19 ms·

I would say the city being “closed” is the major driver. Among my group of ~40 coworkers, about 30 (including me) have left the city. As far as I know all but o

I would say the city being “closed” is the major driver. Among my group of ~40 coworkers, about 30 (including me) have left the city. As far as I know all but one were renting. Everyone who left gave the following rationale: - we can work remotely so move wherever or nomad now - SF is not very fun during the pandemic - WFH in my tiny apartment is much less enjoyable than when I was working in the office and didn’t spend much time in the apartment - therefore I’m moving for a year or so until things fully reopen Now I think the question is what does the eventual full reopening look like and how long does it take? Many people will move back, because many office jobs will return, and many people love city life and the office work environment (including me). But the longer things take, the more people get established elsewhere, and the more companies decide to make remote permanent and don’t reopen an office, the more I think this market reset in SF will be long-lasting. As other posters have said it’s a welcome relief though. Prices are still very high, and new construction remains far from sufficient to keep up with demand. (edit: typo)

komali2 6y ago
I disagree that it's a demand problem alone. There was tons of new construction. If I wanted to, I could have moved to any neighborhood in the city on a whim... As long as I was willing to move into a brand new luxury apartment $4k studio. The demand was high for reasonably priced older units. "Just add new construction" doesn't work if all that gets built is luxury apartments.
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  Again, think on the margin. If there’s suddenly a lot of new luxury apartments then those looking for something cheaper have less competition from the deep pocketed. If they build so many luxury apartments that prices for them break that’s also a victory condition.
  - blululu 6y ago
    It's not so simple. The newer buildings were constructed at a much higher cost than the old ones and they are priced accordingly (and with less flexibility to go down in price). In spite of the price tag and the 'luxury' appellation, they really are not that nice (they tend to be small and the gym/pool that comes with the apartment is closed during Covid. Consequently there is a subtle structural shortage on apartments that doesn't go away by simply building more apartments. If it were possible to build apartments at a lower price with more space per unit in the city then it would be a simple matter of total housing stock. As long as housing stock is differentiated in price and quality a shortage can endure even with an increase in total supply (rent controlled units for example will always be in short supply regardless of new construction).
    - barry-cotter 6y ago
      > As long as housing stock is differentiated in price and quality a shortage can endure even with an increase in total supply (rent controlled units for example will always be in short supply regardless of new construction). If you build enough quality housing you end up with old crappy housing being impossible to rent out so it either gets abandoned or redeveloped. If you build enough housing the price floor that is rent control ceases to bind because market rates drop below the floor. There can absolutely be a “shortage” of a given combination of quality and price but that’s like saying there’s a shortage of Peter Norvig talented Computer Scientists who’ll work for $50K a year.
    - matchbok 6y ago
      The price is mostly the land underneath it. Fancy countertops don't make rent go high.
      - kelnos 6y ago
        No, but SF's byzantine planning and approval process jacks up the total cost to build to the point where it doesn't make financial sense to build low-end housing. That means the developer has to increase sale prices in order to turn a profit, which in turn means new landlords need to charge more rent to just break even. If you consider that a newly constructed 750 sqft 1BR apartment can easily run $800k-$1M, a buyer is looking at $4-5k per month to cover the mortgage, property taxes, insurance, HOA, maintenance, etc. Do you really think a buyer is going to turn around and rent it out for $2k/mo? For buildings wholly owned by a leasing company, the economics are better, but still not to the point where they're going to rent that out for under $3-4k/mo.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I'd argue that new construction is inherently a luxury just because people are willing to pay so much more for it. You can't just directly build reasonably priced older units, any more than you can directly build beater cars.
