Is San Francisco the only city to have completely priced out its middle/working class? (San Jose: to rent, house)

[modernist1]

Inane thread.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by Clampdown69

That may be true. But a family can't rent a room and the majority of Londoners actually do live in single family attached homes

That's news to me? The "average" cost of a home in London (it says average not median in this article) appears to be 700k in US dollars:

London house prices soar by 17.7% in just one year - Business News - Business - The Independent

Of course this article is a year old, it could be higher by now. But 458,000 pounds sterling is 699,045.40 US Dollars. So that's comparable to San Jose or SF. So if people commonly share housing in the Bay Area (which they do), it's probably the same in London.

In Paris it is 8000 euros per square meter. So if you have a 2000 square foot house (about the size of the upper middle class house I grew up in, five bedrooms), that's (195 m^2) * 8000 = 1,560,000 euros or 1,727,310 US dollars:

Renting in Paris | Housing | Expatica France

I dunno did I do the math wrong? I think that's right.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by Clampdown69

Seems to me that although SF has some areas for the poor (the SRO clusters in the TL, plus 16th & Mission and 6th street in SoMA) but it seems to have completely priced out its middle class. Some of the Asian immigrant families may be middle class in income but they have more residential spending power than other Americans because they don't have our cultural aversion to living multi-generationally (it is not that hard for 4 people making $500 per week to pay $3500 in rent).

Are there any areas that you can identify as places where the majority of residents are natives of San Francisco (not transplants or foreign immigrants) who are not white collar professionals or poor and beneficiaries of assistance. Even other cities that are mega pricey with a large transplant/hipster presence and many immigrants have at least a few of these neighborhoods (Boston has Charlestown, West Roxbury, certain parts of Dorchester. New York has the SW Corner of Brooklyn as well as all the predominantly Jewish areas, about 1/3 of Queens, Riverdale and City Island in the Bronx, and pretty much all of Staten Island except for some Mansions on Todt Hill and a handful of housing projects. Manhattan is the only borough without any areas that are mostly middle class or working class native NYers). I read something that says more SF city workers and law enforcement officers (mostly middle class professions) live in the suburbs of Novato and Martinez than they do it in the city.

Also is it true that SF is the "city without children?" As in it is very rare to see a family with kids living there? All cities have seen declining school enrollments but it seems that besides the children of newcomers to the USA, the city of San Francisco is devoid of children or at least very close to being that way. That's very saddening for me to hear, because there is a certain kind of civic pride that only comes from being born and raised somewhere. And if no one raises kids in SF, it will lose that.

How many of you are natives? How old are you? How many natives do you know that live in the city? How many of them are under 30?

I'm not trying to be insulting. I think SF looks beautiful, and a couple of months ago I did a job (I do home renovations for a living) for an old lady to make her house more wheelchair accessible and I spent half the time listening to her telling me about the 10 years (1964-74) that she lived in the North Beach area of SF and it sounded like a dream. I am really just curious so don't jump on me please.

Unlike the other cities you mentioned, SF stupidly cut off its own annexation potential way back in the mid 1800s, when it seceded from San Mateo County and cemented its current border into history. Imagine NYC only consisting of Manhattan and perhaps slivers of the inner most Bronx and Brooklyn Boroughs. It is what it is (did I mention stupid?).

[SandyJet]

Originally Posted by Clampdown69

We aren't talking about Hong Kong, urban Americans do live in smaller dwellings but this isn't 1914 on the lower east side..2 kids of different genders need a 3 bedroom

Let's say he makes $75k and she makes $35k, that's $110k pre tax is that live able for a 3 bed?

Considering jobs in San Fran for folks out of school make around 65K and they usually get roomates. A three bedroom house would be rented by six kids.

Which gives them a 390K household income.

You are talking an income of 110K which is less than a couple makes their first day out of college.

[SandyJet]

Also you have to factor in the AIR BnB effect.

As prices rise folks to afford homes rent out spare bedrooms or rent out whole place when they are away. However, that in turn causes prices to rise.

If couple had a three bedroom they could easily rent out the other bedrooms for 200 a night on Air BNB.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by Clampdown69

We aren't talking about Hong Kong, urban Americans do live in smaller dwellings but this isn't 1914 on the lower east side..2 kids of different genders need a 3 bedroom

Let's say he makes $75k and she makes $35k, that's $110k pre tax is that live able for a 3 bed?

You just asked is San Francisco the only city pricing out the middle class... and now I gave you a personal experience and you dismiss it by saying "oh we aren't talking about that city."

