Changing San Francisco is foreseen as a haven for wealthy and childless (1981)
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
All the rhetoric and oddly empowering blame game to the tech industry (at least for us tech people) is merely trendy.
The only thing that stopped keeping up are salary increases.
That's by no means comprehensive, but I'd just suggest a) more sources and b) a more holistic look at the issue than housing prices.
Prices have appreciated, but if you're not trying to buy a house, and you're willing to compromise a lot, I think you can live in the city on a teacher salary ($60K/year).
~~I'm trying to find an article I'm sure I've seen on HN of marriages mapped by occupation. I'll edit if I can find it, but I believe I remember that teachers tended to "marry up".~~
EDIT: et-al found the link I was looking for. However, it doesn't seem to support my memory of teachers "marrying up".
Like just about every other major city.
SF housing has averaged 6.6% yoy increases for the last 70 years.
You should note that young women in cities earn more than young men: http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274...
> The holdout cities — those where the earnings of single, college-educated young women still lag men's — tended to be built around industries that are heavily male-dominated, such as software development or military-technology contracting. In other words, Silicon Valley could also be called Gender Gap Gully.
So I'm not sure what you mean to prove by citing it. If you mislike and mistrust gendered rhetoric, you're welcome; so do I. But perceiving a lack of intellectual consistency on the part of one's interlocutor is no cause to hold oneself to a similarly weak standard.
Also there's the wrinkle of the down payment, mortgage interest, property taxes, and maintenance. You aren't required to save up $200,000 down and borrow $800,000 to buy $1 million worth of stocks at once. The most I've ever had to save up was $3000 for a Vanguard fund and then you can dollar-cost average your investments after that.
Returns on property in SF, on the other hand, will almost certainly require paying tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest, property taxes, and maintenance. This reduces the rate of return below that of stocks.
However, you would have these costs elsewhere, just lower.
I'd be really interested in an analysis of this problem of stocks vs. Bay Area real estate. This analysis would take into consideration the real rates of return, financing costs, rent lost while saving up a down payment, salary differentials, career risk due to job concentrations, mortgage default risk due to career risk, and loss risk due to lack of dollar-cost averaging.
I suspect that living outside the Bay Area and investing in stocks would come out ahead up to a certain income level, which is attainable for only a small number of people (probably smaller than the number of people who think they can handle it and are discounting certain risks/being irrationally optimistic).
1: http://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/08/the-stock-gap-american-stock-...
"Unfortunately" the area has been a source of economic growth for the last century as well. So you need two things for high housing price growth: 1) factors that restrict housing supply from responding to the market 2) economic growth or some other factor to make people want to move to the city.
For the NIMBYs, they are ok with #1. They desire that their city stays the same, it has the same architecture, unblocked vistas, the density they are used to, the natives they know.
So the NIMBYs argue to those affected by high housing costs that #2 is the real factor, i.e. "if rich people stopped moving here we would be ok". #2 is the easier argument to make, as it casts the narrative as outsiders vs natives. #1 appeals to the existing natives since they don't want change.
We have to figure out a way to change the message to awareness of #1. The average Bay Area resident has no idea how many of our state and local laws are in place to make sure that market rents / housing prices can be as high as possible.
Ever been to Chicago, New Orleans, Austin, San Diego, Denver, Santa Fe, Boston, Providence, Miami etc?
I think you misunderstood the term, it's loosely geographical, and more geopolitical.
And yes, I've heard people refer to the Midwest as "fly-over" country, ignoring specifically Chicago, Denver, Austin, Houston, and Dallas.
Not New Orleans. Like any city, you can identify areas where you might live and work without a car but you're going to have pretty limited mobility. Public transit is somewhat better than it used to be but it's still fairly limited--now a variety of streetcars but no subway for obvious reasons.
But then you don't really have easy walkable access to Burnet, East Side, SoCo, etc. I mean, you get 6th. Maybe Rainey depending on where you live downtown.
But yeah, I lived halfway to Bee Cave and worked on 360. That made me much happier than being directly downtown.
Clearly, people are walking there, but the city doesn't seem to give a shit.
For example, the west portala Sherwood Forest area is essentially a suburb within the city. There are huge lots that are 5000 sq ft when next door neighborhoods you have 1600sq ft lots with 2-3 units. Essentially you have suburb neighborhoods right next to others that have 10x the density.