  - ada1981 6y ago
    >> build beater cars << Didn’t stop Elon... :p
- burlesona 6y ago
  There have been a number of studies looking at this, but the TLDR is that globally most new construction is and always has been high-end compared to the surrounding market. What typically happens in a healthy market is the rich overwhelmingly live in new construction (or remodels), and everyone else lives in the places that rich people lived in 10, 15, 20, or more years ago. Since construction is durable, a luxury apartment building from the 70s should still be a nice place to live as long as it has been maintained. And if lots of nice new stuff has come in since then, the old stuff should be in less demand and therefore affordable. For well-studied examples of this, see Japan: https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-home-prices-stay-flat-11554210002 https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-ho...
  - metalforever 6y ago
    In NYC, things are actually moving in reverse. In properties where the poor lived 10, 15, 20 years ago the rich live now.
- tathougies 6y ago
  > "Just add new construction" doesn't work if all that gets built is luxury apartments. Building more luxury apartments creates more older units.
- matchbok 6y ago
  Rents would be higher in the shitty apartments if those new ones weren't built.
justaguyhere 6y ago
therefore I’m moving for a year or so until things fully reopen Do you see an end to this pandemic in the next year or so? A good percentage of people are still refusing to wear masks, we aren't anywhere closer to a vaccine etc. I am trying to be optimistic, but the situation isn't improving from any direction and we are already 10 months in :(
- burlesona 6y ago
  It's a fair question, and for me the answer is open-ended. I expect this to last at least another year, but I really have no idea when things will feel "normal" and "safe" again.
- pgwhalen 6y ago
  In what sense are we not closer to a vaccine? I’m not following vaccine development closely, but my understanding is that many candidates are progressing along nicely.
  - bitbckt 6y ago
    Just today, for example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/10/13/covid-vaccine-trial-pause/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/10/13/covid-vacci...
    - graeme 6y ago
      That’s extremely routine procedure for any trial. When there’s an u explained illness the trial is halted to investigate if it is linked to the vaccine or not. If it isn’t, the trial resumes.
      - bitbckt 6y ago
        No question there. I wasn’t speaking to the GP’s question about progress but to their “not following the news” comment. I apparently should have made that clear.
    - 6y ago
zdragnar 6y ago
As a counter anecdote, I know three people from the bay area who moved out during covidtide, but had already planned the move beforehand. (This is a very high percentage of people I know from the bay area, hence the anecdote). All had the same rationale: taxes and housing were simply far too high when they could work remotely and live anywhere else. Sure, you don't get the same outdoors, food or retail scene, but plenty of places have those things too. I imagine the move to working remotely has made that move possible for more people than before, but those I know aren't making temporary moves, they are buying houses.
- mxcrossb 6y ago
  This is the mindset I really don’t understand though. Sure your company can say “we’re all remote” today, but they can just as easily say “everyone has to come back” in six months. Or “everyone doesn’t have to, but those who don’t are the first laid off next time”. I’ve been fully remote since March, so I’ve been weighing this for awhile”
  - ianferrel 6y ago
    Realistically, the vast majority of companies aren't going to issue an edict like that. They're going to find a way to work with their employees. If you have employees who have been working productively remotely for a year, it's probably better to find a way to keep them happy and working than to have to find a new employee.
