Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-19-2016, 06:23 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,868,787 times
Reputation: 4942

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodyforlife99 View Post
Just as affordable as paying rent and many are already doing that
How many of them moved here recently and are paying market rate?


Quote:
Originally Posted by bodyforlife99 View Post
You could rinse and repeat that argument for the last 40 years
And that changes my point how? It being a problem for a long time doesn't mean that said problem still doesn't exist...


Quote:
Originally Posted by bodyforlife99 View Post
San Francisco has never been affordable as long as I've been here. What's your point? If we put a big fence around the Bay Area and said no one else is allowed in, are you somehow implying that the businesses would go bankrupt? They wouldn't. They wouldn't be able to grow, but that's not the worst thing since we're booming right now. Is there some harm in staying exactly as we are right now? Are you saying people would get tired of commuting and move out of the area? That doesn't seem to be the case either.
I think my main point is pretty clear:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18 View Post
I'm talking about people making more traditional "working/middle class" salaries (50-80k). People in this income bracket have decent options in other big city metros in the US. Yes, even NYC blows the Bay Area away in this realm. And those "middle class" suburbs in NYC (or other big cities) are actually pretty nice - sure, not Palo Alto or Hillsborough, but certainly not East Palo Alto or the worst areas of Redwood City. And they have multiple options, not just a few select bad neighborhoods.

Here in the Bay Area, the options available to these people are comparatively very bad. And in their search for that semblance of affordability, they are often forced into ridiculous commutes that are terrible both for their health/well being, and also for the region.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bodyforlife99 View Post
Good suggestion. Not sure who "we" are though. I don't think the region made that choice. It was really more the Board of Supervisors in SF that encouraged Tech companies to move into the city. So, pretty much just the voters in the city that put them in charge.
Sorry - "we" isn't any single person. Yes, it's more of a result of local governments in the region and how they react to new jobs (usually very welcoming to them) vs. creating new housing (generally very unwelcoming to it by comparison). New jobs to housing imbalance is very high in many cities in the region.


I'm not talking about SF, by the way...I'm talking about the entire Bay Area. Why are you focusing on SF?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-19-2016, 06:44 PM
 
1,099 posts, read 896,362 times
Reputation: 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18 View Post
How many of them moved here recently and are paying market rate?
You tell me. Vacancy rate is roughly 2%. Someone's paying it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18 View Post
And that changes my point how? It being a problem for a long time doesn't mean that said problem still doesn't exist...
The point is people that want to be here figure it out. We've spun the same circles on this numerous times. There is no long term solution. You know this and I know this. The only thing that would happen if you expand housing is that you would just have more high priced units. And our grandkids would be making the same argument that you are when they are priced out. I really don't know why you and others on this forum persist with this. It's a short term solution to simply appease the people that located here in the last 5-6 years. Nothing more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18 View Post

I think my main point is pretty clear:
Yes and it's irrational to think you are solving anything

Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18 View Post

Sorry - "we" isn't any single person. Yes, it's more of a result of local governments in the region and how they react to new jobs (usually very welcoming to them) vs. creating new housing (generally very unwelcoming to it by comparison). New jobs to housing imbalance is very high in many cities in the region.


I'm not talking about SF, by the way...I'm talking about the entire Bay Area. Why are you focusing on SF?
It appeared you were talking about SF since many of the Tech companies on the Peninsula were already here
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 06:56 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,868,787 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodyforlife99 View Post
You tell me. Vacancy rate is roughly 2%. Someone's paying it.
I'd imagine people like the OP.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bodyforlife99 View Post
The point is people that want to be here figure it out. We've spun the same circles on this numerous times. There is no long term solution. You know this and I know this. The only thing that would happen if you expand housing is that you would just have more high priced units. And our grandkids would be making the same argument that you are when they are priced out. I really don't know why you and others on this forum persist with this. It's a short term solution to simply appease the people that located here in the last 5-6 years. Nothing more.
Of course people make it work. That's not really my point.

There are solutions. We just won't to try them out - for many reasons. I don't blame people for not wanting their region to change - I totally get it. And in many ways, I agree.

But let's not pretend like this couldn't be addressed if we actually tried to solve it as a region. If we REALLY wanted to solve these kind of problems, we could. Yes, it would change the region. Perhaps dramatically. And it might even ruin some things about it. But more people could live here and afford it.

It's not like this is rocket science.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bodyforlife99 View Post
Yes and it's irrational to think you are solving anything
And yes, we're on an internet forum. I'm quite aware that I'm not actually solving anything.

