Comment by cletus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cletus | Hacker News Reader

The more I read about the housing market in SF the more it looks like a disaster. Compared to SF, NYC has done a number of things better:

1. No new rent control leases since 1973 (IIRC) although you can inherit a rent control apartment if you've lived there for two years. I'm sure this system is abused but the SF equivalent is a huge number of units being left vacant largely due to rent control;

2. Exit clauses on rent stabilised apartments for the rent getting too high or the occupant earning too much. The rent part is abused since between tenants you're allowed to raise the rent by 1/40th or 1/50th (I forget which) of the cost of capital improvements, which leads to renovating the kitchen/bathroom and probably overstating the cost; and

3. Most importantly, NYC has new construction, even in Manhattan.

What SF really needs more than micro-apartments is:

1. A gradual phase-out of rent control including income-based assessments; and

2. More importantly, some kind of plan that allows for new construction.

As much as I like the weather in the Bay Area, between this and public transport (NYC subways and comparatively cheap taxis > BART+Caltrain+munibus) I'm glad I live in NYC. In lots of ways I think it's got a lot going for it in terms of doing a startup here too.

The more I read about the housing market in SF the more it looks like a disaster

Because it is. I submitted this article a while back: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... and it generated this discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4032046 , but the issue is simple economics: supply for a place is being held constant through political rules (as Matt Yglesias, the author of the linked article, likes to say, housing costs can be kept down through complex technologies like steel and elevators) while demand soars because the place is a highly desirable one.

The result is higher prices.

It seems like the absurdity of the local public transit forces a lot of the high density construction downtown. When MUNI isn't halted (it regularly is) it often takes me 25 minutes to get to SOMA (Ballpark) from the Mission on MUNI even though straight line distance is less than one mile. Each MUNI ticket are is $2. The total system cost is $750MM and fare revenue is $150M which makes the real value of a MUNI fare $10. $10 to go less than one mile for half an hour!

Have you tried walking? From what you say it sounds like a cheaper, quicker, and more reliable alternative.

I cycle usually but I would appreciate a reasonable public transit system. Yeah, it is often a similar amount of time walking places.

There are a few points not appreciated about transit systems. Not that Muni doesn't offer significant room for improvement.

- Net effective speeds are low ... but so are other modes of transport through dense regions. Downtown SF to Stonestown is 21 minutes driving (31 in traffic), 30 minutes by Muni. That's an 18 MPH average driving speed, including significant segments on i280. The Muni route is shorter (about 6.5 miles), and reflects a slower net speed but over a more direct route).

- Positive externalities are high. Riders save on, at a minimum, parking, and at a maximum, auto ownership expenses (about $7,500/year, probably higher given garaging/ticketing expenses in SF). Merchants benefit by shoppers. Employers benefit from more convenience to employees. Drivers benefit by reduced congestion. It makes sense for transit to be partially offset by taxes or other fees, as it is in San Francisco.

- Density matters. As dense as it is (for a Western US city), SF is just barely at the density for which transit is effective. While the microunits suggested are one possible alternative, towers are more likely the solution (much of SF is zoned for 40' maximum height -- roughly 3-story construction).

- Other factors. Muni relies on tracked vehicles (Muni Metro/streetcars, cable cars), and trolley buses which are supplied electrical power from overhead wires. All provide for minimal bypass capability when a vehicle is disabled -- there's no way to route around such vehicles. A single disabled vehicle may cause extensive single-route or systemwide conjestion.

Bikes are a reasonably viable alternative, though hills are somewhat challenging. Rain too, but less frequently.

I think the problem of Bay Area transit can be summed up in this convenient guide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_San_Franc...

There are too many agencies, each one too myopic and embroiled in local politics to make good decisions - successful large projects seem to be more an accident than anything else.

This is a nice article on what a "utopian" transit strategy might look like:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2012/03/fantasy-tran...

good points, but new construction in SF wouldnt be a good thing. New buildings stick out like sore thumbs in SF, as they arent made of wood. People want to live in the old, creaky wood buildings with the over the top bay windows. Not in plaster boxes, they can get that anywhere else in the bay area.

Then removal the legal barriers to building larger buildings and see what people do. If people in the aggregate "want to live in the old, creaky wood buildings," then they can pay for them.

Well that's not true for everyone. I live in a nice loft in the Dogpatch and have a nice BayView. I would never trait that for a shitty Victorian. I would be happy if 90% of victorians were to be torn down to build some nice bright lofts with up-to-date amenities. That being said. There is A LOT of construction happening in the Mission Bay and Dogpatch area.

I'm living in SF in an old Victorian with a toddler as are many of my friends. We would all love to move into a new unit to avoid the lead paint that lingers in older units. It's a serious issue for families with young kids. There is a premium on new units.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com