The answer to your question is, NO, San Francisco isn't the only city to price out the middle class and in fact, compared to many other major world cities, SF is actually more affordable to some people. Americans are spoiled in the sense if they don't have a 2 car garage and a bedroom for every person in the house, they are living a nightmare where in fact it's normal in many first world cities.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Unlike the other cities you mentioned, SF stupidly cut off its own annexation potential way back in the mid 1800s, when it seceded from San Mateo County and cemented its current border into history. Imagine NYC only consisting of Manhattan and perhaps slivers of the inner most Bronx and Brooklyn Boroughs. It is what it is (did I mention stupid?).

Yeah, SF's city limits give the city a very small footprint. The NY city limits, if extended to the SF Bay Area, would extend very far to places like Oakland or Berkeley in east, and down to places like San Mateo in the south. It's a bit unfair to use the NYC model on SF. If you did, you'd have to include affordable (And very blue collar) places like Daly City, South SF, and San Bruno. These areas, while still relatively expensive compared to the rest of the nation, are very affordable by SF standards. For that reason, they are very middle-class.

If you want to restrict yourself to just the SF city limits, yes many middle-class people live there. They make it by on a combination of rent-control (lived in their apt. for a long time, paying close to what they paid when they moved in, usually significantly less than current market rate), sharing their living quarters with other roommates/family members, and being able to live in smaller apartments than people in other places might be comfortable with (similar to NY or Boston).

Originally Posted by Clampdown69

We aren't talking about Hong Kong, urban Americans do live in smaller dwellings but this isn't 1914 on the lower east side..2 kids of different genders need a 3 bedroom

Let's say he makes $75k and she makes $35k, that's $110k pre tax is that live able for a 3 bed?

No they would probably not be able to compete for a 3br unit. Well, they could, theoretically, afford a 3br in some areas of the city, but there's also no reason that they need 3br...They could get by just as easily with a 2br unit (and many families live just fine in SF with just 2 bedrooms, even with more than 1 child). This is part of the compromise I listed above (being able to live with less space).

You need to remember that SF has always been an expensive place, but has never been as out-of-whack with the rest of the country as it is now. Most people have lived here for a while and aren't paying the rents you see on craigslist...current market rate is a problem for new residents moving to SF for the first time. If market rate doesn't go down, it'll become more of a problem for middle class in the long run, but for now isn't as much of an issue since there is a large contingent of middle class already here in SF.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

sharing their living quarters with other roommates/family members, and being able to live in smaller apartments than people in other places might be comfortable with (similar to NY or Boston).

I agree with this part but most on here do not. Most on here think that if you are married, it is morally wrong to share your apartment with anyone else, lol. In their world, if you get married, especially if you want kids, you MUST live in a monolithic single family home in an excellent district and therefore you MUST move out of SF/SJ/Oakland, lol. and at such a notion. People DO live in large cities with spouse and kids and they DO share housing even in that situation. Not everyone does it, but some do.

Think about it, people! There are 700k+ people living in SF, and 1 million+ in San Jose, do you REALLY think they are ALL single? Do you really think they ALL make 100k+, 200k+? No. People live here on less than 100k -- less than 15k in many cases -- and they do live here with children also. They probably have a smaller living space than someone with the same income in an area with a lower population, but those of us who live here are here because we want to be and we prefer the lifestyle here to that of living out the middle of nowhere.

I grew up in Silicon Valley, this is home to me, and I'm not interested in moving to a small town in Arizona just so I can rent a studio by myself on minimum wage. I prefer to stay here and rent a living room for $300. It's temporary; eventually I will get a better job and be able to rent a room all to myself or maybe even buy a condo someday. I would still want roommates if I bought a condo, though. Roommates are great.

[neutrino78x]

A friend from my old job has a kid who is like 4 years old now. I believe he is married. He is a supervisor there so he makes like $12/hr (we worked/he works at a charity; I made $10.15 there) and lives in an apartment in San Jose. I assume his wife works too but I have never met her and know nothing about that part. He didn't talk about his wife/gf that often. So if they can do it, those of you who make 100k+ have nothing to complain about.

[smashystyle]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Unlike the other cities you mentioned, SF stupidly cut off its own annexation potential way back in the mid 1800s, when it seceded from San Mateo County and cemented its current border into history. Imagine NYC only consisting of Manhattan and perhaps slivers of the inner most Bronx and Brooklyn Boroughs. It is what it is (did I mention stupid?).

Yes, I think this is an important point. SF only comprises 10% of the metro area's population, which is very unusual. So you have to compare it to Manhattan rather than NYC.

As for children in the city, there are very few: "With just 11.2% of the population under 15, the City by the Bay now has the lowest percentage of children of any large county in the nation." America

But that figure's not far off from Manhattan, where only 12% of the population is under 15.