But I have a big interest in urban design/urban planning and am very interested in sustainable/smart growth, so I like to discuss it. It's what attracted me to City-Data over 10 years ago (I was a lurker here for a while before I made an account). And I'll continue to discuss it.

For what it's worth, I frequently write mayors/city council members in the region about these issues...so I do try to contribute in real life. Whether I'm actually making a difference...is anyone's guess (but likely, not).


Quote:
Originally Posted by bodyforlife99 View Post
It appeared you were talking about SF since many of the Tech companies on the Peninsula were already here
Ah, sorry if I mislead there. I'm merely focusing on the sphere of unaffordability here, which is a region-wide issue.

Last edited by HockeyMac18; 08-19-2016 at 07:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 07:30 PM
 
3,938 posts, read 5,044,029 times
Reputation: 4145
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post

If you're a city mouse, you want to live in the Bay Area, Los Angeles, New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, Berlin, etc.

If you're a country mouse, you don't mind Scottsdale, Arizona.
The Bay Area, is not in the same league as LA, NY, London, Paris, Tokyo or Berlin.
San Francisco isn't, and San Jose.... A Gamma World City, sure as heck isn't.

SFBay is charging for Wagyu Ribeye when it's Filet at best.

The OP is merely point out the place is overpriced for what it is.
I'm not sure I'm even close to agreement with half the posters on here talking about SF like it's a fantasy cultural wonderland.

... have you all never been to New York? Gross as it may be, it's got 10x the amenities of SF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 07:42 PM
 
1,099 posts, read 896,362 times
Reputation: 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18 View Post
There are solutions. We just won't to try them out - for many reasons.
Uh no, there aren't. And we've both gone over this back and forth for over a year now. Unless you put up a gate to the Bay Area and say no one else is allowed in, everything you've ever proposed is not going to work over a long term. They are nothing more than short term fixes. The Bay Area is simply an extremely desirable place to live and I don't think that is going to change any time soon. AZJD gave it a shot. For him, the sacrifice for his family was not worth it so he moved. I get it, told him I was sorry it didn't work out (and I meant that sincerely), and he moved away. He appears quite content where he is now and feels whatever he gave up in the Bay Area was not worth as much as what he has now in Arizona, and I respect that. I don't plan on retiring in the Bay Area either, but unlike others, my wife and I have decided to rent out our house so we can hopefully will it to our children. I don't think it's going to be an issue for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 08:14 PM
 
Location: where the good looking people are
3,814 posts, read 3,983,732 times
Reputation: 3284
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04kL4nD View Post
OC combines the absolute worst aspects of SD and LA. I know you can't afford to live there and live in some slummy part of LA instead, but if you did, I'm sure you'd probably either be in LA or SD doing something more exciting than sitting on the 405 or going to a mall whenever you got the chance.
What are you talking about. The worst aspects of LA and SD are not even remotely present in OC. That's exactly why people move there.

I can afford to live in a lot of OC. It's not like the bay, where it is unaffordable. There are plenty of reasonably priced areas there. And my West LA neighborhood is pretty far from a slum. LoL

I lived in SD when I played baseball for city college. It pretty much has the same type of attractions as OC. Ngihtlife in OC is pretty identical to SD -minus the midwestern tourists, college bros, and drunk military dudes looking for fights.

OC and SD have the same population numbers, yet OC does it with 19% of the land mass of SD.

Like most norcal residents, the image you have of OC was obviously shaped by TV shows in the early 2000's. It's probably the best suburban county in the country, and obviously way better than where ever are from.

And no one in SoCal goes to SD for fun. There is no point, unless you are a local living in the SD metro. There is nothing there that can't befound in OC and LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 09:08 PM
 
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,049,032 times
Reputation: 2157
Quote:
Originally Posted by WithDisp View Post
The Bay Area, is not in the same league as LA, NY, London, Paris, Tokyo or Berlin.
San Francisco isn't, and San Jose.... A Gamma World City, sure as heck isn't.
Brookings says that Silicon Valley is one of the ten most economically influential regions in the world. That's easily on par with London, Paris, and New York. Easily. In fact, it is on the same list with those other cities.

Do you realize how much the world has changed as a result of the invention of the microprocessor? We've passed the Industrial Age, and we are now in the Information Age, and Silicon Valley is at the center of that. How can it be said to be "gamma" city? The most successful corporation in the history of the world is located here in Silicon Valley, and somehow the value of living here is not affected, in your estimation? Access to information is democratized to an extent never before seen, art is democratized, the speed at which scientific research and engineering studies can be conducted has been greatly accelerated. Silicon Valley changed the world and continues to change the world.

