Nearly 90% of San Franciscans cannot afford a median-priced home in the city

> Condo? Won't do. Rent and invest in something more diversified? Crazy talk.

I see a lot of merit in the rent + diverse investment approach (and that's what I've chosen so far), but this is needlessly dismissive.

Condos won't do for some households. They might be a better option if there were a larger variety of floorplans/sizes beyond 1-2 bedroom. And if HOAs were sane, which most aren't. Though I do appreciate them as a glimpse of what the world would quite likely be more like if a lot of libertarian ideas were adopted.

Renting can be nice, but it leaves you quite vulnerable to changes in demand for housing and consequent price changes. Better not ever be on a fixed income. And there are other ways you can end up being forced out of where you're at than being priced out.

> Just because we had that luxury for the last 75 years doesn't mean we always will.

But it's certainly worth asking why an economy that recently was able to provide one standard of living to more of its participants seems to have trouble doing so now. And housing is not just any luxury, not just any commodity. It's the matrix of communities. It's the geographic and social context of people's lives. Bedrock stuff.

I'm selling my single-family house (in a large urban area) and moving to a small condo building (not an apartment conversion) for just this same reason. My house, small as it is, takes up such a minuscule amount of the actual dirt that I own. Just not having to maintain the yard--tiny amount that I do just to keep the weeds trimmed down--is motivation enough.

And here's the thing: I still have an outdoor area, deeded to me as part of my condo unit, for doing things like having a small garden or woodworking (if I was interested in either of those, but they're the most common "but I couldn't possibly" rebuttals I've heard). I get a deeded parking space, can paint the walls whatever color I want, and even have approval from the (tiny) condo board to run all of the network wiring inside the walls I can stand.

Obviously I'm unmarried sans kids and pets, yeah? Nope, I have a spouse, a kid, and a dog. And you know what? We're all going to fit perfectly. The new place even adjoins a public park, is across the street from a 24-hour grocery, has frequent all-day (and 24-hour) transit, and is within walking distance of two of the best schools in the city. And all for about $200k less than a free-standing house in the same area.

I'm thrilled to not need as much space. And yes, parents, it is entirely possible do to so comfortably, even with your kid having his or her own bedroom.

As an American who recently moved back from Oslo, the biggest difference I notice is that family-friendly condos with greenspace are much harder to find in America, at least on the SF Peninsula.

It's the norm in Oslo to live in an apartment or rowhouse, but usually with very generous green courtyard space that let kids roam around and play. In the SF peninsula, most apartment buildings either take up the whole lot or fill most of their undeveloped space with parking lots.

> Rent and invest in something more diversified? Crazy talk.

This seems like pie-in-the-sky talk from high-income earners.

It's not like people are just freely choosing to invest in a house over other investments. Instead, since they have to pay for housing no matter what, they are trying to mitigate loss, if not make a return, on the sunk cost of dwelling. If they are renting, they don't have "extra" money that they can arbitrarily put towards whatever they choose.

I don't know the population breakdown in San Francisco, but I would bet that the majority are not developers. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck and have very little savings. Their house is the single largest store of wealth for people in America.

If they do have savings, it's likely to be in an IRA or a 401k, so they aren't free to apply that to whatever area of investment they like, either.

It's not like Condos in San Fran are affordable either, though. Last time I looked. I don't have 20% to put down on $750k. And why is it $750k? Because we can't have new construction, no, that would diminish the property values of the "established gentry", excuse me, the people who were lucky enough to buy something in 1997. So let's screw over an entire generation of Americans, maybe even 2 generations, so that the 50-somethings can keep their cushy retirement funds, i.e., their existing properties. America. The Greatest Country on Earth, unless you have less than $2-3 million in total assets, in which case you can fuck right off and go live somewhere on a farm in Nebraska.

Clearly you don't have children yet. I like my little one to have a safe green place to play and invite friends to. Or just enjoy some clean air :-) I'm not an American nor do I live there. There is a reason so many people like living in the suburbs.

Of course not everyone needs a house. The point is at least it used to be an option for a lot more people. We're talking about the change in affordability here, not asking if a house makes sense to buy or not.

Just because you don't want a house or it doesn't make sense for you doesn't mean thats the case for everyone.