    - ad-hominem 6y ago
      Except yahoo famously did exactly this, despite it being obviously stupid even at the time, without the benefit of hindsight.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Many companies have publicly stated they will allow permanent work from home [1]. Many others have said so privately to their workers. As more companies adopt this, this provides more options to those who relocate and whose employer tries to pull them back. Keep a long runway in an emergency fund, keep your professional network warm, always be ready to bounce if your employer tries to change your quality of life for the worse (mandatory return to an office somewhere, for example). (Disclosure: This is how I operate, and have worked from home for over 7 years.) [1] https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/companies-switching-remote-work-long-term/ https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/companies-switching-remot... ("27 Companies That Have Switched to Long-Term Remote Work")
PascLeRasc 6y ago
Compared to other big tech-hub cities, I'd think SF would be one of the better ones to spend the pandemic in. There's great parks like Dolores, Lands End, etc, and they'll still be comfortable to be in during this winter. Is there more to it than that?
- sjf 6y ago
  The positives have to out weight the negatives of high crime, a large homeless population, high rents, small apartments, etc. Having nice parks is not unique to SF.
  - geebee 6y ago
    no... but neither is having a problem with street addiction and mental illness. SF has it bad, no doubt, but on recent (<5 years) to Seattle, Portland, Nashville, Los Angeles, and Milwaukee, I did see the extent to which this isn't purely a SF problem. NY was actually the best of the bunch, remarkably, though last time I was there was 6 years ago, and things have deteriorated remarkably in SF even in the last 10 years, accelerating in the last 5, so this may be less NY vs SF and more 5+ years ago vs now.
    - tathougies 6y ago
      You are certainly not wrong. This is a major problem in many places in the country. It's gross. Portland and Seattle are definitely much worse than SF. LA is much nicer than what it used to be, and still better than SF, but I grew up in LA so I have the natural tendency to ignore everything bad with it.
      - geebee 6y ago
        I hear you. San Franciscans historically had an extremely obnoxious tendency to only see the negative side of LA. Seems like it's fading a bit, though, partly because SF's are too severe to stay smug, and partly because LA keeps getting more interesting. I grew up in SF but moved to LA for a while in the late 90s to work in the software side of film compositing/editing. Finally opened my eyes to how much fun it is. My guess is that with electric cars and more urbanization, LA will may well become a warm, crowded, culturally varied and ethnically diverse place with sprawling suburbs and dense urban areas, a lucrative and creative entertainment sector and somewhat smaller tech sector, clean air and water, beaches, and eternally lousy traffic.
servercobra 6y ago
The WFH is a huge part. Just moved from a tiny 1 bed near downtown LA to a 3 bed place in Chicago with lower rent. My girlfriend and I both get our own offices, we have a yard, and enough places that are half open nearby that we're pretty happy.
- bgorman 6y ago
  Please report back in February after experiencing a -40 day :)
  - coredog64 6y ago
    -40C or -40F?
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      -40°C = -40°F.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        I’ll bet $20 that GP knows that.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    Chicago doesn't get -40°. When I was in Champaign (admittedly, that's ~100mi south) for 6 years, exactly once did we have windchill reach -40°. Your typical "coldest low" in Chicago will be single-digit degrees Fahrenheit. Per Wikipedia, Chicago's record extreme low is -25°F.
    - monksy 6y ago
      -40F is with windchill. We had a few days this past winter with it.
    - nsxwolf 6y ago
      It hit -23F in January 2019 and below -30F in some of the suburbs. It’s almost a meaningless distinction when it’s that cold.
