I'm Obsessed with San Francisco's Bunk-Bed Craigslist Ads | Hacker News Reader

I'm Obsessed with San Francisco's Bunk-Bed Craigslist Ads

citylab.com

47 pointswyclif74 comments

Gives me an idea for audacious and fearless entrepreneurs : go start a new city and make it the new high tech center of the world.

Actually, it's an obsession many countries had for the last 25 years : create the new silicon valley. Nobody has ever succeeded.

Now, another idea : instead of making this city in the real world, just create it virtually on the web. With all the people working from remote places, the physicial location doesn't really matter that much anymore... You'll need online universities, research labs, and places to hang out and meet people. That would be a fun project.

I don't know. I'd say London's 'Silicon Roundabout' and Medellin, Columbia have successfully given a crack at the startup scene and that's to name a few..

On your virtual city idea, I genuinely think with the success of second life, you're onto something here buddy .. I'd join

Tel Aviv has become one as well. Result: it's super expensive and all the young people have to leave it or live in places only slightly better than these shared bunks.

Yep, I can relate to that. As a "city worker", am still living at home with the parents. The rent here just doesn't make sense anymore and I am fortunate I have the luxury of being able to do so. Those few who are fortunate enough to drive up rent prices are 98% working in 1 of x industries ... everyone else who isn't, suffers

Yep. The implications of this on the health of such cities are really bad.

Tony Hsieh, founder of Zappos, is trying to turn Vegas into just that. Wish him luck!

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/350-mill...

Arg... why Vegas? I would start that somewhere in the philippins/thailand/indonesia...

Ok.

Good food. Great weather. Everything is cheap.

I don't see the point moving SF to the middle of the desert really.

As one of many developers here in south Asia, we agree with you :)

The problem there is infrastructure outside of big cities like Manila. You want your employees to be able to enjoy the good parts of places like the Philippines out in the provinces, not stuck in smog-choked EDSA traffic.

The cargo-culting of "having to bring your startup to SF" is getting tiring

Successful startups pop everywhere. Lots in the East Coast (ok, NYC)

Sure, the financing is there, but maybe, if SF is the only place your startup can get funding then maybe your business model is not the greatest?

> Lots in the East Coast (ok, NYC)

Lots in Boston, too.

Ok, I have to say it: this exact idea has been sort of a small obsession of mine for the last few years. I thought about many aspects of it, however the main barrier I see is that you cannot start anything like this without a budget that exceeds tens of millions of dollars (and being able to involve additional hundreds of millions of dollars). How do you solve this?

When I learned, that "roommate" for students in the US really meant a person, that had her bed in the same room as you, I was totally baffled. I just thought this was the US word for flatmate till then.

Why would anyone over the age of 13 want to share a room with another person? of the same gender? for many years?

I never saw this here in Germany. Just hostels do this kind of stuff.

In the student-homes the minimum you get is one own room.

I think such things are even forbidden by law, in Germany.

It is the usual American word for housemate/flatmate. It's just that, usually, those with the most interesting "roommate" stories are typically university students (current, or former.)

Outside of university, hardly anyone shares a room with any stranger on a rental basis. That is, outside trafficked migrant ghettos, homeless shelters, San Francisco and prisons.

You usually have the choice in the US, but you'll have to pay more for a single. That isn't always the case. Many colleges only have single bedroom dorms. Also, in the US, you don't have to dorm: you can stay in an apartment (if you are willing to pay for it).

However, it costs a lot any way you put it.

At many colleges, it is way cheaper to stay in an big apartment than in a cramped dorm. At Berkeley, I saved thousands and thousands of dollars by living off campus in a pretty big apartment with a "flatmate" but not a "roommate".

Really? How much is dorming?

I'll relate it to Stevens by me (closest I can get to a similar cost of living).

Single Room Rate: $5,035 per semester

Cheapest rent I can find is 3K a month for a 3BR in Hoboken (same town as the college).

Sure you can live outside town for probably around 2K a month rent for a 3BR until you get so far that it isn't worth it anymore.

Add in utilities and food (meal plan may no longer be effective since you're off campus) and let's say it is 3500 per month for three people. Let's say about 1100 a person.

You need to do a year lease, at least, generally. So that's 13K + per person for an off-campus by several miles (so a 20-30 min train or bus ride) VS 10K for two semesters.

You do have more control so maybe you can save a few bucks, but I don't see thousands?

Room and board for a year at UC Berkeley is $14,388. That's for nine months (June, July & August you have to vacate, IIRC). So, that's about $1,600 per month.

On the other hand, I lived in a fairly spacious apartment with one flat-mate; my half of the rent was $700. I don't remember how much I spent on food, but it was probably around $200 per month; utilities another $100. The apartment was a 20 minute walk from campus.