Condos can be dangerous. One second you're enjoying your nice condo, the next you're paying your $15k share of the repair cost of the buildings elevator.

The invest in something more diversified talk sounds like the ramblings of someone with a lot of money. The reality is that for most people their mortgage payment will be their largest monthly expense. Why wouldn't they want't that massive monthly payment working for them rather than just throwing it away. The alternative you suggest implies that they should pay that monthly payment (which is probably higher when renting) and then dump the same amount into diversified investments? Seriously?

I've always been somewhat neutral on whether or not I own a house. I'd rather not live in a condo, however. I'm from Indiana (the only state I've lived in) and condos there were usually more expensive than a house or apartment with added maintenance fees. Some of them had minimum age limits or forbade children living there. You might own the inside, but you had rules like an apartment. I don't know if they differ in other areas.

The entire problem with the rent solution is this: When housing prices go up, so does rent. I understand SF has some rent controls, but those aren't going to help a new renter. Sometimes renting is actually more expensive than the monthly payments of buying a house. I only need a minimum of space personally, but I do want a safe and clean place to live. That is difficult to find in cheap (and some mid-priced) rentals.

And as far as space is concerned: This has just as much to do with regulation as it does with people's comfort levels. I don't know about SF regulations, but I know some places limit how many people can live in an apartment, especially if they aren't related. Lots of places limit what sorts of buildings can be built in an area and place minimum space requirements on the units. And other such things. The smallest of the places I know of - a studio or a rented room with shared bathroom and kitchens - are difficult for a couple and certainly not appropriate for a family. Some places child services will take kids away if they share a bedroom with parents, though this might not be the case everywhere. Still, lots of people do live in small housing if it is available.

One difference is that a house didn't normally cost more than renting. It required the down payment, but after that could very easily be cheaper than renting and it was its own investment. So you were able to invest in other things while also investing in real-estate. This of course assumes the price of housing is reasonable, but it was for many years and still is in many places.

Another big reason to prefer a house is that Apartments are very often not family friendly and have very little sound proofing (to protect others from your crying baby and to keep others from waking your finally sleeping baby).

We don't need space. We need to not be constantly pushed further and further away from work by never-ending rent rises.

Are condos really that much cheaper than houses in the US?

as if condos are any cheaper, and who wants to rent their whole life?

'loosening' isn't even the beginning of the solution.

Build baby build; I would actually love to see this solved by taxing out building uses that are no longer congruent to the density of the surrounding area.

Historical landmarks could become immune if they are deeded over to public trusts as a form of museum or park.

28-30% of monthly income is one of the ratios that is looked at when you apply and you can't exceed it if you're trying to get a mortgage. If you exceed that it's a no-brainer that you will get denied the mortgage.

I say the same when people on here complain about housing in the Bay Area. 30% of income is only reasonable if you assume that housing costs are correlated with other costs of living, which is very markedly not true in places such as the Bay Area.

Unless I misunderstood, 30% of gross income is likely 50% of your net income. Seems like a decent cap to put on housing expenses to me (especially considering other living costs in the SFO area as others pointed out).

At $100k a year, once you've factored in income tax, you'll still need to come up with about $1000 per month to make that $6740 mortgage payment.

The 40x rule is actually a decent guideline in most housing markets in the US.

The part of SF I live in hasn't seen the massive price and rent hikes that people are up in arms about. There has been some increase in the last six months, but before that, over the decade, it's been relativeley slow and stable. Why? Because it's unfashionable.

It's hard not to see the entire 'crisis' as a bunch of techbros and hipsters squabbling over the same four city blocks in the mission.

"the stress of dealing with that market" I could easily imagine a compensation package where the employer provides/pays for some kind of concierge-like service to take care of this for you. I would be stunned if there was more than token provision or uptake of company-provided accommodation.

> How long until tech companies need to start offering free housing to attract talent to move to SF?

To do that they would have to build housing, and if you get permission to start building then you don't need to give it away as things should start to correct themselves.

NIMBYs don't want that though.

The other half of how it works is that when demand is high, supply should increase to meet it. The reason supply remains constricted and hence prices high has nothing to do with economics, and everything to do with NIMBYists hostile to newcomers.

"Posted from my iPhone during my interminable, soul-sucking 90-minute commute."