Changing San Francisco is foreseen as a haven for wealthy and childless (1981)
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
It has half the population of Manhattan, and roughly 1/3 of Paris. SF is mostly low-density houses, with a small mid-density area in the east 1/3. It could be easily converted to a mid-density city with widespread public transportation by opening west of Van Ness for development, while charging development fees to fund expansion of public transportation.
But there are way too many entrenched interests preventing that. Guess that the only way out is to wait for the next big one.
"In the long run, we're all dead." -Keynes
It took generations for a second Motor City to emerge outside of Detroit. New York is still the unchallenged capital of the finance and fashion worlds. There's no "Second Hollywood" in the United States. There's a Reno and an Atlantic City, but neither holds a candle to Las Vegas.
What makes you so certain tech will have an exodus from San Francisco between now and the year of your retirement?
Look into what's been going on in Georgia for the past few years. Not a replacement for Hollywood yet, but it's a good example of how quickly alternatives can take off due almost entirely to geographic differences in the cost of doing business.
The costs of doing business in Atlanta are significantly less than other regions.
And while they likely have convinced a few companies (they like to showcase a half dozen or so), it's not like it even was a measurable blip on the growth of game companies in Silicon Valley.
Most people don't realize it, but many recent high-budget movies were filmed in Georgia, e.g. Fast Five, Vacation, Ant-Man, all three Hunger Games movies, one of the recent X-Men movies, Flight, etc. After 2008, there was an abundance of empty warehouse space here available at deep discounts, not far from the highest volume airport in the world.
As the economy rebounded, momentum in that industry seems to have remained even though there aren't many empty/cheap warehouses here anymore. A few developers are even working on purpose-built movie studios around town now.
It has been interesting to watch, and certainly could parallel what could happen in the bay area if an exodus to somewhere like Austin began in earnest.
Tech Austinite here -- given the rate prices of food, housing, etc. are spiking here, I'm presently more inclined to see ATX as catching up to SF prices and acting as an SXSF than remaining a low-cost alternative.
Don't generally disagree with your thesis, but at least for tech I don't think the game is zero sum, and the market is expanding fast enough to support multiple tech hubs.
It's right here in Atlanta. It's been a decade and a half in the making, and the pace and scale of it increases with every passing year.
Pinewood: http://m.pinewoodgroup.com/our-studios/usa/pinewood-atlanta-...
Third Rail: http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2015/04/07/film-and-tv-s...
Tyler Perry's new facility: http://m.clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2015/06/29/tyler-perry...
This is just three of about ten studio facilities being built in the area.
I believe three of the Marvel films have been filmed in Atlanta. These have been recent enough not to be in that list.
I know this is anecdotal, but if you were living in Atlanta you'd get a sense of how much growth is occurring in our film industry.
That's the thing... Technical people are still cheap. Really cheap, compared to the jobs where your asset is "knowing people" - our salaries haven't been increasing with the cost of living around here, unlike the real-estate agent example below.
Look at what you pay a body shop for developer time. A lot of that goes to the body shop; the people who's main asset is the "relationship" with management.
Heck, at 3%, become a real-estate agent. sell three or four houses around here a year, and you'll make more than your average developer or sysadmin.
Yeah, wake me up when we make more than recruiters. Until then, I'm going to ignore all this noise about technical people being expensive, because it's obvious bullshit.
All that said, while I don't think the cost of us is a problem for companies, the high cost of living is a problem for us. As a technical person, the bay area only really makes sense if you are the best of the best (or have those "relationship contacts" and can get real money) - for the rest of us, it mostly only makes sense if you have a deep emotional connection to the place and/or have a rent-controlled space. (In the south bay, if you own, live with family, or have a landlord who doesn't jack up rents with market... there's no actual rent control in the south bay, though I know a few people paying vastly below-market rents because they've been renting from the same person for a decade or more, and that person is being cool. There's serious rent control in San Francisco proper.)
This... is probably why companies are opening up branch offices; there are many good people who just won't move here because the cost, but that's because we aren't expensive enough, not because we're too expensive.
So why would we move there, if we can get paid pretty much the same with a much cheaper cost of living? The extra connections are not worth going from 1K a month mortgages to 4-5K.
Its not a free market, there are regulations.
But perhaps more interesting is the salary question, because there is so much resistance to raising salaries it pulls companies out of the Bay Area. (which has been true since I started here in the 80's) I am not sure what the opposite of a bubble is (not enough increases relative to the market) but as far as I can tell the whole country is in one of those. At some point someone is going to just say "Screw it, staff for effectiveness even it it doubles our HR cost." and if that entity successfully captures the top performers it will seriously outperform all of its competitors in the market and light off a wage war which was what happened in the late 70's and 90's in the Bay Area.