outside1234 6y ago
I don't know - Microsoft is moving to essentially the Github model of letting people live where they want. This is a fundamental shift and broadening and many people lived in the city for access to jobs that now they can live elsewhere for.
- enumjorge 6y ago
  > Microsoft is moving to essentially the Github model of letting people live where they want My understanding is that at Github working remotely is the norm, while I believe the changes Microsoft announced require manager approval if you want to work remote > 50% of the time.
adjkant 6y ago
What is curious to me is that NYC rents haven't seen the same crater at all (link says 15% but anecdotally most of the desirable top of market neighborhoods aren't budging). I don't buy the "SF is not very fun during the pandemic" rationale as more special than any other notable city, and NYC tends to have less space than SF. To me, that says the SF case has more complexity. IMO, the key factor here is that there appears to be a much higher ratio of people that were primarily there because work was best there, where many other cities have populations that tend to choose the city in question specifically more than happen upon it.
- asdff 6y ago
  I haven't seen rents really drop in LA either. Commercial landlords would rather let the building go half vacant and try offering 1-2 months of free rent before they drop the base rent.
  - e9 6y ago
    Yeah it’s weird. I haven’t seen for rent signs before but now I see them on every single building but rents are same. It probably means landlords are basically charging too much and making too much money and not paying enough in taxes(1-2% tax increase per year is probably nothing compared to increases in rent prices)
    - MAGZine 6y ago
      if you do the math, it's expensive to let a unit sit for more than a couple months as opposed to offering a discount on the rent. This assumes your tenant will turnover in a couple years time, mind you. I did the math for SF and IIRC ~2mo was equal to a 15% discount. if it sits empty for longer than 2mo, you should have just given the 15% discount. if you let is sit for 2mo AND have to give a 15% discount, now you've really fucked your finances up.
      - cnst 6y ago
        You're ignoring the fact that SF has rent control; it resets only once a vacancy hits. If market rate was 3k a few months back, but is only 2k now, if you take a 15-year view, it's still cheaper to let your rent-controlled unit sit unrented for 12mo than rent it at just 2k for 15 years provided the 3k/mo rates recover in two years. Basically, that's one of the major reasons why rent-controlled units aren't going down in prices. Bundle in Prop 13, and you aren't even paying any real property taxes on those units to sting your finances.
acalzycalzy 6y ago
SF wasn’t fun before the Pandemic. I’ve visited friends who work in tech 3 different times the past 5 years. The city lacks culture, the food and drinking scenes suck, and the people are all the same. (I spend most of my city time in miami, nyc, and montreal)
- egypturnash 6y ago
  This is what tech money does to a city. Rents go up, everybody interesting leaves for places they can afford without a ludicrous salary.
  - aejnsn 6y ago
    But only tech money does that?
  - coffeemug 6y ago
    No, this is what not building things does to a city.
  - shuckles 6y ago
    NYC is mostly run by finance money, which must be at least as pernicious as tech money right?
    - refurb 6y ago
      You have a point, and there are parts of NYC that are very heavy finance workers, but I'd point out a few differences: - You'd have to include SF, San Jose and Oakland together to equal the size of NYC (and much of that SF metro area is single family home suburbs with no one on the street at night) - Tech workers concentrate in SF proper because there is not much outside of it (yes, there is, but SF is the core) Just my take, but SF seems to revolve around tech, while finance is big in NYC, it's not the dominating industry like tech is in SF.
      - MAGZine 6y ago
skocznymroczny 6y ago
I am not American, what is considered "a tiny apartament", how many square meters are we talking about?
- burlesona 6y ago
  It depends but anywhere from 30-50 square meters. In SF anything over 90 square meters is considered a large apartment.

