Article about San Francisco housing from ... 2002 (Oakland, Berkeley: homes, neighborhood, tenant)

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

A lot of people will say it "takes pressure off of those other houses/apartments in SF". And while they're technically correct, don't count on that actually making any significant impact. Because SF is so drastically under-supplied, we'd have to build tens of thousands of units of things similar to being built in SOMA to make any sort of actual dent in overall SF rental prices.

Exactly. The city has been so anti growth for so long that it will take time to correct the problem. Time to get started and maybe in 10 to 15 years housing would go down.

You remind me of the people who would say we shouldn't drill for more oil because it would take 5 years before prices would go down, of course they have been saying that for 20 years. Once we finally started drilling for more oil than the miracle happened, prices went down. Same thing would be true of housing on San Francisco.

Start building smartly and in large volumes and prices will go down.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

I will respond to this in greater detail, but literally not a single problem you have listed is unique to San Francisco. Somehow, all these other cities have managed to grow without someone getting hammered for sticking their neck out and building a subway.

So, we've come full circle and are back to refusing to acknowledge that SF is unique in its geography and urban structure.

Case in point:

For The Richmond to grow and increase density to the degree proposed, major transportation infrastructure would have to happen. Likely, that means a subway, as the surface transportation is already overly taxed to the point of being inefficient with current density levels.

If the City built that subway first, owners of smaller properties out in the Richmond would see their property skyrocket in value--to the point that developers could not afford to buy them out to build the higher density properties the subway was meant to serve. $700K flats become $1.2 million flats the day the first train runs and the whole area loses its unique sense of place as it now becomes more attractive to transient commuter newcomers who dilute its local charm.

Conversely, if the developers come in first and build the higher density properties without efficient transportation infrastructure, the drawbacks of the area are exacerbated. Developers who spec'ed their new units at $800K + based on demand, from transportation-dependent newcomers could see their properties plummet to half that with the glut that stayed on the market, passed over by people who'd rather not deal with an over-burdened bus system and nightmare traffic.

I know what you're going to say, "Values plummeting to half?! That's great--affordable housing comes to SF!" But what you would have done is killed growth by overbuilding and you've hindered development by making it unprofitable for developers to build in the area. So, they would stop, as properties cool down. Now, you've got the same shortage of desirable housing, but with lower valuations than when you started.

It's a catch-22. Who sticks their neck out? Who has the plan? You can't really do both simultaneously. Private and public interests don't mix well in SF--it's too corrupt. So, we're kind of stuck. The good news is, we are stuck with a really charming, diverse, and interesting neighborhood in the Richmond. I'll take it over a mini-SOMA any day.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Exactly. The city has been so anti growth for so long that it will take time to correct the problem. Time to get started and maybe in 10 to 15 years housing would go down.

You remind me of the people who would say we shouldn't drill for more oil because it would take 5 years before prices would go down, of course they have been saying that for 20 years. Once we finally started drilling for more oil than the miracle happened, prices went down. Same thing would be true of housing on San Francisco.

Start building smartly and in large volumes and prices will go down.

It's not that simple, though. SF is different--economically, geographically, politically, etc.

I think you underestimate the appeal of San Francisco. About the only thing keeping the City in balance from a flood of newcomers is the high cost and scarcity of housing. Were we to build in numbers significant to reduce prices as you suggest, demand would certainly increase, not decrease. With that flood of people coming in would be burdens on our infrastructure that we couldn't sustain. And yes, the charm of SF would certainly be lost.

While that might eventually stem some of the new population explosion we had created, the damage would have already been done.

This isn't SimCity, no mater how simplistically people want to look at it.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Exactly. The city has been so anti growth for so long that it will take time to correct the problem. Time to get started and maybe in 10 to 15 years housing would go down.

You remind me of the people who would say we shouldn't drill for more oil because it would take 5 years before prices would go down, of course they have been saying that for 20 years. Once we finally started drilling for more oil than the miracle happened, prices went down. Same thing would be true of housing on San Francisco.

Start building smartly and in large volumes and prices will go down.

Hmmm, I'm not anti-development (although I'm not anti-preservation, either).

I actually think we need a lot more high rises in SF, especially in the areas of the city that already have them. We should also not be building low rise structures around the ballpark. It's odd how we have things like One Rincon Hill, and then on the other side of 80 we have things like South Beach Marina Apartments (which honestly looks like it belongs in a suburb somewhere).

