4 ms·

A lot of commenters not reading the article. For clarity: rents in San Francisco HAVE decreased compared to 2019 in absolute dollar terms, this is despite rents

A lot of commenters not reading the article. For clarity: rents in San Francisco HAVE decreased compared to 2019 in absolute dollar terms, this is despite rents in the state increasing overall, and the city of San Francisco has seen this in a more pronounced manner than the Bay Area overall. This points to a localized impact that is not explained by broader trends in inflation, housing, etc.

outside1234 3y ago
It’s not hard to figure out - it was crazy expensive - San Francisco the city is poorly managed - and there are much better places to live in the Bay Area.
- dCrumpets 3y ago
  Like where?! The rest of the Bay Area (except maybe Oakland and Berkeley) strikes me as a cookie-cutter, suburban hell-scape. I've visited Palo Alto, San Matteo, Pleasanton, Fremont, and San Jose in the course of my time in the East Bay, and I couldn't help but ask myself why the heck anyone would live there. I don't see anything unique in those places--why not live in a suburb anywhere else, at 1/8th of the cost?
  - NewJazz 3y ago
    I mean... I'm not about to go giving away info on all the nice spots... But there are some places out there with good schools, a reasonable balance of transit/development and open space, and affordable (by bay area standards) housing.
    - johnfn 3y ago
      > I mean... I'm not about to go giving away info on all the nice spots... Do you really think that telling one person on Hacker News about a nice spot is going to make that spot stop being nice?
      - NewJazz 3y ago
        No, but it was will marginally bid up the price of housing, which is my number one expense right now and my expected number one expense for the foreseeable future. Maybe this whole thread is a mislead and someone has their eyes on the peninsula ;)
  - aplummer 3y ago
    I mean on your list, Palo Alto is pretty nice. Even from a non-US perspective.
    - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
      I've lived in Palo Alto, and there are nicer bits and others less so, but overall it's just the suburbs. All suburbs feel the same to me: empty and lifeless. I moved to the Tenderloin in SF and I was much happier, it was very lively indeed.
    - baby 3y ago
      It’s still a suburb meaning you’ll get bored and your social life will suck
  - ljhsiung 3y ago
    I love San Mateo downtown :(
  - nitwit005 3y ago
    > why not live in a suburb anywhere else, at 1/8th of the cost? Where is this suburb that's an 8th the cost? 8 hours of travel away?
  - baby 3y ago
    To me SF is a big suburb as well
  - jjav 3y ago
    > Like where?! I would say just about anywhere in the Bay Area would be nicer than SF. Cupertino, Campbell, southern San Jose, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Santa Cruz (not quite Silicon Valley but sort of), Alameda, Gilroy, etc. I'd say the only place I'd avoid more than SF is Oakland.
- baby 3y ago
  As much as I hate SF, there aren’t any real cities in the US besides SF and NYC. If you can afford to live in Europe or Asia then obviously what are you doing here
  - runsWphotons 3y ago
    Chicago is mostly real
    - ironmagma 3y ago
      Chicago is just new enough (post-fire) to have been infected with the insane setbacks and building codes that plague the rest of the country to the point that they prohibit any interesting pedestrian-friendly spaces. Mostly, Chicago is like the rest of the country, car-focused and absent of urban fabric.
      - Der_Einzige 3y ago
        What? Have you even seen Chicago? You don’t even need to drive in most of the city. Same with Boston. America has cities that don’t require car dependence and they’re sure not on the west coast.
        phil21 3y ago
        Most of the city is definitely an exaggeration. Chicago is absolutely a car-first city, and it's pretty obvious having moved here 20 years ago. You can very easily live in areas of the city without a car and I have done so. Plenty of places on the Northside - but those places will be somewhat expensive compared to the city average. The good news of course is that Chicago is generally far cheaper than other large cities, so most folks posting on HN can probably find something that fits the bill. Vast swaths of residential neighborhoods are simply not well serviced by public transit. Especially on the south and west sides where to be blunt, most folks on HN will never visit. These areas look much like the post-WWII suburbs I grew up in elsewhere in the midwest, just slightly more density due to lot lines being closer together. It really is a tale of two cities here. If you can afford to, you can easily live in one of the most walkable and transit friendly cities in the nation. I posit it's only behind NYC for that. However, if you live just 5 miles away in the "wrong" neighborhood your options will be car or relatively poor bus service. Of course your definition may be different than mine. My father considers places like St. Louis livable without a car - but I totally disagree. Sure you can make it work, but at ridiculous expense to your time and lifestyle. I personally bought a place specifically in relation to how close it was to functional rapid transit. I'm privileged enough to do so, but many friends and family simply couldn't afford to live in such areas of the city - if they moved here they would certainly be daily car drivers.
acchow 3y ago
And despite some 10-15% inflation since 2019
- Schiendelman 3y ago
  Keep in mind that inflation is measured with a basket of goods that often excludes housing. Inflation being 10% does not imply that housing has gone up 10%.
Qwertious 3y ago
The obvious explanation is that Sf tech workers have increasingly worked remotely since 2020, and working remotely encourages them moving to further-away housing with lower rent.