A developer would love to buy units in those areas and convert to duplexes but is literally impossible to do this.
So again, it's not a question of preserving our parks but a question of preserving our suburbs within the city so rich people get to live in a suburb within the city and watch their property prices skyrocket instead of allowing the city to expand and accommodate the middle class.
[0] http://metro.kingcounty.gov/travel-options/bus/rapidride/ [1] http://soundtransit3.org/map#map [2] http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-sees-b... [3] http://stb-wp.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/09...
[1] - https://www.bustle.com/articles/155686-which-us-city-has-the... [2] - http://www.infogroup.com/defining-the-hippest-us-cities
Of course if density weren't outlawed SF would look different, but it would still be a very appealing place to live. You could triple the number of housing units in SF and it would be a city of low apartment buildings and townhouses with great views. You could increase the housing supply 10-fold and it would be a city of midrise apartment buildings with a fantastic climate and beautiful parks just outside the city.
Of course, if SF actually had 3, 5, or 10 times the population it does today then there would probably have to be a lot of infrastructure changes too. But the limit probably wouldn't be available water for residents.
We can get two birds with a stone by building housing: make our city more walkable and beautiful, and also alleviate the housing shortage .
Want to support infill, upzoning, and want to beat the NIMBYs? Consider joining SF Yimby.
It's a small group of ppl who care a lot about this, they're smart and effective, and many of these local issues are right on the bubble around 50% support in low turnout elections. This means, with a bit of activism, you can swing the outcome.
There are plenty of pro-housing organizers in San Francisco if you're willing to get plugged in and volunteer.
there are meetings every month, next one should be posted soon. https://facebook.com/pg/sfyimbyparty/events/
As you can see, there's at least one thing to do per week. Our monthly meetings are the 1st Wednesday of the month but there is a ton of stuff to do besides that.
Putting together a list of technologists who care about Yimby stuff.
https://www.facebook.com/MakeItFairCA/videos/164108883947055...
They pulled out all the stops in Brooklyn (or most of them) and let me tell you it is not pleasant. Unless you like "modern" looking condos that fall apart in five years.
But I guess people don't move to SF for the sturdy quaint old houses. Apparently there's not much love for an urban-looking Brooklyn either. Generic rules.
The whole "we need to preserve the architecture of my city" is a first world problem. What comes before that is the ability for the middle and lower class to survive in the city. Cities are living dynamic entities and should be capable of change.
I can see why it's tempting to think about it as a supply and demand problem. But be realistic about the motivations of developers, too.
And it's not like "affordable housing" requirements work, either, when those are defined relative to average income.
That's why we're all "build baby build": Increase supply enough to meet demand and you can get prices to drop. It's worth it in order to help maintain the existence of affordable housing.
But it's hard to argue against an average of 1 day of precipitation per month in June, July, August and September...And if you live in the right neighborhood, it's also sunny from 10-4 every day in that period as well...
Nah, it's easy to argue against that, you just have to had lived in SoCal where it's sunnier and a nice comfortable bit warmer :p
It is not a problem unique to SF, it just shows its worst there because its the highest growth.
You have small cities dying all over the country side because it becomes difficult to justify paying for general amenities like hospital, schools, ... and cities where you quickly hit the limit of high density too. You can replace a suburban sprawl by high density block of flat, but you need to upgrade the infrastructure to support it massively and the cost does not scale linearly past a point.
Seems to me there is a sweet spot there in the middle where the cost of public infrastructure is effective, a variety of living style at various price points, and there is still enough people for modern service to be cost effective. A bit like Europe if you get rid of the top 3-4 largest cities in each country.
If there is something that is prime for disruption, here you have it: this is a problem everywhere in the world, this is a problem that is solved the old non technological way, but with an already proven way to solve the problem using technology. The only bit that is missing is the proper incentive and a well balanced set of already existing technologies thrown in to make up for the major incentive of moving in a large city: the jobs are all packed in there too.
... which is a totally reasonable, perfectly rational position. Further, it is a policy regime that has been achieved democratically.
Personally, I am very much in favor of infill. There is a lot of crappy two story housing stock in san francisco that has no charm and no aesthetic value and would lend itself perfectly to at least doubling of density.
