12 ms·
A startup is filling SF's empty luxury rentals
- stale2002 10y agoI was looking into homeshare a while ago, and it is a reasonable deal. They take spacious 2 bedroom apartments and put 3-5 people in them, by converting the living room. (currently I am living in a 2 bedroom with 3 people in it, via Craigslist . ) It is a moderately better situation than living in a college dorm. So the article is way overblown with its talk of "giving up privacy".
- user5994461 10y ago> It is a moderately better situation than living in a college dorm. That is not a good situation by any standard. Maybe that's okay when you're a broke 20 yo student with no income.
- stale2002 10y agoBasically everyone I know in the bay area lives with a roommate, and these are well paid software engineers. Renting out the living room of your apartment is usually a pretty good deal, and is perfectly normal. Sure, if you start to talk about hacker house levels of bad, that sucks. But this is NOT that.
- kspaans 10y agoIs it legal though? Both according to your lease and according to occupancy laws? (Referring to over-occupancy by renting out living rooms and/or multiple people per room.)
- stale2002 10y agoYes it is legal. The apartment complex that I am living in allows 5 people to a 2 person bedroom, and I've seen a couple groups do that. Renting out the living room or even putting 2 people to a room is almost always legal. Over occupancy laws only come into play in completely ridiculous situations like 3 people to a room and up.
- almost_usual 10y ago"Unapproved subtenant (approval can be either stated or implied) is the only person still remaining in the unit (subtenant holding over)" Here is a list of just causes for eviction in San Francisco. https://www.sftu.org/justcauses/ https://www.sftu.org/justcauses/
- stale2002 10y agoThey are not unapproved though. The way these things work is that the apartment complex puts you on the lease! That is by definition approved.
- yonran 10y agoIn San Francisco, the occupancy limits for existing buildings is contained in SF Housing Code §503[1]: bedroom must have 70 sq. ft. of superficial floor area for the first 2 people, plus 50 sq. ft. for each additional person. The subdivided apartments probably easily comply with these limits. [1]: http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/sfbuilding/housingcode2016edition/chapter5spaceandoccupancystandards?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca$anc=JD_H503 http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/sfbuil...
- mwfunk 10y agoAnecdotal and all, but FWIW everyone I know in the Bay Area does not live with a roommate, and these are well-paid software engineers. When people first move here and/or are just getting started with their career, some of them went through periods of having roommates, but they all eventually either found a place they're happy with that is cheap enough where they don't have to have roommates, or after a couple years and a couple raises they don't need them in general. In fairness, I'm thinking of SV and surrounding areas though- not SF, which is a whole other level of housing pain. People I know who work in SV but were determined to live in SF at all costs were stuck with roommates until later in life, but as soon as they could afford to not have roommates, they got their own place. For people I know who are >= 30 and have gotten past the initial novelty of post-college life, roommates are always something you get because you have to, never because you want to.
- sidlls 10y agoIt isn't "perfectly normal." It's very much not normal for adult professionals to cram 2 people to a bedroom or a "converted" living room into small (these aren't "spacious") apartments. That's not even normal for college students who live off campus. Maybe it is for 2 to a bedroom, but definitely not to have a converted living room.
- rexicus 10y ago> quietly when pretending your article isn't clickbait or can't work a scare quote in your headline
- sctb 10y agoThanks! We've removed that from the HN headline.
- thedarkginger 10y agoMaybe I am reading into this but I feel like the author makes this sound nefarious and really uncommon. When I was moving to the South Bay and had only two weeks to figure out my plan, can't tell you how many somewhat affordable room rentals in non-luxury apartments had crazier setups. Some of my favorites: 1. Spacious open room with bed (it was someone's garage with a sheet down and a mattress on top of the concrete) 2. Pretty common: nice place but you were not allowed to use the kitchen 3. Converted Living Room (no joke, the photo was a twin bed in a living room with Office Depot boxes to create a divider) So yeah, I get why someone would share a room in exchange for having some amenities.