Once these areas completely fill out, I suspect pressure will increase to move west of Van Ness.
I don't understand why people continually tend to ignore places like Oakland, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and even the nearby surrounding areas like Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno, Burlingame, and South SF.
Daly City, South SF, and even San Bruno are like a 15 min drive into SF or 20 min using Bart. Housing is more affordable in those places. Am I missing something?
EDIT: Considering that these posts are on HN, I find it very strange and disturbing to repeatedly read variants of "it's impossible to do x because of y".
As for time my drive was about 15-20 min one way and I used it to listen to podcasts and audiobooks. For Bart, I would either work, sleep, or listen to podcasts plus I saved a lot of time and money that I would have used for a gym.
Its also not much cheaper, unless you start getting away from transport.
Oakland has bigger commute, and lots of shady areas, including some eventful bart stations. Its also way more sparse to go out at night.
If you live in Palo alto and work in San Francisco, you are going to have a hell of a daily commute.
You can just go to SF earlier and crash at your friends. For me I did a combination of crashing at friend's places and carpooling for the ride back.
I also going to guess that using Uber once in a while would still be cheaper than renting or owning in SF.
> Oakland has bigger commute, and lots of shady areas, including some eventful bart stations
Just like SF, you don't have to live in Oakland. There are many other cities in the Bay Area metro. Also Oakland is gentrifying. Not too long ago, a lot of places in SF were sketchy as well.
> If you live in Palo alto and work in San Francisco, you are going to have a hell of a daily commute.
Wake up a little earlier and use Caltrain. It's great for bikes too.
Living outside of SF isn't super hard. It's just not as easy as making up a million excuses as to why you need to live within SF.
I mention Oakland because of the parent post. Its a place many people go to because Bart gets there, but its far from being a panacea.
Even with Caltrain you have commute issues: you have limited time options, and it still takes a long time. And Palo alto is not cheap either.
You don't HAVE to live in SF, almost nobody does. The point is that all the other options have a high price of convenience which is up to people's lifestyle.
I made friends with several people in Oakland and the commute was always an issue in designing where to go for drinks or dinner, because either part gets locked in the other zone after Bart is out.
If you live far away, there's a high probability that you'll also make friends where you live. There's also a decent probability that one of them will have a car and will want to hang out with you in SF on the weekend from time to time. If you live in a place like Palo Alto, there's also a strong chance that you're not going to want to hang out in SF every weekend as well.
> I mention Oakland because of the parent post... And Palo alto is not cheap either.
There are many other cities in the Bay Area that are accessible with either Bart or Caltrain. Like you I only mentioned Palo Alto because of a parent comment.
> The point is that all the other options have a high price of convenience which is up to people's lifestyle.
Well I felt that the way people were complaining about not being able to live in SF is like they were going to be homeless. The price of a little convenience is not high when you are flexible and adaptable.
My only real point is that if you have a problem, you'll probably find a decent solution for it.
The best symbol of California's crazy development red tape is the empty lot on the south corner of 12th and Broadway in Oakland... an overgrown field at the corner of the city's commercial center, at a BART station, waiting for approval and construction of a skyscraper. It's crazy that there aren't any cranes over downtown Oakland right now, building high density on top of public transportation where it doesn't block anyone's view of the Bay.
There are several other cities in the metro that are more affordable. I just figured that people have more opportunities to rent rooms there since it's slightly cheaper those cities
> without everyone needing to own cars like Daly City / South SF / San Bruno.
You don't really need to own a car even if you live in Fremont or Dublin, as long as you live reasonably close to Bart. A bike is good enough. I've done that as well and again it's very healthy since you're forced to do more exercise. Most places that are close to Bart are also close to a supermarket or two. I would also argue that it's way safer to bike outside of SF rather than in it. I also forgot to mention Caltrain as well.
* BART is straining these days. During commute hours, it's basically at capacity. The Bay Bridge is also at or over capacity.
* Housing within walking distance of BART stations in Oakland that are also somewhat close to restaurants, shops, etc., costs just as much as in San Francisco, at least until the BART ride gets up over 40 minutes to Downtown.
Then do as I did. Don't use it during commute hours. Leave earlier. If you have a smart company, ask to conference to early meetings or schedule them later in the day if you want to leave later. After work either leave earlier, work later, or do Happy Hour and leave later.
> Housing within walking distance of BART stations in Oakland
There are other cities with Bart stations that are more affordable. You can also use a bike which lets you live a little farther away where there's cheaper housing. As I've already mentioned I did that in Fremont and Dublin.
