Fantastic article about SF from 1981 - the good ole times that never were (Los Angeles: to rent)

[HappyinCali]

CHANGING SAN FRANCISCO IS FORESEEN AS A HAVEN FOR WEALTHY AND CHILDLESS - NYTimes.com

Some great quotes

"A major reason for the exodus of the middle class from San Francisco, demographers say, is the high cost of housing, the highest in the mainland United States. Last month, the median cost of a dwelling in the San Francisco Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area was $129,000, according to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board in Washington, D.C. The comparable figure for New York, Newark and Jersey City was $90,400, and for Los Angeles, the second most expensive city, $118,400."

"Among factors contributing to high housing cost, according to Mr. Witte and others, is its relative scarcity, since the number of housing units has not grown significantly in a decade; the influx of Asians, whose first priority is usually to buy a home; the high incidence of adults with good incomes and no children, particularly homosexuals who pool their incomes to buy homes, and the desirability of San Francisco as a place to live."


Wow! SF was always among the most expensive cities in America! And it had high crime! IF I listened to the commenters here, SF was a utopia with cheap housing, safe clean streets and a wonderfully diverse community.

Once again, the good ole days are proven to never have been. The issues we are facing now are nothing new.

[Ruth4Truth]

The article didn't say anything about the cleanliness of the streets. 1981 was the beginning of the Reagan era, so His Highness hadn't issued his decree to close the mental institutions and turn the inmates loose into the streets yet. Homelessness wasn't epidemic, yet.

And back in the 70's, SF still had an African-American community and a Hispanic enclave, so there was more diversity than the White/Asian dichotomy that currently characterizes the City.

Note that the article pegs LA as the 2nd-most expensive city in the US. Curious that a New York newspaper would leave out NY from the top 2, in spite of the fact that global comparisons were ranking it as #1 for most expensive US city, in the 80's.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Note that the article pegs LA as the 2nd-most expensive city in the US. Curious that a New York newspaper would leave out NY from the top 2, in spite of the fact that global comparisons were ranking it as #1 for most expensive US city, in the 80's.

The home prices mentioned in the article are for metropolitan areas not cities.

[capoeira]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

CHANGING SAN FRANCISCO IS FORESEEN AS A HAVEN FOR WEALTHY AND CHILDLESS - NYTimes.com

Once again, the good ole days are proven to never have been. The issues we are facing now are nothing new.

Your article is solid proof of the good ole days in SF!!

When that article was written the USA median home price was 70,800.

https://www.census.gov/const/uspricemon.pdf

A San Francisco area home was 1.82 times more expensive than an average USA home.

Now the median price in the SF area according to Zillow is 829,700 and the USA median price is 193,800. The SF area is now 4.28 times as expensive!

San Francisco Metro CA Home Prices & Home Values | Zillow

United States Home Prices & Home Values | Zillow

The SF median home value would have to fall to $352,716 to match the affordability of 1981 compared to the rest of the country. It would take one huge earthquake and a massive depression for that scenario to materialize.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Still, relatively speaking, the Bay Area and SF as a subset were more affordable to a larger percentage of middle income people in 1981 than now. There is no denying this, income to housing cost ratios don't lie.

[ippi76]

Great article still! I remember reading Cincinnati and SF had the same housing prices until about 1965.

Seeems like it diverged already by early 80's.

Not a perfect compare, but I know when my parents first bought a house in 1985, they were priced out of San Mateo County since it was already so expensive (compared to southern Alameda County Fremont/Newark).

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Still, relatively speaking, the Bay Area and SF as a subset were more affordable to a larger percentage of middle income people in 1981 than now. There is no denying this, income to housing cost ratios don't lie.

It would be interesting to see plots of income to housing prices for SF through its history (and all Bay Area cities, for that matter). I wonder when SF (and the rest of the region) would start to seriously diverge from the rest of the country in terms of affordability for people in the middle class. Somewhere in the 70's?

There is, of course, probably a very strong correlation between these ratios and the amount of buildable land, which probably started to evaporate around that time (at least in the inner Bay Area).

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

It would be interesting to see plots of income to housing prices for SF through its history (and all Bay Area cities, for that matter). I wonder when SF (and the rest of the region) would start to seriously diverge from the rest of the country in terms of affordability for people in the middle class. Somewhere in the 70's?

There is, of course, probably a very strong correlation between these ratios and the amount of buildable land, which probably started to evaporate around that time (at least in the inner Bay Area).

Yep, 70s. Even in the early 70s comps were already much more expensive here than say, upper midwest metros. Although at that point I think we were still cheaper than certain BOSWASH metros.

[WizardOfRadical]

When adjusted for inflation, home where much more attainable in the SF area versus now.

Expensive for the time by far. But proportionally less so than today. Some 15 years ago, a fixer upper in a dicey hood cost 1/2 million. Versus near a million today. Even adjusting for inflation, way out of whack.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

It would be interesting to see plots of income to housing prices for SF through its history (and all Bay Area cities, for that matter). I wonder when SF (and the rest of the region) would start to seriously diverge from the rest of the country in terms of affordability for people in the middle class. Somewhere in the 70's?

There is, of course, probably a very strong correlation between these ratios and the amount of buildable land, which probably started to evaporate around that time (at least in the inner Bay Area).

It was in the 60's that the "affordable housing" in the Western Addition was bulldozed, right? Projects like that would have contributed to rent & RE price escalation by the 70's.