3 ms·
> It's not about whether any specific person deserves to live in a specific place. I never said anything about if someone deserves to live somewhere. A 1-bedr
by askafriend 8y ago
> It's not about whether any specific person deserves to live in a specific place.
I never said anything about if someone deserves to live somewhere.
A 1-bedroom apartment is a very specific type of unit and that's part of what I wanted to point out. You can also rent studios, converted rooms, or get roommates in a bigger place with more rooms. There's a lot of other options I'm leaving out too, but I reject the premise that everyone in SF absolutely requires a 1-bedroom apt as an essential. It's nice to have certainly, and having roommates isn't for everyone...but there are tradeoffs to every place you live. You can absolutely make SF work if that was your desire and you knew the tradeoffs.
- learc83 8y agoThe price for a studio isn't going to be far behind a 1 bedroom, and rooms in houses aren't really an option for for people who aren't single in most cases. Even if you wanted to cram multiple people into one 12x12 room, most cheap rooms for rent are explicit about 1 person only. Look at median household income, San Francisco is effectively off limits to most people.
- askafriend 8y agoPoint taken. We definitely have a problem but I really don’t see any solution anytime soon. Even if we committed to building a ton of new supply tomorrow, it’d still take years to get approved and actually physically built. I’ll push back a little on your point back alternatives not being too far behind the price of a 1 bedroom though. I know several people with units <$1800. Some converted rooms go for <$1500.
- learc83 8y agoA median price of $3,700 doesn't imply that single bedrooms cheaper than that don't exist. >don’t see any solution anytime soon There's not. But a solution 5 years from now is better than never.
- landryraccoon 8y ago> Even if we committed to building a ton of new supply tomorrow, it’d still take years to get approved and actually physically built. Would you argue we shouldn't do anything about climate change because that will take years of approval and political decisions before anything gets done? I mean, yeah, it would be better to start ten years ago than today, but starting today must be better than never right?
- askafriend 8y agoThat’s not my viewpoint at all. I think we SHOULD build as much supply as possible. However I’m not holding my breath nor am I optimistic about the short-medium term reality.