6 ms·

It's not about stopping prices from going up, it's about stopping them from going up at an uncontrollable rate. Many desirable neighborhoods are seeing market

It's not about stopping prices from going up, it's about stopping them from going up at an uncontrollable rate. Many desirable neighborhoods are seeing market rents increases in the double-digit percentages, every year. Some parts of SF are experiencing >20% YoY growth. That's real estate hyperinflation, far in excess of the normal appreciation you'd expect in a healthy economy with increasing population. And the solution to real estate hyperinflation is to build more.

zanny 13y ago
Too bad you can't build more in SF because of the building height limits, which is the principle reason housing rates are absurd. If the city made sense they'd build some highrise condos downtown and house the entrepreneurs in studio apartments.
- ivanca 13y ago
  Yes, many big cities are (state-sponsored) trying to grow vertically instead of horizontally.
- muzz 13y ago
  You'd better tell that to builders who are putting up thousands of units in high rise buildings right now.
- 31reasons 13y ago
  The earthquake in 1906 nearly ruined the entire San Francisco. It can happen again at anytime. Limiting the building heights and number of housing is a precautionary measure. The best thing the SV tech community should do is realize the limitations and move out to other cities. LA/San Diego could be the great replacement/extension for SV.
  - natrius 13y ago
    Modern building codes prevented that from happening again in '89. If you think earthquakes are a legitimate reason to limit density, Tokyo and Osaka would like to talk to you.
    - 31reasons 13y ago
      I worked in Seismology related field for 8 years and visited Tokyo construction companies to see how they build and retrofit existing buildings to make them earthquake proof (to some extent). Let me tell you, they are way more prepared for the earthquakes than SF is.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        So SF can't have nice things because they currently do not have nice things?
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        Yes, but at a less abstract level, SF can't have nice thing A (tall buildings) because they currently do not have nice thing B (the ability to build earthquake proof buildings).
        jlgreco 13y ago
        They have the ability to build those buildings, even if they have to contract with Japanese companies to do it. What they apparently don't have is the infrastructure to regulate and inspect such buildings. They probably don't have that infrastructure because they don't actually want tall buildings regardless... They don't have a chicken because they don't have an egg.. they don't have an egg because "Fuck chickens; move to Manhattan if you want chickens."
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Another earthquake should worry San Francisco no more than another fire should worry Chicago.
    - aet 13y ago
      Wishful thinking..
  - pcwalton 13y ago
    Los Angeles has earthquakes too.
  - 727374 13y ago
    The nice parts of LA are just as expensive as SV (e.g. $1mm Santa Monica cottages) and transportation is equally bad.
    - 31reasons 13y ago
      I know but there is plenty of space between LA and San Diego. Irvine, Huntington Beach, Orange County should be enough to accommodate most of SF!
  - angersock 13y ago
    There have been no advances in structural engineering since 1906.
hindsightbias 13y ago
> build more Clearly, higher density construction in NYC has dramatically reduce prices there. There is no amount of construction in the subset of 49 square miles trendies want to live that is going to solve this problem. There are a million 1%'ers from around the world that will snap up a $750K condo before you 5%'ers can get it.
- potatolicious 13y ago
  > "Clearly, higher density construction in NYC has dramatically reduce prices there." They have.[1] Or more accurately, they have prevented the exact sort of rent explosion that SF is experiencing now. Manhattan is expensive to live in - but rent prices are growing at predictable and relatively low rates. There are even desirable, wealthy neighborhoods where rents are slowly decreasing. The fact is also that artificially restricting oneself to Manhattan makes for a easier comparison to SF, but is not representative of the housing situation overall. Commuting from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx into Manhattan is trivially easy, and rent (even if we strictly limit ourselves to the low-crime, desirable sections of these boroughs) is lower than SF. Take Brooklyn[2] for example. Plenty of good, safe neighborhoods with solid subway access where prices are flat. [1] http://www.mns.com/manhattan_rental_market_report http://www.mns.com/manhattan_rental_market_report [2] http://www.mns.com/brooklyn_rental_market_report http://www.mns.com/brooklyn_rental_market_report
  - pchristensen 13y ago
    You'd have to include BART-accessible Oakland, Berkeley, etc in the East Bay to make that comparison fair. 40 min is the farthest any of the BART lines go from downtown SF.
- bubbleRefuge 13y ago
  Taxation can alleviate that. Provide tax relief to owner-occupants with children. Tax the shit out of non-occupant owners.
  - nawitus 13y ago

zanny 13y ago

Too bad you can't build more in SF because of the building height limits, which is the principle reason housing rates are absurd. If the city made sense they'd build some highrise condos downtown and house the entrepreneurs in studio apartments.