So, off campus expenses for a living far more comfortable than cramped dorm life was about $1000 per month.

Over the course of the three years it took me to complete my degree, that means I saved about $16,200 ($600 saved per month, 9 months per year, for three years). [That's "thousands and thousands".]

1,400 that close to campus?! That's crazy!

Yeah! We did really well; your mileage may vary, but at the time I was there, you could definitely get a 2-3 bedroom apartment within 1.5mi of campus for less than 2000. I was in Elmwood (a nice little area right on the border of Oakland). Not sure how it is now (but it has only been a few years).

That's pretty cool. Well done!

As a fellow german i found this out long ago: Different architecture. Americans tend to build less multi-story apartment buildings, and more small one-family buildings, so the density of available housing per mile is really low even in settled areas, compared to the average german city.

Look at this: https://www.google.de/search?q=suburban+hell&tbm=isch

It's true what you say but having spent a reasonable amount of time in Asia I always wonder why we don't build higher here in Berlin. There is a huge housing shortage and they wanted to build apartments on Tempelhoferfeld. That is just absurd when there is tons of prime but underutilized real estate on Köpenickerstrasse. It would probably be possible to completely (albeit temporarily) relieve Berlins housing crisis by building up the derelict areas along the river with 30+ level towers. That way it would be possible to preserve the pristine park and semi-wild greenery that helps make Berlin such a wonderful place to live.

At a guess: Because Berlin's housing market is very cheap and prices can't be easily raised, so there isn't much money available for building up.

I'm not an expert but is it really more expensive to build up rather than out given the state of technology today? Surely the cost of land alone is enough of an incentive to build up? Also Berlin's real estate market is increasing in price steadily. There is huge competition for every rental flat on the market inside the ring. This seems like a good opportunity to increase volume to meet demand as would happen in a perfect market. I would imagine the increase in volume (and the revenue that comes with it) would alone be worth building up?

It's a reflection of American individuality, which sort of turns into selfishness and isolationist at some point. Everyone must have their own front/back yard. Everyone must own a car, which in turn is housed in its own garage, which itself is its own sanctuary cum creative space, so much so that most music bands start rehearsing in garages, businesses start in garages, etc. Garages also double as storage rooms for home maintenance tools, machining equipment, car repair, and everything a "man" must have. The average American home can supply all the tools necessary to start a small, home-repair business. Why does everyone need a 12' ladder just to clean the gutters once a year? Why no borrow/rent?

I'm not from the area so forgive my ignorance but, is it really that bad or are these just very in demand areas? Can you work in the area albeit with a longer commute for a reasonable price?

I'm from New York and people complain about real estate prices here as well. It is undoubtedly very expensive in Manhattan (small 1-br for $4k in nice building) but that's only in Manhattan. You can easily find rent for less than $2k if you're willing to increase your commute from ~30-40 minutes to ~60-75 minutes. I know people living in suburbs of New Jersey (Pal Park, Fort Lee) as well as suburbs of Queens or Bronx for even less than that.

It's also not that as expensive in Manhattan as you suggest. I looked earlier this year, east village studios might run from $2000-2500. Half that for a 2bhk in Bed Stuy.

NYC has a huge problem with exclusionary zoning, but it's not quite as crazy as SF yet.

[edit: I was wrong on Astoria, my info is apparently a year out of date.]

2 bedrooms in Astoria are 2000+

We just rented a 1 bedroom in a nice building on the upper west side for $2500 a month.

Sure, there are 1brs for $4k; there are also 1brs for $1k and 1brs for $10k.

If you value your time at $50 per hour, a 60 minute commute twice a day costs $1900 per month (assuming you commute 230 days a year). And this doesn't count the direct monetary cost of the commute. Different people value their time differently, but it's worth doing this calculation consciously.

Not all commutes are created equally; I would rather ride the subway for 45 minutes than spend 20 minutes in stop-and-go traffic.

>a 60 minute commute twice a day costs $1900 per month

Only if you're comparing it to a 0 minute commute, which isn't realistic.

You could have a five minute commute on foot, in which case it's more just much needed fresh air and daylight.

That's a fair point but most people are on a fixed salary and don't think of their time value as marginal. So for instance, if you're earning $50 an hour, you're earning 100k per year, and if you're on a salary, you may think of having a budget of 8.3k, pre-tax, or a little over 5k post-tax. So if you're spending an extra 1.9k on an apartment that cuts down your commute by 2 hours a day, that's money you're not spending on other quality of life things, including saving and paying down any debt. In this light, spending an extra 2k, despite it saving you 2 hours, doesn't seem as feasible.