But let's not talk about the opponents of this as if they are flat-earthers or white supremacists or something - their stance is just as reasonable as any other socio-economic-political view.
Sure, but NIMBYism is in direct opposition to a more socially equitable and environmentally sustainable future. To claim to be progressive while espousing gated-community like values (which is quite common in the Bay Area) is, well, a bit troublesome.
I hate to nitpick, but ...
NIMBY is a general term that refers to preserving a particular, entrenched environment.
So yes, San Francisco NIMBYism in early 21st century does seem to be in opposition to increasing environmental sustainability. I'm sure there are plenty of NIMBY environments around the world that don't fit that mold, though.
The socially equitable part is more of a reach, however.
Nobody has a gun to their head forcing them to live in San Francisco and likewise, nobody[1] is starving in San Francisco. John Smith who bought a home in SF in the early 80s and is retired on his post office pension and social security shouldn't be redistributing his wealth to anyone.
[1] That is to say, nobody that isn't mentally ill or detached from reality.
>[1] That is to say, nobody that isn't mentally ill or detached from reality.
I too hate to nitpick, but...unless we're taking a very literal view of starving, as opposed to a constant struggle to feeding yourself, you should check out the percentage of SF schoolchildren on subsidized lunches or perhaps spend some time among the homeless, particularly homeless youth. I can assure you there are plenty of people going hungry in SF.
I suppose you are correct in that no one is holding a gun to their head though, just a case of bad luck I guess.
Middle class americans priced out of SF are among the global 1%. It's stupendous luck.
And yet it's your hypothetical John Smith homeowner who I should be sympathetic to.
If John Smith is renting out his house for $4,000 a month it's other people who are redistributing their wealth to him.
Privately owned land is essentially another form of privatized tax collection and all the same rules about guns being pointed at you apply.
Sure. The NIMBYs are not flat-earthers but they are definitely an impediment to attracting the next generation of young entrepreneurial people to this area. While building more housing might hurt them slightly in the short term, it needs to be done for the greater good. If this needs legislation at the state level, so be it. In this scenario I have very little sympathy for the rational NIMBYs. They had the opportunity for years to responsibly increase the housing supply so that we didnt need heavy handed approaches, but they chose to be greedy and short sighted which means they will have to loose their power.
While I agree with you on the whole "tech blame game", the quoted statement makes no sense. Of course housing prices mirrored salary increases previously. That's a natural phenomenon. As you know, this is a supply issue being mistaken by the rebellious barista set as a demand issue.
What's wrong with your overall summation of the situation is that the housing crisis is -- like most things that go systemically wrong in economics and public policy -- a product of multiple sources of causation, acting in concert.
That's why you can't (meaningfully) just say, "See, there's this other favor X [lack of middle class salary increases] at play. Therefore this factor Y everyone keeps talking about [high-salaried tech workers pouring into town] can't be the major factor. In fact, it's merely trendy."
Because in reality the housing crisis is a product of X, Y, Z, and a host of other factors acting in concert.
The CA housing market, if nothing else, gives newspapers something to chat about on slow news days.
Those prices don't show up on most historical charts because there were very few sales overall, and of course most sales were at the very high-end which are typically much more inelastic price-wise.
Most of the market was exceptionally illiquid, which is why many of those listings were so slow. Alot of renovations and new construction that had just come onto the market were discounted to fire sale prices, dragging other listings with them, and _still_ didn't sell until a year or two later. Banks simply weren't making loans, and the all-cash buyers weren't around either because the stock market had tanked.
The market rebounded much faster here than elsewhere. But, still, if you actually had hard cash at the time, and an appetite for risk (nobody knew if and when things would rebound) you could have made a killing. Some people did.
That's a pretty big only.
But this isn’t so.
Just because it's been said before doesn't make it untrue. San Francisco is in fact not an easy or great place for those with children but not wealth.
I think what makes San Francisco a target is that it isn't a great place for those without children who would be classified as wealthy in any other part of the country.
You can probably find a path to home ownership in a safe neighborhood with decent services in any city in the country if you are in the upper quartile of incomes for that area.
The housing prices in San Francisco are such that most incomes even in the upper quartile would take a decade to save for a downpayment. You need two incomes (Two working parents) in the upper quartile of incomes in the area to get you to home ownership in a good neighborhood.