komali2 6y ago

I disagree that it's a demand problem alone. There was tons of new construction. If I wanted to, I could have moved to any neighborhood in the city on a whim... As long as I was willing to move into a brand new luxury apartment $4k studio. The demand was high for reasonably priced older units. "Just add new construction" doesn't work if all that gets built is luxury apartments.

barry-cotter 6y ago
Again, think on the margin. If there’s suddenly a lot of new luxury apartments then those looking for something cheaper have less competition from the deep pocketed. If they build so many luxury apartments that prices for them break that’s also a victory condition.
- blululu 6y ago
  It's not so simple. The newer buildings were constructed at a much higher cost than the old ones and they are priced accordingly (and with less flexibility to go down in price). In spite of the price tag and the 'luxury' appellation, they really are not that nice (they tend to be small and the gym/pool that comes with the apartment is closed during Covid. Consequently there is a subtle structural shortage on apartments that doesn't go away by simply building more apartments. If it were possible to build apartments at a lower price with more space per unit in the city then it would be a simple matter of total housing stock. As long as housing stock is differentiated in price and quality a shortage can endure even with an increase in total supply (rent controlled units for example will always be in short supply regardless of new construction).
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    > As long as housing stock is differentiated in price and quality a shortage can endure even with an increase in total supply (rent controlled units for example will always be in short supply regardless of new construction). If you build enough quality housing you end up with old crappy housing being impossible to rent out so it either gets abandoned or redeveloped. If you build enough housing the price floor that is rent control ceases to bind because market rates drop below the floor. There can absolutely be a “shortage” of a given combination of quality and price but that’s like saying there’s a shortage of Peter Norvig talented Computer Scientists who’ll work for $50K a year.
  - matchbok 6y ago
    The price is mostly the land underneath it. Fancy countertops don't make rent go high.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      No, but SF's byzantine planning and approval process jacks up the total cost to build to the point where it doesn't make financial sense to build low-end housing. That means the developer has to increase sale prices in order to turn a profit, which in turn means new landlords need to charge more rent to just break even. If you consider that a newly constructed 750 sqft 1BR apartment can easily run $800k-$1M, a buyer is looking at $4-5k per month to cover the mortgage, property taxes, insurance, HOA, maintenance, etc. Do you really think a buyer is going to turn around and rent it out for $2k/mo? For buildings wholly owned by a leasing company, the economics are better, but still not to the point where they're going to rent that out for under $3-4k/mo.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I'd argue that new construction is inherently a luxury just because people are willing to pay so much more for it. You can't just directly build reasonably priced older units, any more than you can directly build beater cars.
- ada1981 6y ago
  >> build beater cars << Didn’t stop Elon... :p
burlesona 6y ago
There have been a number of studies looking at this, but the TLDR is that globally most new construction is and always has been high-end compared to the surrounding market. What typically happens in a healthy market is the rich overwhelmingly live in new construction (or remodels), and everyone else lives in the places that rich people lived in 10, 15, 20, or more years ago. Since construction is durable, a luxury apartment building from the 70s should still be a nice place to live as long as it has been maintained. And if lots of nice new stuff has come in since then, the old stuff should be in less demand and therefore affordable. For well-studied examples of this, see Japan: https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-home-prices-stay-flat-11554210002 https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-ho...
- metalforever 6y ago
  In NYC, things are actually moving in reverse. In properties where the poor lived 10, 15, 20 years ago the rich live now.
tathougies 6y ago
> "Just add new construction" doesn't work if all that gets built is luxury apartments. Building more luxury apartments creates more older units.
matchbok 6y ago
Rents would be higher in the shitty apartments if those new ones weren't built.

justaguyhere 6y ago

therefore I’m moving for a year or so until things fully reopen Do you see an end to this pandemic in the next year or so? A good percentage of people are still refusing to wear masks, we aren't anywhere closer to a vaccine etc. I am trying to be optimistic, but the situation isn't improving from any direction and we are already 10 months in :(

burlesona 6y ago
It's a fair question, and for me the answer is open-ended. I expect this to last at least another year, but I really have no idea when things will feel "normal" and "safe" again.
pgwhalen 6y ago
In what sense are we not closer to a vaccine? I’m not following vaccine development closely, but my understanding is that many candidates are progressing along nicely.
- bitbckt 6y ago
  Just today, for example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/10/13/covid-vaccine-trial-pause/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/10/13/covid-vacci...
  - graeme 6y ago
    That’s extremely routine procedure for any trial. When there’s an u explained illness the trial is halted to investigate if it is linked to the vaccine or not. If it isn’t, the trial resumes.
    - bitbckt 6y ago
      No question there. I wasn’t speaking to the GP’s question about progress but to their “not following the news” comment. I apparently should have made that clear.
  - 6y ago

zdragnar 6y ago

As a counter anecdote, I know three people from the bay area who moved out during covidtide, but had already planned the move beforehand. (This is a very high percentage of people I know from the bay area, hence the anecdote). All had the same rationale: taxes and housing were simply far too high when they could work remotely and live anywhere else. Sure, you don't get the same outdoors, food or retail scene, but plenty of places have those things too. I imagine the move to working remotely has made that move possible for more people than before, but those I know aren't making temporary moves, they are buying houses.