> plus a huge number of showers installed at downtown employers.
Is this an impossible endeavor?
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that seems like a pretty gross sentiment. "I hope a natural disaster gets these old people out of their homes so me and my hip friends can move into our favorite city." I know you probably didn't mean it that way, but I feel like I see a lot of similar animosity towards the longstanding residents (or as you put it, "entrenched interests") of SF.
...and into tall, beautiful apartment buildings in walkable neighborhoods with excellent transit connections, so we can all live here together.
Also, I don't think I've ever seen an affordable apartment highrise in a major city. Think those new and shiny skyscrapers will be able to compete with rent-controlled housing? What's actually going to happen is that the longtime residents are going to get pushed out into the outskirts while the Silicon Valley rich fill out the city.
See, I think the soul of San Francisco actually comes from its people.
Given a choice between preserving buildings or saving people from displacement, I think the latter does more to preserve the essence of the city.
Entrenched interests != longstanding residents. There is some overlap though.
Think of it like the people from Los Altos Hill passing laws effectively banning poor people: the minimum lot size is 1 acre, and all lost can only have on family living in them.
* it is easier to find tiny (and thus cheaper) housing in Paris, since the standards of comfort are lower. For people who want a simple shelter and spend most of their time outside, it can frustrating to look for housing in SF.
* public transit is everywhere in Paris and most areas inside the city are safe, whereas in SF people tend to choose from a small subset of neighborhoods. Cars are unnecessary - they generally create more problems than they solve.
Pasadena, CA: $500 in 1988, $1100 now (1 bedroom, 1 bath) (2.96% increase per year)
Cupertino, CA: $765 in 1988, $2600 now (1 bedroom, 1 bath, 750 sq ft) (4.64% increase per year) Seattle, WA: $515 in 1992, $1180 now (1 bedroom, 1 bath, 600 sq ft) (3.67% increase pr year)
Silverdale, WA: $705 in 2007, $1200-$1500 now (1 bedroom, 1 bath, 600 sq ft) (4.95%-7.10% per year)
(And now house, Kitsap County WA, 1400 sq ft on 1/5 acre lot, $1300/month mortgage, taxes, insurance)
While looking this up, I noticed that Los Angeles and surrounding cities have a lot of 1 bed/1 bath apartments in OK places for under $800/month. I don't know why more tech companies aren't heading to Southern California. Good weather, good rental rates, plenty of first class schools pumping out STEM people to hire (Caltech, UCLA, Harvey Mudd, USC for instance), diverse art/cultural attractions, good food city. Commuting isn't bad by car if you have some flexibility in hours so you can avoid rush hours.
I think techies just have a stronger desire to live near transit than the previous generation of San Franciscans did.
Transit-poor SF neighborhoods are the worst of both worlds.
For anyone working downtown and living in a place that itself doesn't have parking, a car is mostly a liability.
If there were better mixed use zoning (think 3–6 story buildings and looser parking requirements) in those areas and others throughout the Bay Area, and better transit, the whole region could fit many more people and reduce the stress on overall housing supply. Plenty of folks who live in low density residential areas don’t necessarily want to drive everywhere or live a suburban lifestyle, but are stuck there by housing prices in more urban areas. There could even still be a large number of single-family houses once you get 3–4 blocks away from transit stops, and they would be cheaper than they are now, because there would be less demand on them.
The whole city (and the whole Bay Area) has absurdly priced housing, and even in the southern/western areas of the city ($1500+/month per bedroom), rents suck up a huge proportion of people’s income and middle-class folks are priced out. Young people who aren’t in the tech industry can only afford to live in the city if they cram several roommates into a tiny single-family house or flat and spend 50% of their income on rent, and many service workers in SF are commuting in from far outside the city. The middle-income people I know in SF are mostly still there through rent control, wouldn’t be able to afford it if they were just moving in, and are stuck in their current house/apartment unless they want to completely leave the city.
As someone who grew up in a suburb, my personal opinion is that suburbs may be friendly for “families” but they suck for people aged 9–25, 65+, anyone single, or anyone who can’t get around by car or doesn’t enjoy driving everywhere. Luckily the low density parts of San Francisco are still pretty navigable by bicycle, and have reasonable access to downtown, so they’re not as bad as many other suburbs.
Correct, pretty much. Everything yellow in this map is zoned 40-X, a.k.a. buildings taller than 4 stories are not welcome: http://i.imgur.com/Tn7CSTX.jpg
(You can make maps like this at http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/)
The charming parts of SF are all the bustling little neighborhoods in the northeast quarter of the city, which have easy walking access to anything you might need.
