4 ms·

> The tech industry did create this problem by suddenly attracting a ton of talent to the region. Suddenly? This has been going on for close to 30 years. We ha

> The tech industry did create this problem by suddenly attracting a ton of talent to the region. Suddenly? This has been going on for close to 30 years. We haven't "created" a problem. > had we chosen some other place It's not as though some gigantic hive mind suddenly just put their finger down on a map and decided where to locate a tech center. And any other place they picked would be going through the same issues right now.

closeparen 10y ago
This looks pretty sudden to me: [0] [0] https://medium.com/@mccannatron/1979-to-2015-average-rent-in-san-francisco-33aaea22de0e#.z2sjmzcpm https://medium.com/@mccannatron/1979-to-2015-average-rent-in...
- tmh79 10y ago
  The first graph is misleading, as it shows a spike, but what really matters is the YoY % change. As you can see in the second graph, the YoY % change relative to inflation has been above 0 since 1979. You can't have an asset (or cost, if this is rents) that is vital to life increase in price above inflation literally every year since 1979 and expect that the price will be reasonable in 2016.
  - mdorazio 10y ago
    I have to disagree with you. Can you provide an example of any desirable major metro in the US (besides Detroit) where housing prices have actually gone down YoY in the last 30 years? Even cities like Atalanta and Dallas with virtually unlimited space and new housing-friendly construction policies have had consistently increasing median rents for a long time. Small percentage increases in rent/house prices are normal due to a number of factors. It's the large spikes outstripping the normal increases that make things get crazy. And you can see this empirically in SF as well. If you were in the city post dotcom crash, housing was easy to find and also reasonably priced for CA. It's only been in the last 10 years or so that everything got out of control due to the new tech boom.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      > where housing prices have actually gone down YoY in the last 30 years? That's taking inflation into account? Las Vegas seems to have kept steady, which makes sense. http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/las_vegas.html http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/las_vegas.html So has Tampa. http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/tampa.html http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/tampa.html
      - mdorazio 10y ago
        I don't consider either of those a desirable location, though. That's pretty key to this whole argument - SF and cities like it are places people actually want to move to rather than just buy properties there.
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        > I don't consider either of those a desirable location, though. Why not? Tampa has nice weather and no state income tax, and Las Vegas is a fun place to live. Without real, objective measures on "desirable location" you're basically stating a tautology. The only places with rising real estate prices are desirable locations, which are evincing desirability by rising real estate prices.
        mdorazio 10y ago
        I've spent quite a bit of time working in both locations and find them far inferior to many other US cities (SF, LA, NYC, Austin, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Miami, Dallas, etc.) in terms of general quality of life for people under the age of 40. You're the first person I've met who really seems to think otherwise. It's not really a tautology when we could take a simple poll of our target population and find out which cities they would and would not want to move to. I'd be willing to bet that neither LV nor Tampa would be very far up that list. I wish there was better data on median rent prices over time per city so we could do a comparative analysis with real price info.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
devsquid 10y ago
I'm from the bay area. We created this problem. Each of the two bubbles I have lived through did this.
astrange 10y ago
Any other place doesn't have the literal geographic barriers to construction that the Bay Area does, or Prop 13 distorting housing incentives. For instance, Atlanta can absorb tons of new people moving in (which they are!) and there's infinite space to build out in all directions in the suburbs there. Of course everyone will still end up stuck in traffic.
- trome 10y ago
  Hence why building suburban sprawl is unsustainable, and is actually a major economic problem for the Bay Area & most of the US. Eventually you end up like Detroit, since suburban sprawl is very expensive to maintain. Urban areas need to densify rapidly if we hope to avoid financial catastrophe in the US, and many areas need to be returned to agricultural use instead of suburban sprawl, as with sprawl we have essentially covered our most fertile land in low density, high maintenance housing & support infrastructure. http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-...

closeparen 10y ago

This looks pretty sudden to me: [0] [0] https://medium.com/@mccannatron/1979-to-2015-average-rent-in-san-francisco-33aaea22de0e#.z2sjmzcpm https://medium.com/@mccannatron/1979-to-2015-average-rent-in...

tmh79 10y ago
The first graph is misleading, as it shows a spike, but what really matters is the YoY % change. As you can see in the second graph, the YoY % change relative to inflation has been above 0 since 1979. You can't have an asset (or cost, if this is rents) that is vital to life increase in price above inflation literally every year since 1979 and expect that the price will be reasonable in 2016.
- mdorazio 10y ago
  I have to disagree with you. Can you provide an example of any desirable major metro in the US (besides Detroit) where housing prices have actually gone down YoY in the last 30 years? Even cities like Atalanta and Dallas with virtually unlimited space and new housing-friendly construction policies have had consistently increasing median rents for a long time. Small percentage increases in rent/house prices are normal due to a number of factors. It's the large spikes outstripping the normal increases that make things get crazy. And you can see this empirically in SF as well. If you were in the city post dotcom crash, housing was easy to find and also reasonably priced for CA. It's only been in the last 10 years or so that everything got out of control due to the new tech boom.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > where housing prices have actually gone down YoY in the last 30 years? That's taking inflation into account? Las Vegas seems to have kept steady, which makes sense. http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/las_vegas.html http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/las_vegas.html So has Tampa. http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/tampa.html http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/tampa.html
    - mdorazio 10y ago
      I don't consider either of those a desirable location, though. That's pretty key to this whole argument - SF and cities like it are places people actually want to move to rather than just buy properties there.
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        > I don't consider either of those a desirable location, though. Why not? Tampa has nice weather and no state income tax, and Las Vegas is a fun place to live. Without real, objective measures on "desirable location" you're basically stating a tautology. The only places with rising real estate prices are desirable locations, which are evincing desirability by rising real estate prices.
        mdorazio 10y ago
        I've spent quite a bit of time working in both locations and find them far inferior to many other US cities (SF, LA, NYC, Austin, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Miami, Dallas, etc.) in terms of general quality of life for people under the age of 40. You're the first person I've met who really seems to think otherwise. It's not really a tautology when we could take a simple poll of our target population and find out which cities they would and would not want to move to. I'd be willing to bet that neither LV nor Tampa would be very far up that list. I wish there was better data on median rent prices over time per city so we could do a comparative analysis with real price info.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

devsquid 10y ago

I'm from the bay area. We created this problem. Each of the two bubbles I have lived through did this.

astrange 10y ago

Any other place doesn't have the literal geographic barriers to construction that the Bay Area does, or Prop 13 distorting housing incentives. For instance, Atlanta can absorb tons of new people moving in (which they are!) and there's infinite space to build out in all directions in the suburbs there. Of course everyone will still end up stuck in traffic.

trome 10y ago
Hence why building suburban sprawl is unsustainable, and is actually a major economic problem for the Bay Area & most of the US. Eventually you end up like Detroit, since suburban sprawl is very expensive to maintain. Urban areas need to densify rapidly if we hope to avoid financial catastrophe in the US, and many areas need to be returned to agricultural use instead of suburban sprawl, as with sprawl we have essentially covered our most fertile land in low density, high maintenance housing & support infrastructure. http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-...