I don't follow.
As you said yourself, in most places in the U.S., a middle or upper-middle class family can afford to live in a home big enough for a family (which by global standards, is likely big enough for two or three families). And the home's in a safe neighborhood. What prevents this scenario from being great?
But the 80s and 90s -- through the first Dotcom crash -- were also a different era. The Economist considered the US the #1 country to be born in 1988, and only #16 in 2013. This is reflected in the fall in the number of good middle-class jobs, housing affordability, health care costs, traffic and infrastructure, and overall declining quality of factors.
Love reading posts of old articles from the 80s and 90s. It's like nothing much has changed over the past 30 or so years. Except the average housing price has gone up from ~$100,000 to ~$1,000,000 (you know, cuz of inflation and stuff...)
I haven't received it yet but it seems promising
*edit spelling
And yet it's still in the bottom 2% of U.S. cities when ranked by crime.
>in 1970 the number of Hispanics was arrived at by a computer model that listed everyone with a Spanish surname as Hispanic
because census in 1970 did not allow differentiation Hispanics. It also probably means that decrease in whites from 70's to 80's is overstated.
But is this a real problem? Different areas are good for different types of people. If you want to have children, move to somewhere you can have a proper backyard, because leaving your kids indoors all day will send both you and them crazy.
My sister, 8 years younger, not so much. Everyone had clubs and extracuriculars and computers and homework and TV. No free time to roam and explore after school before parents come home.
But surely even back in the day, parents wouldn't have sent young children to hang out unsupervised in Central Park?
It started turning around in the 90s, culturally (I remember commentaries on shows like "Friends", that an urban ideal was emerging, at least among young adults). This wasn't a brand new thing by any means, but preferring an urban environment started to make its way back into the mainstream again. And now, interestingly, it's full throttle once again, but this time, it's people trying to cram into cities rather than fleeing them. Rather than talking about "getting out" of SF, people talk about being "priced out" of San Francisco and NY and regrettably feeling forced to move to the suburbs. I'm not sure how much of this is really sincere - I live south of 280 in SF, and a lot of people who say they were priced out would turn their nose up at my neighborhood. But still, I don't think this kind of talk was as common in the early 80s.
On another note - I felt New York was worse than SF, in terms of blight, in the early 90s when I lived there. Growing up in SF had certainly prepared me for the homelessness and aggressive panhandling, but it was heavier in NY. This may of course just reflect the neighborhoods I was in, but in NY, people asking for chance would follow me for blocks, negotiating (do you have subway tokens? I take subway tokens!) I was frequently approached for spare change in bars and restaurants (once, I dropped some money while paying for my coffee, a homeless man in NY jumped up to collect it for me, then held onto it as he entered negotiations for how much he would keep - possession being 9/10ths of the law, I guess).
I went back to NY recently, after 20 years away, and my perception is that you're experience far less of this sort of thing in NY than SF now. Certainly, there were still homeless people in NY, but the aggression I'd experienced earlier really wasn't nearly as notable. In SF, I'd say it's gotten steadily heavier, more aggressive. Not sure why.
Of course, they don't have the "cool" factor of SFO or NYC etc.
It is cheap though, and some of the cities have decent (and improving) culture, considering how inexpensive they are.
Source: lifelong Midwesterner, lived in four Midwestern states.
It's only a few hours drive from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (massive wilderness area), two hours from Lake Superior/the North Shore (skiing/mountain biking/hiking), and incredibly close to thousands of lakes/cabins (very few of which are manmade). MSP airport is also a major hub for Delta and has affordable/quick connections to nearly every major market (either directly or via ORD). Culturally it has renowned theatres (second only to NYC in per capita theatre seats) and has decent nightlife/culture. It's as car dependent as any American city but has a huge bike culture (possibly the #1 bike city in America?). Diversity is also growing - my local school district in a relatively affluent suburb has 160 languages being spoken. There are also 17 Fortune 500 companies in Minnesota and a healthy economy (with plenty of IT jobs).
I'm lived here for 10 years after moving from New Zealand so am well aware of what coastal/mountain living is like. I've also spent time in London, Sydney, Chicago, DC, Boston, San Francisco, Madrid, Hong Kong, LA, Paris, and Copenhagen so have a sense of what living in a more well known city is like. Like I said, it's not NYC or SFO but it's definitely not what most people expect. The local joke is that it's impossible to get people to move here but then no one leaves because of how good the wages are compared to the cost of living and amenities.