These bunk beds look OK. As a young programmer in London I lived in hostels for a while, with 4-story bunk beds crammed by the dozen in a small room. I remember it rather fondly, free breakfast, new people to talk to every day, walking distance to work in the centre... damp was a serious problem though.

I suppose it depends what you want. I have a colleague who lives in youth hostels in Taiwan, working remotely. He loves it.

But I don't really understand the "give up basic privacy to pursue your dreams" thing. Seriously, programming is programming. You can do it any place in the world. If your goal is to strike it rich at a startup in SF... well... good luck is all I can say. Are these the new 49ers?

I agree, it totally depends what you're after, and how much you value your privacy. It's like the difference between staying in shared hostel dorms vs. private hotel rooms when you're travelling. I've just been travelling for the past 6 or so weeks, mostly in hostels, and although I've missed having a private room, the money I've saved by being in shared dorms (not to mention the people I've met) has made it totally worth it. For me of course :).

I'm guessing the problem is not so much shared housing/youth hotels as the price asked for them.

> Renters are living a nightmare in order to pursue their dreams.

A "nightmare"? I spent my year in the army bunking with 12 people in a room, and there are plenty of civilian jobs (eg. most oil rigs) that require hot bunking: your share of the bunk is 12 hours per day, and the rest of the time someone else is sleeping in it!

But isn't "housing" free in those scenarios? Certainly not +$1,000/month for your bunk!

Just because many people do it doesn't make it enjoyable. What you describe sounds terrible.

That was called hot racking in the Navy. Used to be common on subs when there wasn't enough space to bunk everyone individually but that's gone away for the most part.

I spent all my time in the military sharing a sleeping area at a minimum with one other person. On the boat you slept with your division on 3 high coffin racks. By the time you get out of basic training you've long stopped being self conscious or uncomfortable sleeping in the same room as other people.

I hadn't really seen people doing this outside of poor countries or hostels, but I wouldn't be opposed to living like this. I spend so little time at home anyways, why not lower my overhead.

I don't buy the idea that San Francisco has a housing shortage. San Francisco already has rather a lot of houses for 47 square miles of land. What San Francisco has is is a ridiculous oversupply of people who want to live there.

The time has come to say it: San Francisco is full. Everyone start colonising somewhere else.

> San Francisco is full. Everyone start colonising somewhere else.

Indeed. Actually, San Francisco is overfull! Everyone who arrived in the past 4.8 years take notice: YOU ARE IN GRAVE DANGER OF SPILLING OUT ONTO THE BAY FLOOR. EVACUATE IN AN ORDERLY FASHION TO SAFER LOCALES IMMEDIATELY! [0]

[0] Note to the humorless: This is at least as much of a joke as the comment to which I am replying. :)

They have a decent supply of houses in terms of numbers. But those houses have an undersupply of floors..

No. SF has ample space horizontally and more importantly vertically for housing. The problem is the construction of housing has been hindered dramatically by bureaucrats.

Sure, you could pack more people in, at the cost of quality of life for people who live there. But why would you want to destroy a nice city full of historic buildings just to cram more people in? It's ridiculous.

A forest of skyscrapers like the nastier parts of Hong Kong? No thanks. Besides, you can't increase the amount if road space or the amount of footpath available. And geography makes it an awful place for ultra high density, you can only get out in one direction.

Who says I care about historic buildings?

> But why would you want to destroy a nice city full of historic buildings

Eh? San Francisco is a century old (because 1906 earthquake and fire), you can find rabbit cages older than that on the east coast.

> A forest of skyscrapers like the nastier parts of Hong Kong?

Increasing density doesn't mean skycrappers. London and Paris have twice and thrice the density of SF. Hell, Lyon has a 50% higher density than SF (27000/sq mi to 18000) and there's almost no skyscrapers in the inner-city skyline[0] and still room left for antique buildings[1], parks and basilicas taking up whole hilltops[2].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#/media/File:01._Panorama_...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#/media/File:Amphitheater_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#/media/File:Lyon_paysages...

> ...why would you want to destroy a nice city full of historic buildings...

I say this as someone who adores the interior architecture of the 1960s through the early 1980s:

Have you been in the housing out on the west-northwestern part of the city? I've had the opportunity to visit many friends out in those districts. Some of the single- and multi-family homes out there are really nice and totally worth preserving. A not-insubstantial slice of them are either nothing special, or are slowly mouldering because of landlords who refuse to do even the legally required maintenance unless forced to by The City.

Hell, due to the lack of market pressures, even the once-gorgeous historic multi family dwelling in which I rent grows more dirty and poorly maintained by the month.

