San Fran "losing it's soul" - myth? reality? context? (San Francisco: sales, real estate market)

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by zitsky

So, 25 or 50 years ago, everyone could afford to live in the city, and there was a bookstore on every corner?

The historic City Lights bookstore is still alive and kicking, that's something! And new ones have sprung up; Alexander Books, in downtown/SOMA, among others.

[Independentthinking]

Originally Posted by NW4me

The biggest change for the worse, of course, is the exorbitant cost of housing. SF has always had relatively high rents, but nothing like what they are today, e.g. $4,000 a month for a studio. These rents will eventually purge SF of its blue-collar workers, immigrant families, social activists and creative types, or anyone else whose focus in life is anything besides making lots of money. Some will be lucky and win lotteries for low-income housing; the rest will leave. Rent control slows the gentrification, but doesn't stop it. And the would-be new arrivals simply won't be able to live here.

So in the future there'll still be a San Francisco, but it will have lost some of the qualities that made it a special place.

Not sure where you're getting your numbers but a bit sensationalized.


https://sf.curbed.com/2017/11/2/1659...report-sf-2017

Also, if by the gentrification comment you mean slowing more affluent people from coming into a neighborhood, I believe your thinking is off. Areas with rent control are typically the most expensive in the nation as they restrict the supply of houses, driving up demand. Everyone moving in tends to be more affluent.

[NW4me]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking

Not sure where you're getting your numbers but a bit sensationalized.

sf.curbed.com/2017/11/2/16595172/apartment-rent-report-sf-2017

Also, if by the gentrification comment you mean slowing more affluent people from coming into a neighborhood, I believe your thinking is off. Areas with rent control are typically the most expensive in the nation as they restrict the supply of houses, driving up demand. Everyone moving in tends to be more affluent.

Only one number, and I got it from my building manager -- I asked him what the rent is for new leases on studios in the building... it's an example.

I'd say your theorizing is off. High rents are what create the political momentum for rent control in the first place. Anyway, in SF, units built after the passage of the rent control law are exempt from it. What constrains the supply of new housing in SF is that nearly all the land has already been built on.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Is NYC on an earthquake fault?

It actually is more earthquake prone than people realize and none of the buildings are set up for it--so they don't need a big earthquake for there to be a disaster.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I'm not anti-growth. But turning SF into Manhattan would be quite a leap. That's not necessary, at this point.

In theory, I might agree with you. In practice, any proposal to build more housing attracts this level of vociferous hyperbole.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking

Not sure where you're getting your numbers but a bit sensationalized.


https://sf.curbed.com/2017/11/2/1659...report-sf-2017

Also, if by the gentrification comment you mean slowing more affluent people from coming into a neighborhood, I believe your thinking is off. Areas with rent control are typically the most expensive in the nation as they restrict the supply of houses, driving up demand. Everyone moving in tends to be more affluent.

The numbers may be sensationalized, but the trend toward ever more unaffordable rents is unmistakable.

I took NW4me's comment about gentrification a different way. Yes, the people moving in are more affluent. But as people with rent controlled apartments die or move out of the city (for whatever reasons), the new tenants pay higher rents. Over time, less affluent people are effectively phased out through death or voluntary attrition.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by NW4me

What constrains the supply of new housing in SF is that nearly all the land has already been built on.

Actually, that's not the only thing. Overly 'tenant friendly' laws also work to reduce the supply of housing. Landlords are leaving apartments vacant rather than risk renting to a tenant from hell.

Growing number of San Francisco landlords not renting | KALW

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/op...eah-right.html

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by zitsky

So, 25 or 50 years ago, everyone could afford to live in the city, and there was a bookstore on every corner?

It’s called supply and demand... not exactly difficult to understand

[Independentthinking]

Originally Posted by NW4me

Only one number, and I got it from my building manager -- I asked him what the rent is for new leases on studios in the building... it's an example.

I'd say your theorizing is off. High rents are what create the political momentum for rent control in the first place. Anyway, in SF, units built after the passage of the rent control law are exempt from it. What constrains the supply of new housing in SF is that nearly all the land has already been built on.

Using one number and then implying that is somehow the norm for an area is not exactly a scientific way of determining something and in no way represents the market value of studios in San Francisco (all that needs to be said on that).

As for rent control, it is one of many reasons that cause rents to surge. Others are zoning restrictions, environmental protection of buildings, and of course limited land. Whether or not high rents create the political momentum for rent control doesn't explain it's impact (but rather a bunch of dumb politicians that know nothing about Economics). The whole premise of rent control is that it is supposed to help the poor ("affordable housing"). And yet, if you were to look at the income level of those in rent controlled units, you would find that a large group are well above the $100k range. Rent control has little to do with helping the poor, but rather, it helps the lucky lottery winners that got in at the time (without discrimination to income level). It's no secret that rents are higher and homelessness greater in cities that have rent control. this is partly because the only housing that repays the cost of building under rent control is luxury housing, which is typically exempt. Nothing brings private housing to a halt like rent control. Ironically, the idiocy of the politicians in San Francisco added to the insanity by demanding that a low income housing structure be built for every luxury high rise built (brilliant!), further exasperating the problem. The cost of housing and rents have always been high in the city. Rent control merely made it worse.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking

Using one number and then implying that is somehow the norm for an area is not exactly a scientific way of determining something and in no way represents the market value of studios in San Francisco (all that needs to be said on that).
.

This. All that figure tells us is that the poster lives in a highly desirable area, probably in or near downtown. That's not the way to get an accurate estimate of average rents in the city.