12 ms·
Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments
- dang 10y agoUrl changed from https://medium.com/@andersem/a-guy-just-transcribed-30-years-of-for-rent-ads-heres-what-it-taught-us-about-sf-housing-prices-bd61fd0e4ef9#.vpoetfkkv https://medium.com/@andersem/a-guy-just-transcribed-30-years..., which points to this.
- mfringel 10y agoYeah. Keeping it classy with a tiny grey link at the bottom of the Medium article.
- techsupporter 10y agoI really dislike this trend of "oh we totally credit our sources here is a tiny link at the bottom of the article, never mind that it isn't underlined like all the rest of our links and it is in the same color and font as the word 'Advertisement' just below." The source should be clearly defined and easily accessible, especially with these just-rewriting-the-source articles. (Glaring at you, Gizmodo and TechCrunch.)
- dang 10y agoAgreed in general, but the Medium author seems genuinely enthusiastic about the OP, so it was probably just an oversight. (Edit: and the phrase where he introduces the source article does link to it.)
- Gibbon1 10y agoAnswering a question, why the decline in rents 1950-1960? Far as I know during WWII the population of the city swelled due to war time industry. After the war people moved to newly created suburbs in Santa Clara and the Peninsula. I'm unsure but I think my grandparents moved to SF during the 1939-1940 WWII preseason. And by the late forties had moved away.
- refurb 10y agoPeople were leaving! In 1950 the population of SF peaked (at the time) at 775,000, by 1960 it was down to 740,000, then by 1980 down to 678,000 (13% drop over 30 years!). Hard to believe it living in SF today.
- seanmcdirmid 10y agoReminds me of "Will the last person leaving SEATTLE -- Turn out the lights" in 1971, http://www.historylink.org/db_images/req094.JPG http://www.historylink.org/db_images/req094.JPG, during a Boeing bust in Seattle. How times have changed.
- Gibbon1 10y agoHerb Caens books on San Francisco are good read. Some reference here. A lot of the issues facing the city haven't changed as much as people think. http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/place/article/Problems-Herb-Caen-saw-in-1948-San-Francisco-6171450.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/place/article/Problems-He...
- elliotec 10y agoIt's not hard to believe at all. White flight to suburbs after the war is a pretty well known phenomenon that happened in every major city in the US.
- rqebmm 10y agoHe mentioned he didn't have good data for housing advertisements during that time frame, so one possibility is that during the boom lots of people started advertising rooms for rent instead of entire houses or apartments.
- rayiner 10y ago> It will be very hard. If the (first) model is correct, it would take a 53% increase in the housing supply (200,000 new units), Doesn't seem that hard in a city full of three-story housing.
- matt_wulfeck 10y agoI'm thinking the same thing. Is it physical limitations of building (such as earthquake proofing) that makes it difficult? Or is it the suffocating amount of bureaucratic red tape imposed by short-sighted interest groups?
- nibs 10y agoRed tape. All red tape. See top comment.
- lyqwyd 10y agoDefinitely red tape. I'm doing an expansion on my house in SF. 1 year in already, and at least another year to go before we get permits, if we even wind up getting them. It will probably cost over $10,000 just in planning review / permitting costs when it's all done. That does not include the added time architectural costs of changing the plans as demanded by the various planning departments.
- bane 10y agoBy way of comparison, out here on the East Coast, I went by my county office on a Friday, talked over what I wanted to do with the clerk, sketched out a basic plan on a blank sheet of paper, paid $75 in fees, taped the permit to my front window and started work on an expansion the next day.
- lyqwyd 10y agoYes, SF's process is incredibly broken. It's not just that they are too expensive and time consuming (which they are!), it's also that the rules are arbitrary, and there are multiple departments, which often have the exact opposite requirements. Additionally, any approval can be appealed by neighbors for any reason, at very little cost, but then the person applying for the permit will then have to spend thousands more, and potentially years more, to fight the appeal. The uncertainty and lack of clear rules is actually worse than the cost (which is ridiculous). I find it hard to imagine a more dysfunctional planning process.
- matt_wulfeck 10y agoBuilding straight into the sky is easy. You'd be amazed at how earthquake-proof skyscrapers are with modern technology. You want a challenge? Build in a city where you're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property.
- snewk 10y agoi acknowledge that city ordinances can be a huge headache, but consider that trees serve more than just aesthetic purpose. They provide shade, filter particulate matter, and increase air quality for a much larger area than just 'your own property'. This is especially important in the urban core of cities where greenery can be scarce, and mature trees even more so.
- sjf 10y agoIf you are worried about the environment there are far more effective approaches we could use, like increasing density to reduce transport emissions.
- r00fus 10y agoYeah, but apparently building out public transport pits you against the petroleum industry (which has held sway in the US over a century). This isn't an either-or, it's a case where special interests have shot down the more efficient approaches, so we're left with what we have.
- oh_sigh 10y agoConsider that you can just girdle the tree to kill it, and then the city will then force you to take it down.
- MBlume 10y agoOk, give everyone a tax break determined by the number of trees on their property.