If the low-density areas of SF doubled in density (we’re talking some percentage of 4-story low-rise apartment buildings instead of exclusively single-family homes), along with a commensurate improvement in transit, almost everyone would be thrilled, and the city would be more charming, not less.
Here’s a zoning map. http://www.sf-planning.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documen...
All the parts that are zoned as one housing unit per lot, with no allowance for commercial uses (RH-1), along with similar zoning throughout the Bay Area, are the cause of our current housing crisis. The name for it is “suburban sprawl,” and it’s a crappy way to organize a society, antithetical to community and to human health. (Not to mention, they are hugely inefficient from a resource-use perspective, and are at a national and international scale causing the destruction of the planet.)
It would be lovely if some portion of those were re-zoned to RC-3 or similar.
If you can afford any of these homes, you're in the far right of the income distribution. And this is the 'less expensive' neighborhood that has lousy transit.
I left the Bay Area a decade ago because, in order to buy a four bedroom house (2 kids+home office) in a good school district, the cheapest, crappiest house would have set me back $1M. A nice house started at $1.2M or so. In the suburbs. And I just didn't want to be tied to one of those high-paying jobs. I wanted to be able to quit and do my own thing. So I left that market behind.
For Bay Area prices in general, those are typical. Period. The fact that I see a few ~$700k prices on that map means to me that yes, there are some bargains to be had in that area.
The only exception is if you have a high tolerance for run-down areas and/or poor schools; lots of cheaper houses in Oakland, for instance, even near Bart stations. THAT's where the people who can't afford San Francisco, but who work there, should be (and are!) looking. I did a San Francisco commute on Bart for nearly four years, and it's not bad. Or live in Alameda and commute on the ferry; that is an awesome commute. Did that for a year as well.
But I have a house near Boulder/Denver, Colorado now. Cost: ~$360k. Coming from the Bay Area, I had enough equity to pay cash. Transit: Short walk to two busses that could take me to different parts of Boulder or Longmont (though traffic is low here and I typically drive my Volt, charged with the solar panels on my house). Neighborhood: Short walk to a library, grocery store, about ten restaurants, and two cafes (not counting the Starbucks embedded in the grocery store). Eighteen minute drive to Boulder or Longmont or the north part of Denver.
All that and no mortgage. The recruiters who email me face an uphill battle trying to convince me that I want to live in the Bay Area again. I miss my Bay Area friends, for sure. But it would take something really compelling to make me want to return.
But finding out that it goes as far back as a 1981 NYT article is interesting in the plus ça change department.
It's true they're more family friendly, but I've heard from many that SF public schools aren't exactly top-tier. There's Lowell for high-school, and some excellent elementary schools for dual-language families, but that's about it.
The south-eastern side is still achievable for under a million, but anecdotally a friend put an offer down on a place in Bay View that was listed for $699k that had 20 competing offers and sold for $980k in cash. (a small 3 bedroom, 1 bath)
I am not saying you're wrong that this city is family friendly, but I am saying that there doesn't seem to be an end in sight for it being priced out of reach of normal middle class families. Especially considering you'll probably send your kids to private schools increasing your expenses.
That is the definition of flyover country.
"The Uberfication of everything is turning San Francisco into an assisted living community for the young."
https://twitter.com/startupljackson/status/40813723253330329...
The latter may be true; the former certainly isn't.
When the horseless carriage came out, or electric light, or the radio, traditonal-minded folk chose not to buy them. But I don't think anyone would say those inventions made the world into an assisted-living facility for the young.
And anecdotally, I've noticed that my neighbors who happen to own two or three cars tend to be older, and the ones with one or none tend to be younger. The San Franciscans I know with a second home somewhere tend to be older; the ones who can barely dream of ever owning a home tend to be younger. Go to the opera or look at the nice seats at AT&T Park, and see who's sitting there. By and large, you're not going to see many young people.
Anyway, you didn't answer my other question: when things like dishwashers and refrigerators were invented, would you characterize their impact on the world to be turning it into an assisted-living facility for the young?
Booming now, when's the bust?
Imagine a version of yourself in 1987 waiting for the bubble to burst.
Or are you referring to the gays and hippies who did the same a decade earlier?
Or do you mean all the civilians who destroyed what used to be a nice military town?
Or do you mean the soldiers who ruined a nice Gold Rush town?
Or do you mean the 49ers who destroyed a Mexican ranching and missionary outpost?
Or the Mexicans who spoiled a charming Ohlone village?