I've seen the study you're thinking of, linked on wikipedia. It seems like they're using obsolete criteria. Oakland is far more connected to other cities than San Francisco due to their deep water port and all the advanced infrastructure they've assembled there. The port of Oakland is the main port in the region, now. So really, by their standards, Oakland should be higher on their list than San Francisco. But in the 21st century, there are other means of connection.

And Silicon Valley is far, far more connected to other cities than most others are. Silicon Valley is the region that designs the equipment that connects cities!

Quote:
The OP is merely point out the place is overpriced for what it is.
It is NOT overvalued. The North Bay wine industry is unsurpassed, Oakland's port operations and the heavy industry in the east bay in general add great value to the region, the biotechnology firms on the Peninsula are advancing human health and our ability to use biological processes to an unprecedented extent. San Francisco itself has multiple landmarks that bring tourists to the region, and a world renowned restaurant industry. Each of these regions by themselves would be great places to live, but having them in such close proximity makes it highly desirable to live here.

But I guess if you're one of those who just wants a big building to themselves and doesn't care where it is located, then you might see the region as being overvalued. I think people who live in the region are more of the "city mouse" variety: we want to live where there are things to see, places to go and people to do outside of the house. Desirable regions, where things happen in which people would like to participate, tend to be expensive. So the living spaces tend to be smaller. But step outside of the small living space, and there is much more available to experience than what can be found in a flyover state.

Quote:
... have you all never been to New York? Gross as it may be, it's got 10x the amenities of SF.
Eh, it's about the same amount. Just different types of amenities. Plus the most value comes in considering all the diverse regions of the Bay Area as one integrated whole, since they are so close together. San Francisco is great by itself, Silicon Valley is great by itself, Oakland is great by itself. Put all these regions together and they're awesome. Easily worth the price of admission.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 09:16 PM
 
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,049,032 times
Reputation: 2157
I support building a lot more housing, but it has to be high density. I would support 20 story buildings with thousands of three bedroom condos inside. But I would also support a ban on new single family homes in California.

And I tend to agree with bodyforlife99; it is unlikely that any region in the Bay Area can build enough condos to keep up with demand, and even less likely to sustain it for a long period of time. But we definitely will never be able to house all eight hundred thousand people in San Francisco in their own single family homes. There is simply not enough room. Condos, yes. SFHs, no. Not if you also want retail space and emergency services.

Given enough time, all cities have to move to dense housing. You reach a point where you just can't add SFHs anymore. There are places like Scottsdale that are surrounded by desert and might be able to expand a lot more, but such places are cheap because they are not desirable. They're out in the middle of nowhere. The Bay Area isn't out in the middle of nowhere. You have nine counties that are all great by themselves but even better because they are together. That's desirable and it will never be cheap. But I'll take a condo in San Jose over a single family home in Scottsdale any day of the week.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 09:20 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,868,787 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
I support building a lot more housing, but it has to be high density. I would support 20 story buildings with thousands of three bedroom condos inside. But I would also support a ban on new single family homes in California.

And I tend to agree with bodyforlife99; it is unlikely that any region in the Bay Area can build enough condos to keep up with demand, and even less likely to sustain it for a long period of time. But we definitely will never be able to house all eight hundred thousand people in San Francisco in their own single family homes. There is simply not enough room. Condos, yes. SFHs, no. Not if you also want retail space and emergency services.

Given enough time, all cities have to move to dense housing. You reach a point where you just can't add SFHs anymore.
Agreed, Neutrino.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 09:22 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,868,787 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodyforlife99 View Post
Uh no, there aren't. And we've both gone over this back and forth for over a year now. Unless you put up a gate to the Bay Area and say no one else is allowed in, everything you've ever proposed is not going to work over a long term. They are nothing more than short term fixes. The Bay Area is simply an extremely desirable place to live and I don't think that is going to change any time soon. AZJD gave it a shot. For him, the sacrifice for his family was not worth it so he moved. I get it, told him I was sorry it didn't work out (and I meant that sincerely), and he moved away. He appears quite content where he is now and feels whatever he gave up in the Bay Area was not worth as much as what he has now in Arizona, and I respect that. I don't plan on retiring in the Bay Area either, but unlike others, my wife and I have decided to rent out our house so we can hopefully will it to our children. I don't think it's going to be an issue for me.
The solutions I'm talking about are DRASTIC and not realistic. As in razing thousands of homes and placing in dense, sometimes VERY dense, housing. With huge investments in public transit to go with it. And you keeeeeeep building. Yes, endlessly.

This is possible. At least, in theory. It wouldn't happen in real life, but it is not impossible. We have the technology to do this.

By the way, I'm not saying we should do that. Just that we actually could, if we wanted, to solve the "housing crisis".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top