Funny thing about this theory: the luxury housing market in San Francisco is in decline, and yet, it's still a seller's market for middle- and down-market prope

Funny thing about this theory: the luxury housing market in San Francisco is in decline, and yet, it's still a seller's market for middle- and down-market properties. [1][2] This is not surprising to anyone who follows real estate. There's no such thing as "a market for housing" -- there are several markets, each moving more-or-less independently, based on the net worth of the participants involved. A drop in the prices of units in the Millenium Tower doesn't have much of an impact on the rent of a pre-war hovel in the Mission. The reason that the author doesn't understand this is because there's a latent correlation at play: the communities with the most high-end construction tend to have the most construction overall. But in a city like SF, where all of the new construction would be high-end (if so allowed), all bets are off. Observing that properties become cheaper as they age is also silly. There are some properties that become cheaper as they age, but there aren't many of them, say, in Pac Heights. [1] http://wolfstreet.com/2015/11/08/san-franciscos-luxury-condo-bubble-turns-into-condo-glut/ http://wolfstreet.com/2015/11/08/san-franciscos-luxury-condo... [2] http://sfist.com/2015/11/09/at_high_end_sfs_housing_market_fina.php http://sfist.com/2015/11/09/at_high_end_sfs_housing_market_f...