Is owning a condo in SF worth it? (how much, houses)

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by JustCuriouss

i would live at home after graduation but pay rent at market price for a room in that area. It is mutually beneficial : i don't have to risk living with bat **** insane people, i won't have to worry about moving when the landlord sells or whatever, and my parents get a few hundred bucks to pay for utilities/ property taxes. Even if i earn minimum wage, i could afford to pay rent for a room at market price, have some play money (to replace laptop,perhaps), and stash some away for emergency fund.

Market price for a room on the peninsula is about 1000 dollars. Yeah not happening on minimum wage unless you want to live like a post 1959 revolution Cuban.

[JustCuriouss]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Market price for a room on the peninsula is about 1000 dollars. Yeah not happening on minimum wage unless you want to live like a post 1959 revolution Cuban.

1000 dollars is for rent in more popular nieghborhoods. if you live farther, prices are still in the med to high hundreds. also, my parents would also very much prefer to not live in such close proximity to complete strangers (and potentially bat**** insane people). therefore, even if i pay below market price, it is still mutually beneficial

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by WanderingFar

The counterpoint to this is that not everyone wants a house. And low-density housing has its downsides. For instance, condo living affords a more urban lifestyle, where you step out your front door and have amenities like a coffee shop and pharmacy chain in the retail level of your building. You have public transportation at your doorstep and true walkability -- to work, to restaurants, to shops. Living in a condo in SoMa is completely different from being up the hill in a neighborhood like Bernal Heights.

Even on the Peninsula, the townhouses and condos tend to be around the Caltrain stops with more suburban sprawl the farther west you go. So there are lifestyle factors in play.

I do agree about the fees, though, and did list that as a con. But I disagree that $200-300k is somehow an immaterial amount of money; on an entry-level $1 million investment, it's still 20-30%. For many people, it's the difference between buying and not buying. In many parts of the country, it's a whole house!

Oh, I'm totally on board with the benefits of urban living. I'm all about living in dense housing and reaping the advantages that you speak of. I don't actually have any issues with the concept of condo (or apt) living. I even think condos can be a great deal, especially if one wants to escape the insanity that is ever-increasing rents (which is the usual case in the newer "luxury" buildings in SOMA/"South Beach"/near AT&T). I just think most condos in SF are a comparatively bad deal for what you get when compared to what you can buy in the rest of the city.

This general point has a lot to do with the area you brought up in your post, which happens to be where most of the condos are located in SF. I don't really want to live in those areas of town - even though they are urban, the amenities you get are actually sadly limited (limited grocery stores, neighborhood produce stores, and reasonably-priced restaurants that don't cater to the ballpark/tourist crowd). There are very few parks in these areas, and I generally don't enjoy walking on many of the roads in these areas (which often function as glorified on ramps for 101/80).

I can name probably 10 neighborhoods in SF that are more walkable, amenity-rich, and pleasant to live in. I feel I have more amenities even in my downtown San Mateo location (which seems odd, I know).

One big advantage of SOMA is its access to 101/280/Caltrain for getting south, when you need to. And while that's nice, I'd rather live in another area of town (or just live further south, closer to work). I did look at SOMA when I first moved here because I was working at Stanford at the time - even back then, I felt it was overpriced for what you were getting (this was 2010, pre-tech boom).


And when you consider the fact that you get far less for your money in those condos, it just makes more sense to me to try to get a house in another area of town. You might pay slightly more, but you'll get more for your money and won't have to deal with high HOA fees - and you can still be in an urban area of the City.

Obviously, people disagree with me. Otherwise no one would be buying those condos in SF.

[JustCuriouss]

oh and how do post revolution cubans live ?