- ThrustVectoring 10y agoMy favorite setup is renting out a balcony. Yup. It was roofed so you didn't get rained on, but still...
- thedarkginger 10y agoThe Craigslist way to brand that would be: "Courtesy ambient rain noise for improved sleep environment."
- beambot 10y agoShould've asked for money back for false advertising; no ambient rain noise during drought.
- arcaster 10y agoYeah, this is incredibly common, even in Mountain View. Not just true in luxury rentals with low occupancy, but also in house shares. However, I still don't quite understand restricted kitchen access and shared living rooms.
- seanp2k2 10y agoReal estate is completely out of control in the Bay Area and property owners are pulling every dirty trick to make extra profits.
- gmarx 10y agoSo they are building too much luxury housing which normally would cause prices to go down but fortunately a startup is making it easier to pack people in like college students or illegal migrants? Wonderbar. If I rented a "luxury" apartment by myself and found I was living next door to 5-10 people crammed into one place I'd be pretty angry.
- cbhl 10y agoIsn't this just the "hacker house" thing all over again, except using a corporation instead of listing on Airbnb? People straight out of college who have friends already live three, four, five people to a one to three bedroom apartment in SF because of the insane housing prices, even when they're making 105k/year. Heck, when I went to take a tour of one luxury apartment building and told them that I'd maybe come back if I could find roommates so I could afford it, the leasing agent called me that afternoon with a lead on a prospective roommate that worked at the same company. (To them, it's just closing another sale...)
- calbear81 10y agoI don't think so. The reason being that it sounds like they are still adhering to standard fire codes and occupancy limits to be in full compliance with the law so it's building owner friendly. For a 2 bedroom, it's probably packed with 4 roommates, the company just helps make the living space more amenable to that setup vs. the awkward college dorm / no privacy situation. It's possible in a 2-bedroom you could have up to 6 people (by converting living room to a 3rd bedroom) which this facilitates as well. The cool part is that you get all the community benefits as part of your package which at these high end condos/apartments usually include gyms, swimming pools, etc.
- stale2002 10y agoIt is not 5-10 people. It is 3-5 in a 2 bed apartment. This is extremely common in SF and is perfectly legal.
- gmarx 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- closeparen 10y ago> market glut of dense, expensive housing. Since the beginning of 2015, nearly 22,000 units have been built or approved in San Francisco (excluding the massive Candlestick Point development). Of these, 19,500—89 percent—are “above moderate,” meaning they can likely only be afforded by individuals making more than $90,000 a year. “We are in the midst of the biggest apartment-building boom since World War II,” says Patrick Carlisle, chief market analyst at the Paragon Real Estate Group. The author insinuating that enough housing has already been built, or that building doesn't bring rents down, is pretty rage-inducing. How many new people have started seeking housing in San Francisco since 2015? I'm going to guess it's more like 200,000.
- falsedan 10y ago200k in the Bay, maybe. SF city population is 800k-odd, no way there's 25% churn in two years… The message I got was that the new housing is aimed at top of market when mid & low end is where it's really needed.
- ufo 10y agoThat said, if someone moves from an older (and therefore cheaper) apartment into one of the new and expensive apartments it frees up some mid&low end housing.
- seanp2k2 10y agoMost rent-control laws allow re-pricing to market prices when someone moves out, so someone moving out doesn't typically open up that same price point. You end up with situations where your next-door neighbor is paying half as much for the same apartment. Property owners and real estate developers aren't going to price units lower out of the goodness of their hearts, or due to "supply and demand"...they're happy to let $3k/month 1bedrooms sit empty until some sucker comes along to pay their ransom. By colluding to create a situation where one can't get a studio below $2600/month in SF proper, they can ensure slow but steady growth. It'd be a great experiment if someone had the cash to do it: open an apartment tower with units priced much closer to their actual cost in SF. It'd probably be around 30% of what they currently go for.
