San Francisco Approves 220-Square-Foot ‘Micro-Apartments’ (Sacramento, Oakland: renters, condos, crime)

[confusedasusual]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

$959? The figures I've seen for pricing are around $1200-1500 a month. And I've read comments that their goal is to get them above $2000 a month. Either way, it's pretty asinine. This housing market is so out of whack.

That was just a quote from the article..something like "even a dishwasher can afford it." Really??

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by confusedasusual

That was just a quote from the article..something like "even a dishwasher can afford it." Really??

Yea, I remember one of the earliest articles saying it would cost under $1000, and when I first read about these (with that price in mind) I thought these were a decent idea. But all of the recent figures I've seen from the more recent articles suggest they're going to cost closer to $1200-1500 when they're finally built. And you can bet that the investors on the property will want to see them go higher (I've heard close to $2000 is the "goal" they're shooting for).

Since they're building a miniscule amount (something around 300), these won't do anything to bring down prices across SF (and could act to do the opposite, see below). I actually think there will be a demand for these because there will be so few, and the types of people that wouldn't mind one of these will definitely outstrip supply. Could even start to see them become vacation-type rentals or second "homes" for people who want a "cheap" place in the city.

I can certainly see these micro-units cause prices in SF to go up because they'll create a new artificial floor for prices. Previously the floor was something like a tenderloin studio...now, it'll be one of these, so I wouldn't be surprised if you start seeing landlords adjust according to this new base. And if the base for a micro-studio is close to $2000? That's definitely a market I want nothing to do with as a renter.

[confusedasusual]

^^

Some very good points here.

I can never decide if its greedy landlords or lack of supply that is more responsible for driving up rents in SF. It kills me that such a socially active city allows this to go on...

[Tomlcsc]

Originally Posted by confusedasusual

^^

Some very good points here.

I can never decide if its greedy landlords or lack of supply that is more responsible for driving up rents in SF. It kills me that such a socially active city allows this to go on...

Is there anything else we could do?

People from all over the world want to live in San Francisco. Regardless if people think it is greedy landlords, yuppies, or whatever that are responsible for making rents what they are today, it is actually the free market that drives up the rents in San Francisco and keeps them there.

Just because someone wants to live in SF, doesn't mean they necessarily get to. Similar situation for NYC, Boston, etc.

[confusedasusual]

Originally Posted by Tomlcsc

Is there anything else we could do?

People from all over the world want to live in San Francisco. Regardless if people think it is greedy landlords, yuppies, or whatever that are responsible for making rents what they are today, it is actually the free market that drives up the rents in San Francisco and keeps them there.

Just because someone wants to live in SF, doesn't mean they necessarily get to. Similar situation for NYC, Boston, etc.

Take action. Get laws changed. Get stricter rent controls when apartments turn over. Allocate a certain number of income controlled units (say, household income of 60K). Stricter penalties for landlords who move in a "relative" to increase the rent and don't actually move anyone in (which happened to me). Put measures before the city council, get issues on the ballot.

My suspicion has always been that people complain about SF rents as a status symbol, a way to say exactly what you did "We get to live here because we can afford it. The rest of you don't." This happens other places, too. But with the unique, politically active culture in SF you cannot convince me this city couldn't do some groundbreaking things to change the situation.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by confusedasusual

But with the unique, politically active culture in SF you cannot convince me this city couldn't do some groundbreaking things to change the situation.

That politically active culture wields less and less power as the activists get replaced by yuppies and moneyed elites. They're establishing a new culture that will, in turn be gradually replaced by something else. Maybe even return to it's progressive roots.

[confusedasusual]

That is my point-- SF has been turning into a yuppie boutique city for many years now. Just when I don't think things can get more absurd, I notice posts like this where a dorm room of an apartment is ultimately going to cost 2K per month. People decry the lack of affordability but secretly want to keep the city gentrified. They brag about how much it costs in a way that says "I just bought a 3BR house for 1.3 mil. How are *you* living?"

I truly believe that there are a core group of people who care about SF and have no interest in holding it financially hostage. Strangely, though, they are silent.

[bigdumbgod]

It may turn out that people will try to stack more than one in these things, especially if they're going for $2k, and overload the expected capacity of these buildings, turning them into a weird latter-day SRO situation.

[confusedasusual]

Yeah, that occured to me, too. I wondered if there was a restriction on the number of residents. If not, I can easily see that happening.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by confusedasusual

Take action. Get laws changed. Get stricter rent controls when apartments turn over. Allocate a certain number of income controlled units (say, household income of 60K). Stricter penalties for landlords who move in a "relative" to increase the rent and don't actually move anyone in (which happened to me). Put measures before the city council, get issues on the ballot.

A big reason why the rent is so high is because of the damn rent control - people moved in, and they never move out. I've lived in buildings where more than half of the residents are there for over twenty years. They're hogging the places and reducing inventory. When the true vacancy rate is 2.5%, of course you are going to get very high rent - because the supply is so scarce. In any other citiy/town, a renter who lives in one place for over 25 yrs is like Bigfoot, you only heard about the rumor of their existence; here in SF they are a dime a dozen.

Stricter rent control is only going to reduce even more inventory and creates higher rent. You can't fight market forces. Sorry. The problem is that people only look at a very very small area and say, "Oh the rent is so high!" Look, a large part of SF is still relatively affordable (not to mention Oakland, Daly City, South SF, etc), but people look down on them - they deem places like Visitation Valley or Silver Terrace as unworthy. They want to be in the center of SF. When everyone and his/her mother wants to live within a 3 miles radius, of course rent is going to be sky high.

People who talk about stricter rent control, they are just shooting themselves in the foot. Unless they're old tenants already in rent controlled units, cause that's basically the only class of renters rent control protects - those already in rent-controlled units and plan to stay there or have stayed there for a long time. New renters, on the other hands, are screwed big time.