[JustCuriouss]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

One big advantage of SOMA is its access to 101/280/Caltrain for getting south, when you need to. And while that's nice, I'd rather live in another area of town (or just live further south, closer to work). I did look at SOMA when I first moved here because I was working at Stanford at the time - even back then, I felt it was overpriced for what you were getting (this was 2010, pre-tech boom).

according to wikipedia (segment will be quoted below), the tech boom started in the late 90s with the dot-com boom, and then again in the mid 2000s with social media boom:


"The last 20 years have seen two booms driven by the internet industry. First was the dot-com boom of the late 1990s, startup companies invigorated the San Francisco economy. Large numbers of entrepreneurs and computer application developers moved into the city, followed by marketing, design, and sales professionals, changing the social landscape as once-poorer neighborhoods became increasingly gentrified.[69] Demand for new housing and office space ignited a second wave of high-rise development, this time in the South of Market district.[70] By 2000, the city's population reached new highs, surpassing the previous record set in 1950. When the bubble burst in 2001, many of these companies folded and their employees were laid off. Yet high technology and entrepreneurship remain mainstays of the San Francisco economy. By the mid 2000s (decade), the social media boom had begun, with San Francisco becoming a popular location for tech offices and a popular place to live for people employed in Silicon Valley companies such as Apple and Google.[71]"

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by JustCuriouss

according to wikipedia (segment will be quoted below), the tech boom started in the late 90s with the dot-com boom, and then again in the mid 2000s with social media boom:


"The last 20 years have seen two booms driven by the internet industry. First was the dot-com boom of the late 1990s, startup companies invigorated the San Francisco economy. Large numbers of entrepreneurs and computer application developers moved into the city, followed by marketing, design, and sales professionals, changing the social landscape as once-poorer neighborhoods became increasingly gentrified.[69] Demand for new housing and office space ignited a second wave of high-rise development, this time in the South of Market district.[70] By 2000, the city's population reached new highs, surpassing the previous record set in 1950. When the bubble burst in 2001, many of these companies folded and their employees were laid off. Yet high technology and entrepreneurship remain mainstays of the San Francisco economy. By the mid 2000s (decade), the social media boom had begun, with San Francisco becoming a popular location for tech offices and a popular place to live for people employed in Silicon Valley companies such as Apple and Google.[71]"

The current tech boom didn't really get off the ground, in the sense of really affecting housing costs, until late 2011/2012.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by JustCuriouss

oh and how do post revolution cubans live ?

Subhuman because Fidel Castro is a blood thirsty dictator living a life of extreme wealth.

[JustCuriouss]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

The current tech boom didn't really get off the ground, in the sense of really affecting housing costs, until late 2011/2012.

SF has always been really expensive to live, since at least the 90s. If not by tech boom then by tourism and mild weather

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by JustCuriouss

SF has always been really expensive to live, since at least the 90s. If not by tech boom then by tourism and mild weather

I never said it wasn't?...

The current tech boom, however, has accelerated things drastically. Coupled with the fact that before the current tech boom, we were still recovering from the national recession, prices rose incredibly fast from 2010 - ~2013. Most areas of the City saw > 2X increases to rent (and I'm sure similar increases on parts of the condo/SFH market).

I could find apartments for ~$1500 (even in "hip areas") in 2010. Similar apartments are now >$3/4K. When most talk about the tech boom in SF, and it's influence on housing, this is what they're referring to.

Also, you should realize that the first "tech boom" ("2000/2001 dot.com bubble") was far less focused on SF, and far more centered on Silicon Valley/Palo Alto/SJ. This boom is much more evenly distributed up and down the peninsula (up to, and including SF - although Palo Alto is still probably the biggest epicenter).

While SF certainly felt the effects of the first tech boom, it was much more removed than it is now - less companies were actually located in SF back then, and comparatively there were less people in the first boom that worked in tech down the peninsula and lived in SF (this is currently partly fueled currently by incentives like tech company shuttles).

This boom, I think, is hitting SF a bit more directly.

[bmw335xi]

I'd rather own a condo than pay more to rent someone else's.

I sold my condo in SF with a whopping $280,000 profit.

I thank all the anti-development San Franciscans who made this possible for me lol.