- wankerrific 10y agoI thought building tons of apartments and kicking people out of stable living situations was supposed to decrease rents. Apparently the investors/builders have a price floor they cant go under else the situation becomes financially unviable. Also - it would appear that several of these new builds are having a tough time filling units at luxury prices. Who knew?! I thought if we just kept building the market fairy would magically lower prices everywhere.
- stale2002 10y agoBut... It IS decreasing rent. The people living in these apartments are getting a good deal. They wouldn't be able to live here without this kind of deal. And every 4 of these new grads living in a 2 bed apartment, is 4 people NOT gentrifying the mission.
- beatpanda 10y agoThis is that exact process in action. It is happening exactly as proponents of new construction suggested it would. This is all good news.
- beatpanda 10y agoAlso, I'd love to hear more about how building a high rise on what used to be a parking lot involves "kicking people out of stable living situations"
- yonran 10y agoIndeed, none of the new buildings that Homeshare advertises displaced any residences. It’s a common misconception that construction in San Francisco displaces housing. It was true during Redevelopment, but it is not the case with the past couple decades of construction. • 1222 Harrison St was a bus depot[1] • 340 Fremont St used to be a few “institutional” buildings including the “Seafarer’s Union” building[2][3] • 1010 16th St aka Daggett Project was a paint factory[4] • 1333 Powell St, Emeryville aka Parkside Project was a couple office buildings and large parking lots[5] [1] http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/12/the_massive_plans_for_the_shortsited_soma_site_at_8th_a.html http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/12/the_massive_plans... [2] http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/09/340_fremont_scoop_permits_pulled_for_400_foot_tower.html http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/09/340_fremont_scoop... [3] http://sf-planning.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/24-2000.1081E_Rincon_Hill_Plan_EIR_Part_1.pdf http://sf-planning.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Docume... [4] http://oewd.org/daggett-project http://oewd.org/daggett-project [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZkY04cvzUE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZkY04cvzUE
- angryasian 10y agoHow do they get around violating rental leases ? Are they essentially subletting ?
- ultimoo 10y agoHomeshare could be owning the condos themselves.
- sushid 10y agoIt looks like they quietly make agreements with the corporate housing developers beforehand. They don't want the deal to be publicized since it's not good for their image.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- praxulus 10y agoThey work directly with property management companies, not individual master tenants. That's why they're only in a handful of buildings.
- atria 10y agoInteresting. It looks like they are not subletting/subleasing, but working with property management companies to sign up tenants. They are basically offering a service to match tenants and collect payment without any risk of dealing with roomate issues. The tenants sign a lease directly with the property management company. The are probably "quiet" about it because they don't want property managers to do it themselves. I looked at one apartment complext LSeven. The floorplan 2bd/2ba goes for $4,683, but HomeShare is probably collecting $6,300 per month on that unit. I had roomates in college. I would never, ever do that ever again. I had one roomate who would masterbate at night on the couch in the living room, and seemed to think it was acceptable behavior. Had another one who would come in after 2 am strip down and fall asleep on the couch in his whitey-tighty underwear while watching ESPN. I've had to kick out roomates that stopped paying rent. I had a roomate break our lease so he could move in with his ex-girlfriend so he could try to save their relationship -- and that didn't work out so well for him.
- csomar 10y agoSeems to me like you didn't vet your roommates carefully. I have had one roommate in my whole life (maybe lived together for 6 months). I was a bit of a pain in his ass as I was obsessing a lot over cleanliness of the place but we managed quite well. We had guests come over, parties, bring GF/Date and allocate time for the other guy to have sex (it was a studio). So I think it can be managed, you just need to vet carefully and be strict.