outside1234 3y ago

It’s not hard to figure out - it was crazy expensive - San Francisco the city is poorly managed - and there are much better places to live in the Bay Area.

dCrumpets 3y ago
Like where?! The rest of the Bay Area (except maybe Oakland and Berkeley) strikes me as a cookie-cutter, suburban hell-scape. I've visited Palo Alto, San Matteo, Pleasanton, Fremont, and San Jose in the course of my time in the East Bay, and I couldn't help but ask myself why the heck anyone would live there. I don't see anything unique in those places--why not live in a suburb anywhere else, at 1/8th of the cost?
- NewJazz 3y ago
  I mean... I'm not about to go giving away info on all the nice spots... But there are some places out there with good schools, a reasonable balance of transit/development and open space, and affordable (by bay area standards) housing.
  - johnfn 3y ago
    > I mean... I'm not about to go giving away info on all the nice spots... Do you really think that telling one person on Hacker News about a nice spot is going to make that spot stop being nice?
    - NewJazz 3y ago
      No, but it was will marginally bid up the price of housing, which is my number one expense right now and my expected number one expense for the foreseeable future. Maybe this whole thread is a mislead and someone has their eyes on the peninsula ;)
- aplummer 3y ago
  I mean on your list, Palo Alto is pretty nice. Even from a non-US perspective.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    I've lived in Palo Alto, and there are nicer bits and others less so, but overall it's just the suburbs. All suburbs feel the same to me: empty and lifeless. I moved to the Tenderloin in SF and I was much happier, it was very lively indeed.
  - baby 3y ago
    It’s still a suburb meaning you’ll get bored and your social life will suck
- ljhsiung 3y ago
  I love San Mateo downtown :(
- nitwit005 3y ago
  > why not live in a suburb anywhere else, at 1/8th of the cost? Where is this suburb that's an 8th the cost? 8 hours of travel away?
- baby 3y ago
  To me SF is a big suburb as well
- jjav 3y ago
  > Like where?! I would say just about anywhere in the Bay Area would be nicer than SF. Cupertino, Campbell, southern San Jose, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Santa Cruz (not quite Silicon Valley but sort of), Alameda, Gilroy, etc. I'd say the only place I'd avoid more than SF is Oakland.
baby 3y ago
As much as I hate SF, there aren’t any real cities in the US besides SF and NYC. If you can afford to live in Europe or Asia then obviously what are you doing here
- runsWphotons 3y ago
  Chicago is mostly real
  - ironmagma 3y ago
    Chicago is just new enough (post-fire) to have been infected with the insane setbacks and building codes that plague the rest of the country to the point that they prohibit any interesting pedestrian-friendly spaces. Mostly, Chicago is like the rest of the country, car-focused and absent of urban fabric.
    - Der_Einzige 3y ago
      What? Have you even seen Chicago? You don’t even need to drive in most of the city. Same with Boston. America has cities that don’t require car dependence and they’re sure not on the west coast.
      - phil21 3y ago
        Most of the city is definitely an exaggeration. Chicago is absolutely a car-first city, and it's pretty obvious having moved here 20 years ago. You can very easily live in areas of the city without a car and I have done so. Plenty of places on the Northside - but those places will be somewhat expensive compared to the city average. The good news of course is that Chicago is generally far cheaper than other large cities, so most folks posting on HN can probably find something that fits the bill. Vast swaths of residential neighborhoods are simply not well serviced by public transit. Especially on the south and west sides where to be blunt, most folks on HN will never visit. These areas look much like the post-WWII suburbs I grew up in elsewhere in the midwest, just slightly more density due to lot lines being closer together. It really is a tale of two cities here. If you can afford to, you can easily live in one of the most walkable and transit friendly cities in the nation. I posit it's only behind NYC for that. However, if you live just 5 miles away in the "wrong" neighborhood your options will be car or relatively poor bus service. Of course your definition may be different than mine. My father considers places like St. Louis livable without a car - but I totally disagree. Sure you can make it work, but at ridiculous expense to your time and lifestyle. I personally bought a place specifically in relation to how close it was to functional rapid transit. I'm privileged enough to do so, but many friends and family simply couldn't afford to live in such areas of the city - if they moved here they would certainly be daily car drivers.

acchow 3y ago

And despite some 10-15% inflation since 2019

Schiendelman 3y ago
Keep in mind that inflation is measured with a basket of goods that often excludes housing. Inflation being 10% does not imply that housing has gone up 10%.

Qwertious 3y ago

The obvious explanation is that Sf tech workers have increasingly worked remotely since 2020, and working remotely encourages them moving to further-away housing with lower rent.