ivanca 13y ago
Yes, many big cities are (state-sponsored) trying to grow vertically instead of horizontally.
muzz 13y ago
You'd better tell that to builders who are putting up thousands of units in high rise buildings right now.
31reasons 13y ago
The earthquake in 1906 nearly ruined the entire San Francisco. It can happen again at anytime. Limiting the building heights and number of housing is a precautionary measure. The best thing the SV tech community should do is realize the limitations and move out to other cities. LA/San Diego could be the great replacement/extension for SV.
- natrius 13y ago
  Modern building codes prevented that from happening again in '89. If you think earthquakes are a legitimate reason to limit density, Tokyo and Osaka would like to talk to you.
  - 31reasons 13y ago
    I worked in Seismology related field for 8 years and visited Tokyo construction companies to see how they build and retrofit existing buildings to make them earthquake proof (to some extent). Let me tell you, they are way more prepared for the earthquakes than SF is.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      So SF can't have nice things because they currently do not have nice things?
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        Yes, but at a less abstract level, SF can't have nice thing A (tall buildings) because they currently do not have nice thing B (the ability to build earthquake proof buildings).
        jlgreco 13y ago
        They have the ability to build those buildings, even if they have to contract with Japanese companies to do it. What they apparently don't have is the infrastructure to regulate and inspect such buildings. They probably don't have that infrastructure because they don't actually want tall buildings regardless... They don't have a chicken because they don't have an egg.. they don't have an egg because "Fuck chickens; move to Manhattan if you want chickens."
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Another earthquake should worry San Francisco no more than another fire should worry Chicago.
  - aet 13y ago
    Wishful thinking..
- pcwalton 13y ago
  Los Angeles has earthquakes too.
- 727374 13y ago
  The nice parts of LA are just as expensive as SV (e.g. $1mm Santa Monica cottages) and transportation is equally bad.
  - 31reasons 13y ago
    I know but there is plenty of space between LA and San Diego. Irvine, Huntington Beach, Orange County should be enough to accommodate most of SF!
- angersock 13y ago
  There have been no advances in structural engineering since 1906.

hindsightbias 13y ago

> build more Clearly, higher density construction in NYC has dramatically reduce prices there. There is no amount of construction in the subset of 49 square miles trendies want to live that is going to solve this problem. There are a million 1%'ers from around the world that will snap up a $750K condo before you 5%'ers can get it.

potatolicious 13y ago
> "Clearly, higher density construction in NYC has dramatically reduce prices there." They have.[1] Or more accurately, they have prevented the exact sort of rent explosion that SF is experiencing now. Manhattan is expensive to live in - but rent prices are growing at predictable and relatively low rates. There are even desirable, wealthy neighborhoods where rents are slowly decreasing. The fact is also that artificially restricting oneself to Manhattan makes for a easier comparison to SF, but is not representative of the housing situation overall. Commuting from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx into Manhattan is trivially easy, and rent (even if we strictly limit ourselves to the low-crime, desirable sections of these boroughs) is lower than SF. Take Brooklyn[2] for example. Plenty of good, safe neighborhoods with solid subway access where prices are flat. [1] http://www.mns.com/manhattan_rental_market_report http://www.mns.com/manhattan_rental_market_report [2] http://www.mns.com/brooklyn_rental_market_report http://www.mns.com/brooklyn_rental_market_report
- pchristensen 13y ago
  You'd have to include BART-accessible Oakland, Berkeley, etc in the East Bay to make that comparison fair. 40 min is the farthest any of the BART lines go from downtown SF.
bubbleRefuge 13y ago
Taxation can alleviate that. Provide tax relief to owner-occupants with children. Tax the shit out of non-occupant owners.
- nawitus 13y ago