mxcrossb 6y ago
This is the mindset I really don’t understand though. Sure your company can say “we’re all remote” today, but they can just as easily say “everyone has to come back” in six months. Or “everyone doesn’t have to, but those who don’t are the first laid off next time”. I’ve been fully remote since March, so I’ve been weighing this for awhile”
- ianferrel 6y ago
  Realistically, the vast majority of companies aren't going to issue an edict like that. They're going to find a way to work with their employees. If you have employees who have been working productively remotely for a year, it's probably better to find a way to keep them happy and working than to have to find a new employee.
  - ad-hominem 6y ago
    Except yahoo famously did exactly this, despite it being obviously stupid even at the time, without the benefit of hindsight.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Many companies have publicly stated they will allow permanent work from home [1]. Many others have said so privately to their workers. As more companies adopt this, this provides more options to those who relocate and whose employer tries to pull them back. Keep a long runway in an emergency fund, keep your professional network warm, always be ready to bounce if your employer tries to change your quality of life for the worse (mandatory return to an office somewhere, for example). (Disclosure: This is how I operate, and have worked from home for over 7 years.) [1] https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/companies-switching-remote-work-long-term/ https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/companies-switching-remot... ("27 Companies That Have Switched to Long-Term Remote Work")

PascLeRasc 6y ago

Compared to other big tech-hub cities, I'd think SF would be one of the better ones to spend the pandemic in. There's great parks like Dolores, Lands End, etc, and they'll still be comfortable to be in during this winter. Is there more to it than that?

sjf 6y ago
The positives have to out weight the negatives of high crime, a large homeless population, high rents, small apartments, etc. Having nice parks is not unique to SF.
- geebee 6y ago
  no... but neither is having a problem with street addiction and mental illness. SF has it bad, no doubt, but on recent (<5 years) to Seattle, Portland, Nashville, Los Angeles, and Milwaukee, I did see the extent to which this isn't purely a SF problem. NY was actually the best of the bunch, remarkably, though last time I was there was 6 years ago, and things have deteriorated remarkably in SF even in the last 10 years, accelerating in the last 5, so this may be less NY vs SF and more 5+ years ago vs now.
  - tathougies 6y ago
    You are certainly not wrong. This is a major problem in many places in the country. It's gross. Portland and Seattle are definitely much worse than SF. LA is much nicer than what it used to be, and still better than SF, but I grew up in LA so I have the natural tendency to ignore everything bad with it.
    - geebee 6y ago
      I hear you. San Franciscans historically had an extremely obnoxious tendency to only see the negative side of LA. Seems like it's fading a bit, though, partly because SF's are too severe to stay smug, and partly because LA keeps getting more interesting. I grew up in SF but moved to LA for a while in the late 90s to work in the software side of film compositing/editing. Finally opened my eyes to how much fun it is. My guess is that with electric cars and more urbanization, LA will may well become a warm, crowded, culturally varied and ethnically diverse place with sprawling suburbs and dense urban areas, a lucrative and creative entertainment sector and somewhat smaller tech sector, clean air and water, beaches, and eternally lousy traffic.

servercobra 6y ago

The WFH is a huge part. Just moved from a tiny 1 bed near downtown LA to a 3 bed place in Chicago with lower rent. My girlfriend and I both get our own offices, we have a yard, and enough places that are half open nearby that we're pretty happy.

bgorman 6y ago
Please report back in February after experiencing a -40 day :)
- coredog64 6y ago
  -40C or -40F?
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    -40°C = -40°F.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      I’ll bet $20 that GP knows that.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  Chicago doesn't get -40°. When I was in Champaign (admittedly, that's ~100mi south) for 6 years, exactly once did we have windchill reach -40°. Your typical "coldest low" in Chicago will be single-digit degrees Fahrenheit. Per Wikipedia, Chicago's record extreme low is -25°F.
  - monksy 6y ago
    -40F is with windchill. We had a few days this past winter with it.
  - nsxwolf 6y ago
    It hit -23F in January 2019 and below -30F in some of the suburbs. It’s almost a meaningless distinction when it’s that cold.

