3 ms·

Not sure where that stat comes from but I suspect that median value would include rent controlled apartments. My 1908 era 6 unit apartment building on the edge

by owyn 9y ago

Not sure where that stat comes from but I suspect that median value would include rent controlled apartments. My 1908 era 6 unit apartment building on the edge of the mission is about $3900 for a 2 bedroom place which is 3 empty rooms, a bathroom and a kitchen. I do like the location but I can hear the upstairs neighbors drop a fork and it wobbles whenever a bart train goes underneath.

DrScump 9y ago
I'd be concerned about living in any structure that was built shortly after any major natural disaster. I'd be paranoid about the inherent pressure for fast, slapdash construction. For example, I wonder about buildings in the Marina and other areas that liquifacted in 1989.
vadimberman 9y ago
I see, that makes sense now - thank you. It's mind-boggling for me that a hundred-plus year old house costs that much, frankly.
- owyn 9y ago
  It's also 1 block from one of the famous under-freeway homeless encampments. One more anecdote, since part of this discussion is about rent control and how it affects peoples choices living in the area. I currently pay ~ $2150 because I've lived there for 8 years. That's why I'm also holding on to the place even though I currently work in San Jose (a 1 hour drive each way). I'd pay even more than I currently do for a place down there, but probably less than a new tenant moving in here (SJ is merely the 3rd most expensive area in the US). The commute sucks, but I prefer to hang out in SF on the weekends. So yeah, maybe the landlord is missing on a bit of opportunity cost because I live there, but as soon as I move out, it would go to market rate. They could make an extra $20k/year if I moved out but I think generally having a stable tenant in the long run is a benefit, and they've certainly profited far more than that from owning the property. Tenant turnover is pretty high, from what I've seen most people only live here for a year or two.

by owyn 9y ago

DrScump 9y ago

I'd be concerned about living in any structure that was built shortly after any major natural disaster. I'd be paranoid about the inherent pressure for fast, slapdash construction. For example, I wonder about buildings in the Marina and other areas that liquifacted in 1989.

vadimberman 9y ago

I see, that makes sense now - thank you. It's mind-boggling for me that a hundred-plus year old house costs that much, frankly.

owyn 9y ago
It's also 1 block from one of the famous under-freeway homeless encampments. One more anecdote, since part of this discussion is about rent control and how it affects peoples choices living in the area. I currently pay ~ $2150 because I've lived there for 8 years. That's why I'm also holding on to the place even though I currently work in San Jose (a 1 hour drive each way). I'd pay even more than I currently do for a place down there, but probably less than a new tenant moving in here (SJ is merely the 3rd most expensive area in the US). The commute sucks, but I prefer to hang out in SF on the weekends. So yeah, maybe the landlord is missing on a bit of opportunity cost because I live there, but as soon as I move out, it would go to market rate. They could make an extra $20k/year if I moved out but I think generally having a stable tenant in the long run is a benefit, and they've certainly profited far more than that from owning the property. Tenant turnover is pretty high, from what I've seen most people only live here for a year or two.