrote: post #35

The article says that a half-decent single-person apartment - one bedroom, one living room - costs $2,873 to rent in SF. To think that even in the midst of a pandemic these are the prices is patently insane. This is significantly above the median monthly wage where I live.

I think most single people live in shared homes in San Francisco, so living on your own would be a luxury and most people wouldn't be paying that much. I've even heard of some people with roommates, which seems extraordinary to me for an adult to be doing that in a Western country.

Yeah, for better or worse, shared homes are entirely normalized in the area. Even rich professionals who could afford to live on their own often split a 2 bedroom apartment or group house.

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#74

Post by gedy »

chrisseaton wrote: post #43
themark wrote: post #2

Not surprised. I have been seeing a lot more SF city parking stickers on cars in San Diego.

Is there a big difference between San Francisco and San Diego? They're both Californian mega cities.

Politically it's a lot more centrist. More housing friendly, no good transit options though.

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#75

Post by komali2 »

sitkack wrote: post #66
etrautmann wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep - rent is the quintessential example of inelastic supply. A tiny shortage of housing can cause a huge jump in price.

Sounds like for things that are inelastic, we should find ways (on both sides) to maintain a buffer if we want to have stable systems.

Both sides?

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#76

Post by tonyedgecombe »

jeffbee wrote: post #15

Like a few lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, that's a good start, but it should be city and state policy to chop another 80% off the price of housing, to get it back to historical norms.

Historical norms included much higher interest rates and women not participating in the labour force.

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#77

Post by komali2 »

burlesona wrote: post #51

I would say the city being “closed” is the major driver. Among my group of ~40 coworkers, about 30 (including me) have left the city. As far as I know all but one were renting. Everyone who left gave the following rationale: - we can work remotely so move wherever or nomad now - SF is not very fun during the pandemic - WFH in my tiny apartment is much less enjoyable than when I was working in the office and didn’t sp…

I disagree that it's a demand problem alone. There was tons of new construction. If I wanted to, I could have moved to any neighborhood in the city on a whim... As long as I was willing to move into a brand new luxury apartment $4k studio.

The demand was high for reasonably priced older units. "Just add new construction" doesn't work if all that gets built is luxury apartments.

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#79

Post by zests »

joosters wrote: post #72
cft wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there was no rent control, prices would drop even more. Firstly landlords are afraid to permanently lock down at a lower price, offering free months of rent instead. Secondly rent controlled tenants are afraid to lose their apartments, that are still below the market rates.

That makes no sense. Rent controls don't specify a minimum rent, all your reasons apply equally to rent controlled and uncontrolled rentals.

Rent controls do sometimes specify how much rent can be raised year over year. Drop it too low one year, be stuck with relatively low prices in the short term.

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#80

Post by [deleted] »

jeffbee wrote: post #41
sailingparrot wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US inflation over that period was 35%. So that means rent increased by ~50% in 15 years, this is way less than I imagined for SF.

That cherry-picks the top tick from the last housing price bubble. Compared to either 10 or 20 years ago, housing prices have more than doubled. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SFXRSA

[deleted]
Post reply on HN