More Dogs than Kids (Vacaville, Livermore: apartment, rent, how much)

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Wow! You can get those kinda places to live for those rates in Chicago and Winnetka and Evanston? All that AND the great weather and scenery too?

Dang! Where's my suitcase?

Yes, you can get those kind of places for those prices.

I don't see what weather or scenery has to do with anything.

DC is not very scenic at all and is kind of an ugly city, yet housing costs are insane there. Boston and NYC do not have good weather, and they too have high costs of living.

I'm not really even sure I follow the logic that weather and scenery some how make up for the bay area's eroded middle class. As if a sunny day and a hill is supposed to negate the fact that middle class people can't afford houses or rent with roommates well into their 30's.

The bay used to be affordable to the middle class. Was the weather or scenery any different then?

[LoriBee62]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

As if a sunny day and a hill is supposed to negate the fact that middle class people can't afford houses or rent with roommates well into their 30's.

There are millions of middle class families in the bay area. Are they all enjoying their view of Alcatraz from the Marina? No. But what I don't get is this attitude that everyone should have a "right" to live wherever they want. Like it's a societal obligation to make sure every city and neighborhood is affordable to people of all income levels. I'd love a beachfront lot in Malibu, but I don't blame the world over the fact that I can't afford it.

Yes, San Francisco and the radius of cities surrounding it has become expensive, so us middle class move out to the burbs. When folks get tired of the commute, they move away. If enough people move away, prices for real estate go down. That hasn't happened in San Francisco, which means there are enough people who can afford it living there. It's a simple rule of supply and demand. Is it fair? Well, sorry, but the days of "everyone gets a trophy" typically die out when one gets to about middle school.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Yes, you can get those kind of places for those prices.

I don't see what weather or scenery has to do with anything.

You don't huh? Perhaps your inability to see explains why you can't discern other differences accounting for the high COL in D.C., Boston, and NYC as well.

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

DC is not very scenic at all and is kind of an ugly city, yet housing costs are insane there. Boston and NYC do not have good weather, and they too have high costs of living.

I'm not really even sure I follow the logic that weather and scenery some how make up for the bay area's eroded middle class. As if a sunny day and a hill is supposed to negate the fact that middle class people can't afford houses or rent with roommates well into their 30's.

The bay used to be affordable to the middle class. Was the weather or scenery any different then?

Now, as for the weather and scenery making up for the Bay Area's eroded middle class, I never made any such correlation. But now that you bring it up, I will mention that when the Bay was more affordable, it wasn't as developed out. Which development occurred as a result of raging growth more than doubling the Bay Area population in the past 50 years. Which raging growth has been a result of how desireable people find this area. Which desirability has a very great deal to do with the scenery and weather in a place that had room to expand, and where certain kinds of industry, research, education took a firm hold. Which firm hold has been enhanced by the *wait for it* great weather and scenery.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by LoriBee62

There are millions of middle class families in the bay area. Are they all enjoying their view of Alcatraz from the Marina? No. But what I don't get is this attitude that everyone should have a "right" to live wherever they want. Like it's a societal obligation to make sure every city and neighborhood is affordable to people of all income levels. I'd love a beachfront lot in Malibu, but I don't blame the world over the fact that I can't afford it.

Yes, San Francisco and the radius of cities surrounding it has become expensive, so us middle class move out to the burbs. When folks get tired of the commute, they move away. If enough people move away, prices for real estate go down. That hasn't happened in San Francisco, which means there are enough people who can afford it living there. It's a simple rule of supply and demand. Is it fair? Well, sorry, but the days of "everyone gets a trophy" typically die out when one gets to about middle school.

I love how when you point out the bay area's lack of affordabilty there always some one who comes out with this silly extremity.


Middle class people don't move to the burbs anymore. Middle class people can't afford 700k houses. They move to the boonies.

It has nothing to do with "simple" supply and demand. It's more like deliberate manipulation of supply, as another poster pointed out.

Forcing a cities working class may make sense to you, but to me it shows a clear lack of political will.

[LoriBee62]

It takes considerably more political manipulation to keep prices artificially low than it does to let the market dictate. Face it. There is only so much land in San Francisco. It's bordered on three sides by water. Unless you're proposing bulldozing Golden Gate park to lay in low income projects, there's nowhere else to go but out.

[felinius]

Originally Posted by LoriBee62

It takes considerably more political manipulation to keep prices artificially low than it does to let the market dictate. Face it. There is only so much land in San Francisco. It's bordered on three sides by water. Unless you're proposing bulldozing Golden Gate park to lay in low income projects, there's nowhere else to go but out.

If I remember correctly, there are other places to build and taller buildings could be built, but the problem is that development is blocked. I mean, look at other places on the Peninsula ...

Having cities that are homogeneous are problems within themselves anyways.

[LoriBee62]

Originally Posted by felinius

If I remember correctly, there are other places to build and taller buildings could be built, but the problem is that development is blocked. I mean, look at other places on the Peninsula ...

Having cities that are homogeneous are problems within themselves anyways.

The question is though, exactly how many units would need to be built in order to show any real reduction in rents? You could build a 30-story apartment complex in the heart of the financial district, and the rent would still be in the thousands. You'd have to build ten of them in order to have enough surplus to see prices come down even marginally. And all that would do is encourage more people to the area, which would drive prices right back up.

Like it or not, what Tulemutt said about desirability was spot on. There's a reason Chicago is more affordable: It's because not as many people want to live in Chicago. I know. My parent company is housed in Chicago and I work with lots of folks who have lived both here and there. Very few of them are willing to suffer the weather extremes just so they can save $500 a month on rent. The ones who do go out there do it for the career advancement, not the cheap housing.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by LoriBee62

It takes considerably more political manipulation to keep prices artificially low than it does to let the market dictate. Face it. There is only so much land in San Francisco. It's bordered on three sides by water. Unless you're proposing bulldozing Golden Gate park to lay in low income projects, there's nowhere else to go but out.

Its not a matter of building out, it is a matter of building up. But you can build out too. Much of the south eastern portion of the bity is decayed industrial space, ripe for redevelopment.

There is also the waterfront as well. Oh wait, the idea that thousands of dwellings could be built there was shot down, because it was going to block the views of a hundred wealthy people.

[LoriBee62]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Its not a matter of building out, it is a matter of building up. But you can build out too. Much of the south eastern portion of the bity is decayed industrial space, ripe for redevelopment.

There is also the waterfront as well. Oh wait, the idea that thousands of dwellings could be built there was shot down, because it was going to block the views of a hundred wealthy people.

You could build all those places up and rent would still be just as expensive though. Eventually, you run out of real estate, and if people still want to come here, there's going to be a demand that keeps prices up.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by LoriBee62

You could build all those places up and rent would still be just as expensive though. Eventually, you run out of real estate, and if people still want to come here, there's going to be a demand that keeps prices up.

And all those invading hordes will bring their dogs to enjoy the nice weather and scenery they can't provide for the pooches in Chicago.