- 10y ago
- ktRolster 10y agoNew housing doesn't even need to be right in San Francisco. Anywhere along the Peninsula, even Oakland would be good enough, as long as it's close enough to public transportation.
- ghaff 10y agoTo a lot of people though, it does. And public transit is already stretched thin with a lot of problems. A second Transbay Tube is being discussed so you're not looking at anything soon.
- marincounty 10y agoI can add this. I worked as a union electrician, as an apprentice, in San Francisco in 1999. My first job site was Pac-Bell park. My next few job sites were residential units. Developers would buy office buildings, gut them, and build condos/homes. I worked on at least five different job sites around that city. Everyone one of the job sites were residential condo/homes. There was a slight building boom going on, but nothing like today. I forget the exact prices of the residential units, but the cheapest one was $950,000, and they went up to 2.5 million quick. All the units were tastefully done. You got a parking spot. You got a nice place. They were built for wealthy people. I can't imagine what they are going for today. The companies I worked for added, roughly, I'm guessing close to 400 residential units. I don't think it made a difference in home prices. Coworkers used to joke around, "Hay, when you get up to $100/hr(including benefits) you will be able to move right in." It was a joke back then; it's a joke now.
- capkutay 10y agoObligatory reminder: If you care about housing in the Bay Area, register to vote now. Scott Wiener is a housing and transportation advocate running for State Senate in this election. http://registertovote.ca.gov/ http://registertovote.ca.gov/ Show up to Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor meetings. Participate in public comment. We all talk about how NIMBYs rule SF, it's because they show up in full force at these gatherings.
- forgotmysn 10y agothe SF Planning Commission holds their public meetings on Thursdays at Noon. They don't want people to come
- ASinclair 10y agoI'm not sure if it's too late but consider registering as a Democrat so you can vote on the DCCC appointments since the DCCC endorsements have a fair amount of sway in elections. See: http://www.sfyimby.org/slate/ http://www.sfyimby.org/slate/ Though feel free to vote as you wish.
- fsaneq2 10y agoOut of curiosity, is there a way for a non-citizen to vote? I see the logic of requiring you to be a citizen, but it does nevertheless feel a little unfair -- I live here too, and I pay my taxes like everyone else.
- hkmurakami 10y ago
- busthrow 10y agoSF should work on rezoning some hub areas higher density, and build (lots of) unit blocks. For comparison, I live in a suburb that has had the zoning rules changed to allow for transit-oriented development. Houses are being moved out and being replaced by 5 story apartment blocks. I live in one of those, a 3 minute walk from a busway station. There will probably be 50000 units built in my the city in the near future. However, Brisbane, Australia has twice the population of SF, and a possibly irrational building boom happening though: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-27/brisbane-to-see-50,000-new-apartments-added-to-skyline-expert/7117686 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-27/brisbane-to-see-50,000...
- youngButEager 10y agoSupply and demand. Demand is higher than supply. Everyone in SF knows that and actually seems to not want to increase the supply. Strike that, they want the property tax revenue but only from huge, high-brow luxury apartment build-outs. The City has no problem letting the supply at the high end of the market increase. By stopping any growth in the supply of nominally affordable rentals, the City leadership is pushing people of limited means outside of the city. Let's see then if the City's limitations to increasing Supply makes sense: 1) low-income people -- like it or not, the vast majority of crime is committed by this group -- are pushed out of the city. That reduces crime. Check, makes sense from the City leadership perspective. 2) Rent control fools the city's renters into voting for more of the same. Landlords cannot profit; take affordable units off the market. Again, the low income types are pushed out of the city. Check. (see #1) 3) Also, by putting these mom-and-pop landlords out of business, rent control eliminates a COMPETITOR for the Luxury Apartment developers -- if there are no low-cost apartments to rent, people have no choice but to pay up or get out. Rent control also pushes up rents at the low end as those units go offline/out of business/converted to condos/etc., leaving fewer units available for low income folks. The City is acting in its own best interest to: - limit supply growth of apartments - put mom and pop landlords with affordable units offline - thus eliminating affordable units and the low socio-economic status people who create most of the crime problems from the city And all that pushes up rents to benefit high-property-tax-paying Luxury apartment developers. The City needs as much property tax revenue as they can get. "How do we attract luxury apartment developers to boost the City's property tax haul? - eliminate the low-priced competitors -- and even get the voters to approve it -- by imposing rent control - reduce crime so Luxury apartment developers will feel they can attract high-dollar customers - reduce/eliminate the creation of new affordable housing SF wants property tax revenue. If you understand the above, you know everything. It's not like the City leaders are going to announce their strategy to voters. Too many low-income/moderate-income renters here in SF. But you can see the effects: - high rents due to the gradual elimination of mom-and-pop low rent units (they go out of business or convert to condos) - no more low-end Supply allowed to be created - rent control is here to stay (at least until all the low-priced apartments are gone)
- original_idea 10y agoUsing a logarithmic scale seems kinda silly. It really detracts from my innate visual ability to understand the topic.
- bagels 10y agoInflation is exponential. It removes all the contrast in the the historical data, and trends are more difficult to spot if a linear scale is used on exponential data.