Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs
I think when San Franciscans see and hear "the homeless," we tend to think of the most glaring examples of the unhoused--the beggars and thieves, the drug addicts passed out on the sidewalks--which we see every day. But you are right to distinguish that group from those we do not see. People who have jobs but no place to live don't usually set up on the sidewalk in a busy area, they live in vans or garages or even in one case I know about, a sailboat. And they would indeed be helped if SF could build enough housing to lower costs significantly.
But I don't know if lowering costs 10% would be enough. Median rents in San Francisco are down some 25% from before the COVID exodus, but even now, prices are still far too expensive for entire classes of laborers.
|
The point is that it will never be possible to "build enough housing" to lower costs to the point where someone living in an old camper van can really afford rent. Among the reasons are the overall cost structure in SF. It costs a ridiculous amount to build anything here--materials, land wages--and so what gets built has to be expensive to rent or it won't get built at all.
Average construction costs of residential buildings in the United States in 2019, by select city
Blue=Multifamily, black=single family
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-in-us-cities/
At almost $500/sq ft cost to build, a 500 sq ft efficiency apartment costs $250,000 to construct. If developed privately, it isn't likely to sell for less than $300,000 or rent for less than around $1500/month ( a 6% cap rate which is low). The current rental rate in SF is around $3.75/month/sq ft ( source:
https://www.rentcafe.com/average-ren...san-francisco/ ) or just over $1850 for that 500 sq ft apartment. So it may be possible to lower rents a bit by allowing developers to build, build, build, but if rents get much lower they will stop because they won't be making any money. Many people argue that that's already the case.
San Francisco long ago crossed a Rubicon of sorts when it allowed the demolition of much of its stock of SRO hotels which were THE affordable housing for the lowest tier of those with some kind of income (minimum wage job, pension, Social Security). But it's gone. Even trying to recreate that would probably result in spaces that rent for at least $1000/month although I've long advocated doing it: Build buildings with small (250-300 square foot), minimalist rooms with private baths but maybe only 2-burner stoves or even just a microwave and an under-counter refrigerator. In other words, a room much like a camper van. THAT some people might be able to afford.