outside1234 6y ago

I don't know - Microsoft is moving to essentially the Github model of letting people live where they want. This is a fundamental shift and broadening and many people lived in the city for access to jobs that now they can live elsewhere for.

enumjorge 6y ago
> Microsoft is moving to essentially the Github model of letting people live where they want My understanding is that at Github working remotely is the norm, while I believe the changes Microsoft announced require manager approval if you want to work remote > 50% of the time.

adjkant 6y ago

What is curious to me is that NYC rents haven't seen the same crater at all (link says 15% but anecdotally most of the desirable top of market neighborhoods aren't budging). I don't buy the "SF is not very fun during the pandemic" rationale as more special than any other notable city, and NYC tends to have less space than SF. To me, that says the SF case has more complexity. IMO, the key factor here is that there appears to be a much higher ratio of people that were primarily there because work was best there, where many other cities have populations that tend to choose the city in question specifically more than happen upon it.

asdff 6y ago
I haven't seen rents really drop in LA either. Commercial landlords would rather let the building go half vacant and try offering 1-2 months of free rent before they drop the base rent.
- e9 6y ago
  Yeah it’s weird. I haven’t seen for rent signs before but now I see them on every single building but rents are same. It probably means landlords are basically charging too much and making too much money and not paying enough in taxes(1-2% tax increase per year is probably nothing compared to increases in rent prices)
  - MAGZine 6y ago
    if you do the math, it's expensive to let a unit sit for more than a couple months as opposed to offering a discount on the rent. This assumes your tenant will turnover in a couple years time, mind you. I did the math for SF and IIRC ~2mo was equal to a 15% discount. if it sits empty for longer than 2mo, you should have just given the 15% discount. if you let is sit for 2mo AND have to give a 15% discount, now you've really fucked your finances up.
    - cnst 6y ago
      You're ignoring the fact that SF has rent control; it resets only once a vacancy hits. If market rate was 3k a few months back, but is only 2k now, if you take a 15-year view, it's still cheaper to let your rent-controlled unit sit unrented for 12mo than rent it at just 2k for 15 years provided the 3k/mo rates recover in two years. Basically, that's one of the major reasons why rent-controlled units aren't going down in prices. Bundle in Prop 13, and you aren't even paying any real property taxes on those units to sting your finances.

acalzycalzy 6y ago

SF wasn’t fun before the Pandemic. I’ve visited friends who work in tech 3 different times the past 5 years. The city lacks culture, the food and drinking scenes suck, and the people are all the same. (I spend most of my city time in miami, nyc, and montreal)

egypturnash 6y ago
This is what tech money does to a city. Rents go up, everybody interesting leaves for places they can afford without a ludicrous salary.
- aejnsn 6y ago
  But only tech money does that?
- coffeemug 6y ago
  No, this is what not building things does to a city.
- shuckles 6y ago
  NYC is mostly run by finance money, which must be at least as pernicious as tech money right?
  - refurb 6y ago
    You have a point, and there are parts of NYC that are very heavy finance workers, but I'd point out a few differences: - You'd have to include SF, San Jose and Oakland together to equal the size of NYC (and much of that SF metro area is single family home suburbs with no one on the street at night) - Tech workers concentrate in SF proper because there is not much outside of it (yes, there is, but SF is the core) Just my take, but SF seems to revolve around tech, while finance is big in NYC, it's not the dominating industry like tech is in SF.
    - MAGZine 6y ago

skocznymroczny 6y ago

I am not American, what is considered "a tiny apartament", how many square meters are we talking about?

burlesona 6y ago
It depends but anywhere from 30-50 square meters. In SF anything over 90 square meters is considered a large apartment.