Then again, maybe Minneapolis is part of a Northern identity that some have kicked around!
Couldn't disagree more, there are thousands of lakes in the midwest. Northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan are huge forests with countless natural lakes for hunting, hiking, fishing, camping, ATV, etc. Plus there are the great lakes which are basically like an ocean.
If you like outdoor activities, hike, or get a canoe or a boat and you'll never be bored in summer. In winter, get a snowmobile or get into cross country skiing and you'll never be bored.
> It is cheap though, and some of the cities have decent (and improving) culture, considering how inexpensive they are.
This is true and very important. You can still easily live "the American dream" (easily own a house, newer cars, have a family, go on vacations, shop, save) on an average middle class income in the midwest and the south. Living comparable in western coastal states of CA/OR/WA would require easily 2.5x-6x or more the income for the same results.
The city is young and reasonably liberal and strikes a fine balance between urban living and outdoor activities. Our live music scene is also the best in the nation.
There is no state income tax either, so with an annual income of $75k, you will save $4k a year compared to California. Sales tax is also lower by a percent or two.
Maybe Denver ?
Colorado has relatively low tax rates and Denver is sort-of-kind-of-almost a real, functional big city downtown.
If you're at all inclined towards weekend-outdoorsy things, it might be a good choice.
Personally, if I had to choose a city besides San Francisco (where I live) I would choose Minneapolis, but it's not for everyone (and MN taxes are relatively high).
The theater district is (I am told) the largest outside of NYC (although I'm not sure by what metric). Regional theater is pretty big here as well if you want to see stuff outside Broadway, etc.
There are many concerts in the city, but Columbus and Pittsburgh are both reasonable drives and get a lot of concerts. Several of the venues (The Grog Shop, Aurora, Beachland Ballroom) get up and coming acts and musicians from large bands doing solo projects, often for low prices as well.
Housing is affordable, for the most part, although downtown housing is close to capacity at the moment due to lots of young people moving downtown. Outside of downtown, I am a fan of both Lakewood (westside, cheaper) and Shaker Heights (eastside, more expensive), both of which have access to light rail to downtown. Some of the cheaper suburbs are mostly 1960s housing stock, built in the era of GI mortgages, so they look kind of same-y, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. There are also parts of the area (like East Cleveland), which are probably undesirable to live in.
Cleveland offers a decent amount of outdoor activity as well. Obviously, the lake and river are available for many different outdoors activities (Kayaking, Canoeing, Jet Skis, swimming, boating) and there are several beaches. The metro parks system has parks around the outskirts of the entire city. Cuyahoga Valley National Park is a short drive south. You are within driving distance of Wayne National Forest, Hocking Hills, and Allegheny National Forest. Many other outdoors areas in eastern PA are within a reasonable drive.
I'm not sure I agree w.r.t. taxes paying for parks and libraries. I enjoy both of those things and think they are valuable. Additionally, Cleveland (and Ohio in general) has a pretty great library system. Living in Cleveland, you have access to every Cleveland and suburb library (via ClevNet) and the Cuyahoga County Public Library, including eBooks and Audio Books. You also can order books from any Ohio Library via OhioLink.
Taxes are a problem, I think, with Cleveland. The city and most of the suburbs have a local income tax (between 1 and 2% flat rate usually) and the state of the roads and public transit does not seem to reflect the tax rate (although some areas are better than others). Sales tax is the highest in the state at 8% (compared to 7% elsewhere in OH), although food is tax-free. It is lower than Chicago (10.25%) and higher than Pittsburgh (6%).
Originally meant for LA, but oddly applicable.
Fuck that Mark Zuckerberg and Fuck all his clones. Fuck all these swag-toting Hip coder wannabes.
Learn to swim.
Fuck retro anything. Fuck your tattoos. Fuck all you junkies and Fuck your short memory.
Learn to swim.
Fuck those recruiters With hidden agendas. Fuck these dysfunctional, Insecure activists.
This issue affects so many wicked problems, including how social systems respond to human-made environmental devastation.
Thankfully there are some leaders who will do the hard thing.