2 ms·
> Many people here in SF have been saying this is the direction we've been heading for quite a bit(if it hasn't happened already): SF becomes Manhattan, the sur
by morgante 12y ago
> Many people here in SF have been saying this is the direction we've been heading for quite a bit(if it hasn't happened already): SF becomes Manhattan, the surround Bay Area become the boroughs.
That's extremely far off the mark. Rent is so high in SF precisely because it's not like Manhattan.
Even Brooklyn is denser than SF. That's ludicrous, when you consider the supply & demand of housing.
In New York, housing almost follows the free market. Yes, rent is expensive, but that's too be expected considering the consistently high demand and that apartments can't be instantaneously constructed.
SF is just as expensive, despite have an order of magnitude less demand. It's a completely supply-driven problem, and until that supply problem is fixed you're going to see rents well in excess of Manhattan (for a far shittier city, with way fewer amenities).
- dragonwriter 12y ago> SF is just as expensive, despite have an order of magnitude less demand. It's a completely supply-driven problem, and until that supply problem is fixed you're going to see rents well in excess of Manhattan (for a far shittier city, with way fewer amenities). People who would rather live in Manhattan know where to go -- but, you know, there are people who consider higher density a negative feature that weighs against other amenities, rather than a positive or neutral feature. Not everyone has the same preferences matrix, and plenty of people see San Francisco as preferable to New York. > In New York, housing almost follows the free market. That New York is free or rent control, zoning laws, etc., etc., etc. is, well, news. The regulation in New York may be driven by different preferences -- and perhaps by preferences more in line with yours -- but it is no less present.