- yonran 10y agoThat so-called “luxury” apartments end up getting rented to students and entry-level workers (even if they have to share) should be celebrated, not mocked or viewed with suspicion. Hopefully, it will be a sign that developers will start to target the broader market in earnest in the near future. But the article spins it as some nefarious plot, and anti-displacement groups (of the supply and demand denier type) share it cynically without even realizing that it is positive news[1] [1] https://www.facebook.com/Vanishingsf/posts/647239248801218 https://www.facebook.com/Vanishingsf/posts/647239248801218
- friedman23 10y agoThe only thing luxurious about some of these apartments is that they cost a lot and sometimes have air conditioning and heating.
- pound 10y agoYou don't need air-conditioning in SF
- falsedan 10y ago> sometimes have air conditioning and heating For SF, having both is a luxury!
- friedman23 10y agoYes but in the rest of the US it isn't
- falsedan 10y agoThat's grand pal
- friedman23 10y agoWhat? Don't like being told your city is screwed up?
- QML 10y agoThis was one of the plans I had for housing next year as a college student. My friend had invited me to share the living room with another person in a 2-bedroom apartment that goes for $4400 a month; splitting the costs, we would've paid around $750 a person. The deal with the manager turned south, however, because he wanted to increase the rent. Now I'm aiming for a 1-bedroom apartment or studio to share with my brother that typically goes for $2000+. This is Berkeley we're talking about, so I can't imagine how crazy it is in San Francisco.
- tsunamifury 10y agoHate to break it to you, but Berkeley is going to be more expensive to rent than SF.
- santaclaus 10y agoDepends where you are in Berkeley -- you can get some good deals around the Oakland and Emeryville borders.
- closeparen 10y agoAbsolutely not. I pay $2500 for a 650sqft 1-bedroom in West Berkeley with a parking space. The fixtures are a little cheap, but it's 2001 construction in good shape with solid noise isolation, no pests, etc. The location is urban infill, so industrial, but safe, and similar apartment buildings are popping up around it. It's an obnoxiously long walk (or longer bus ride) to BART, but if you're willing to drive/Uber to a station, the location is fine. Last I checked, similar units in SF were running at least $3800. Yes, I could have a crappier apartment, or a shared apartment, or no parking, or several of the above, for a little less in SF. Berkeley is still my best option. If 2-3 of my peers decide to live in the same amount of space I claim for myself, then the price will rise until the only way I can afford to live here is by sharing with 2-3 people. So while I am excited about the new housing construction in my neighborhood, I am not very excited about HomeShare.
- altonzheng 10y agoI've noticed the huge wave of new luxury apartments being completed. I wonder why they don't lower the rental prices instead of partnering with HomeShare.
- falsedan 10y agoI guess, because they get more money this way.
- hkmurakami 10y agoNegative market signaling.
- hardtke 10y agoA lot of these new buildings are in less desirable neighborhoods. SOMA is desirable from a convenience to freeways and work standpoint, but it does not have the charm of the more established neighborhoods. I wonder if some of the glut is simply that the new housing is in areas where high end renters don't want to live.
- Hydraulix989 10y agoEverything (restaurants) closes at 4 PM too in SOMA because people go to SOMA to work but don't live there.
- ajsharp 10y agostay hungry. stay foolish.
- gojomo 10y agoSkyscrapers bloom in America Cadillacs zoom in America Industry boom in America 12 to a room in America `America`, West Side Story, 1961 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy6wo2wpT2k&feature=youtu.be&t=2m20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy6wo2wpT2k&feature=youtu.be...
- johan_larson 10y agoI think the startup industry in SF is, in its own odd sort of way, sending a clear message to young people: "Get married." You can share an apartment, and you don't need separate bedrooms.
- romuloab42 10y agoUnless you are on H-1B visa and your spouse can't work. Now you don't have an option to share a bedroom and have to pay for the whole thing.
- paulddraper 10y agoAnd the tax incentives!
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cowardlydragon 10y agoI guarantee that they are being outright racist in "vetting" the people to inhabit these luxury apartments, which is part of the secrecy.