5 ms·

Living in SF doesn't seem sustainable. I'm one of the lucky ones making $175k/year living with 9 housemates. Refusal to build more housing to meet demand is cru

Living in SF doesn't seem sustainable. I'm one of the lucky ones making $175k/year living with 9 housemates. Refusal to build more housing to meet demand is cruel. Combined with multi-hour commutes and stepping around homeless people and their needles and feces makes you wonder how this all ends.

api 7y ago
It ends with tech geographically diversifying. Last time I was in SF, an odd thought just randomly popped into my head as I was walking around downtown: "San Francisco is someone else's house." I've never been able to put my finger on that deep vibe the place has until then. You have various groups that come and go -- hippies, hackers, techbros, whatever -- but beneath the surface there is this old property owner base that owns the city completely and does not want to see it change much. They are willing to let various groups of transients pass through and perhaps a few stay but most leave in the end, and they don't want that to change either. SF is superficially liberal but deeply conservative in an odd and very specifically SF way. Reminds me quite a lot of Boston but with a West Coast and Bohemian veneer. I don't know if my random insight is spot on or not, but that's what came to mind.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  I don't know if my random insight is spot on or not, but that's what came to mind. Most new property being built in SF proper is being used as secondary housing for rather wealthy folks. I'm sure some of it is also being soaked up in an attempt to expatriate money (kinda like what you see in Vancouver). It's someone else's house in some sense but not likely what you're thinking.
  - 0xB31B1B 7y ago
    This isn’t true at all. The vast majority of housing being built is used as the primary residence for SF residents, people from SF move into these new buildings and open up cheaper units in older buildings.
    - inferiorhuman 7y ago
      This isn’t true at all. The vast majority of housing being built is used as the primary residence for SF residents, people from SF move into these new buildings and open up cheaper units in older buildings. https://sfist.com/2014/09/30/almost_half_of_newly_built_condos_i/ https://sfist.com/2014/09/30/almost_half_of_newly_built_cond... I don't think that's changed appreciably in five years.
throwawaymath 7y ago
Is this hyperbole?
- housingthrow0 7y ago
  Unfortunately not. Hoping to go remote asap.
  - throwawaymath 7y ago
    You earn $175k per year and have to live with nine other people?
    - godot 7y ago
      I'm not the person you're replying to but if you actually wanted to live by yourself in SF you could easily spend anywhere between $3500-5000 on rent. Even at a $175k salary that's more or less half of your post-tax pay monthly. For sure that's still livable, but may not make financial sense. Staying with a few housemates take that monthly cost down to $1500-2000 which allows for much more savings, so eventually you could buy a house (maybe somewhere else outside of the bay!). 9 housemates is a bit extreme though.
- neonate 7y ago
  I would say so. The problems are problems but they aren't absolute crises.

api 7y ago

It ends with tech geographically diversifying. Last time I was in SF, an odd thought just randomly popped into my head as I was walking around downtown: "San Francisco is someone else's house." I've never been able to put my finger on that deep vibe the place has until then. You have various groups that come and go -- hippies, hackers, techbros, whatever -- but beneath the surface there is this old property owner base that owns the city completely and does not want to see it change much. They are willing to let various groups of transients pass through and perhaps a few stay but most leave in the end, and they don't want that to change either. SF is superficially liberal but deeply conservative in an odd and very specifically SF way. Reminds me quite a lot of Boston but with a West Coast and Bohemian veneer. I don't know if my random insight is spot on or not, but that's what came to mind.

inferiorhuman 7y ago
I don't know if my random insight is spot on or not, but that's what came to mind. Most new property being built in SF proper is being used as secondary housing for rather wealthy folks. I'm sure some of it is also being soaked up in an attempt to expatriate money (kinda like what you see in Vancouver). It's someone else's house in some sense but not likely what you're thinking.
- 0xB31B1B 7y ago
  This isn’t true at all. The vast majority of housing being built is used as the primary residence for SF residents, people from SF move into these new buildings and open up cheaper units in older buildings.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    This isn’t true at all. The vast majority of housing being built is used as the primary residence for SF residents, people from SF move into these new buildings and open up cheaper units in older buildings. https://sfist.com/2014/09/30/almost_half_of_newly_built_condos_i/ https://sfist.com/2014/09/30/almost_half_of_newly_built_cond... I don't think that's changed appreciably in five years.

throwawaymath 7y ago

Is this hyperbole?

housingthrow0 7y ago
Unfortunately not. Hoping to go remote asap.
- throwawaymath 7y ago
  You earn $175k per year and have to live with nine other people?
  - godot 7y ago
    I'm not the person you're replying to but if you actually wanted to live by yourself in SF you could easily spend anywhere between $3500-5000 on rent. Even at a $175k salary that's more or less half of your post-tax pay monthly. For sure that's still livable, but may not make financial sense. Staying with a few housemates take that monthly cost down to $1500-2000 which allows for much more savings, so eventually you could buy a house (maybe somewhere else outside of the bay!). 9 housemates is a bit extreme though.
neonate 7y ago
I would say so. The problems are problems but they aren't absolute crises.