If we want to make the most of these dense areas of the city, we need to really focus high rise construction there. I'd rather see a lot of high rises in a concentrated area vs. a bunch of mid-rises all over town. We don't have to change the build of apartments/houses so much in the outer areas of SF, but we should focus development in certain areas of town.

I also think development outside of SF is very important, too. Transit hubs throughout the Bay Area should have highrise development, and will (oddly enough) go a long way towards preserving the low-rise neighborhoods (by taking pressure off of building where they are).

Basically, I'm in favor of smartly-planned dense development in SF and all over the Bay Area. And of course, we need infrastructure improvements to go along with that (which would probably lagged by at least a few decades).

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Hmmm, I'm not anti-development (although I'm not anti-preservation, either).

I actually think we need a lot more high rises in SF, especially in the areas of the city that already have them. We should also not be building low rise structures around the ballpark. It's odd how we have things like One Rincon Hill, and then on the other side of 80 we have things like South Beach Marina Apartments (which honestly looks like it belongs in a suburb somewhere).

If we want to make the most of these dense areas of the city, we need to really focus high rise construction there. I'd rather see a lot of high rises in a concentrated area vs. a bunch of mid-rises all over town. We don't have to change the build of apartments/houses so much in the outer areas of SF, but we should focus development in certain areas of town.

I also think development outside of SF is very important, too. Transit hubs throughout the Bay Area should have highrise development, and will (oddly enough) go a long way towards preserving the low-rise neighborhoods (by taking pressure off of building where they are).

Basically, I'm in favor of smartly-planned dense development in SF and all over the Bay Area. And of course, we need infrastructure improvements to go along with that (which would probably lagged by at least a few decades).

100% agree.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

It's not that simple, though. SF is different--economically, geographically, politically, etc.

I think you underestimate the appeal of San Francisco. About the only thing keeping the City in balance from a flood of newcomers is the high cost and scarcity of housing. Were we to build in numbers significant to reduce prices as you suggest, demand would certainly increase, not decrease. With that flood of people coming in would be burdens on our infrastructure that we couldn't sustain. And yes, the charm of SF would certainly be lost.

While that might eventually stem some of the new population explosion we had created, the damage would have already been done.

This isn't SimCity, no mater how simplistically people want to look at it.

Translation: if you are not affluent you are not wanted.

The policies of the city you hold so dear is destroying the culture you are trying to protect. It amazes me you cannot see that.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Translation: if you are not affluent you are not wanted.

The policies of the city you hold so dear is destroying the culture you are trying to protect. It amazes me you cannot see that.

I wasn't making a statement of advocacy, just an observation. It amazes me that you cannot see that.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

Generally, California, more so than any other state, tries to stick it to newcomers - rent control, prop 13, etc - all of these are laws meant to benefit people who won the sperm lottery and were born here or people who happened to be here first.

Please realize that Prop 13 applies to all taxable real property in the state... matters not if it was bought today or 30 years ago...

Today's high price could be tomorrow's bargain.

I bought at the end of 2003 and during the Real Estate bust prices fell dramatically in the Bay Area city... a new family bought a very nice Bank owned property much bigger and newer than mine and paid 240k LESS.

So the new family that bought in 2011 is the one making out using the above logic and since I bought 8 years prior I get no break.

Prop 13 is based on value at the time of transfer... nothing more or less.

I was not old enough to vote when Prop 13 because law... that said, I am very grateful those that came before me made Prop 13 law...

[Bisaro TMF]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

This covers it pretty well.
Economics Basics: Supply and Demand | Investopedia

I understand this, the problem is there is not enough land to build the necessary property to have prices come down. You'd need to literally build 100-200 Thousand new units to make some impact. Remembers Oakland's 10K project? Well it worked, Brown got more people to Oakland but prices went UP because of it.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by Bisaro TMF

I understand this, the problem is there is not enough land to build the necessary property to have prices come down. You'd need to literally build 100-200 Thousand new units to make some impact. Remembers Oakland's 10K project? Well it worked, Brown got more people to Oakland but prices went UP because of it.

Right. That's what I said above, but that same poster misinterpreted it in his failed "translation".