If you want to see what a conversion of sections of the city to apartment towers would look like, go down to FiDi on a non-holiday weekday around lunch time. Notice the abundant sunshine and foot traffic. :)

> ...just to cram more people in?

The point is that the crammming would stop. Because anyone in their mid-twenties or older would be able to reasonably afford a place with one actual bedroom per occupant, packing 2+ people into a bedroom and having landlords declare that what should be a living room or a dining room is a bedroom would stop.

NIMBYS. You're talking about NIMBYs. The Bay area is infested with them, and they're obnoxious.

NIMBYs are people who want something built but don't want it built near them, which is sorta obnoxious.

Saying that something shouldn't be built at all is rather different.

It's a free country. Lots of people want to live in SF. It seems rampantly unfair to say that only those who were lucky enough to be born there get to.

No, I'm saying that the people who get to live there should be the people who can afford to pay the ridiculous prices, and people who can't afford to get in should quit whining.

I'd like to live in Blenheim Palace. But I can't afford to buy it and I don't think the Earl of Marlborough is selling. You don't catch me whining about it.

I think it's legitimate to whine about some of the legal aspects in SF - the zoning and especially the way people who've owned houses longer get to pay artificially low property taxes.

And I'm here thinking that 200/300€ for a shared bedroom in Dublin was already absurd.

It's not as bad as it seems when you compare salaries.

True, in SF it's probably double of what someone gets in Dublin

Do people buy camper vans and live in these? I've did a contract over a 6 month period in a camper van but was able to come home every weekend and recharge the leisure batteries. It definitely needs a sport centre membership to really make it work.

There aren't many places where you could fit a camper van in San Francisco. Not a bad idea though.

That's a fantastic idea! Now, just tell me where I can park and sleep at night without being woken up by the cops, fined and told to move along.

Unless you know someone willing to let you park on their private property, you can't do this in a lot of cities. If you're near a wal mart, though, I think they have a policy that allows it. Not sure if you have to ask first.

There were plenty of RVs on Duboce under the 101 in the Mission when I worked there ~2010. And on International Blvd when we left Oakland last year. I'm sure there are plenty of other undesirable neighborhoods around the bay area. Not that I'd recommend it...

Hong Kong demonstrates where this trend is leading:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hong-kongs-poor-live-in-stacked-...

How do the housing markets compare? Hong Kong is famously more free market than San Francisco, though I have heard that real estate is one of the more constrained sectors?

This kind of thing is certainly the result of policies which the Heritage foundation or Cato would approve of.

They're the ones who make those lists that put Hong Kong at #1/#2 "most free market countries".

industry hostels are doing the same, though often worse

50$/nt(o), at a forgiving 28 days in a month is 1400$/mn

but they'll usually be kind enough to offer a 250/week deal for responsible long term stays

but still, thats $1000/(4 week period..month rates will fluctuate with length)

you may be able to find a 33$/nt, so 924/(4wk), which will probably grant a 200/wk.. but most will require you to leave after 3 weeks anyway for fear of sf squatter rights

if you want a steady living space, with access to the tools of your trade: electricity,internet, and like interested people; for $850/month seems a fine alternative to other temporary living opportunities

though, i agree both are appalling and minimal living space should be a commodity

so are these 'bunk-bed craigslist ads' exploitative or, to turn a poignant phrase, disrupting the already unfortunate hostel market

(o) http://www.hostelworld.com/hostels/San-Francisco?source=adwo...

the san francisco board of supervisors(o) recent board meeting actions(i) passed recommendation 150646(ii)(iii) which states:

    1) prohibit, with certain exceptions, rent increases 
    based on the addition of occupants even where a pre-
    existing rental agreement or lease permits such an
    increase; 2) prevent evictions based on the addition
    of occupants if the landlord has unreasonably refused
    the tenant’s written request, including a refusal based
    on the amount of occupants allowed by the rental
    agreement or lease;

so now you can lawfully build those bunks while everyone talks about prop f(iv)

(o) http://www.sfbos.org/

(i) https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=434339&GUID=F48A...

(ii) https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2358278...

(iii) https://sfgov.legistar.com/ViewReport.ashx?M=R&N=Master&GID=...

(iv) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10280282

What's worse is that those "hacker hostels" in SoMa require you to apply and be approved of before you can give them your money. If you're local, speak english and aren't founding your own startup, they will say 'no, you can't rent our bed'. They seem to prefer out of country entrepreneurs hoping to make contacts for funding their new startup.

Honestly, this is fine by me. I just need a bed to sleep in at night. Seriously between work, school, gym, going out how many hours are you actually home anyway? Really all you need is a bed imo.

How about sex?

Sex? Ill just strap on my free time helmet and squeeze down into a free time cannon and fire off into free time land.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com