The 1990s - when the rent was cheap

[edale]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

...and the problem is that the issues present in the biggest cities have become the national discourse, even though those issues don't apply to 90% of the United States.

Where I live, Twitter folderol can now be heard coming from Twitter-addicted elected officials who don't understand that these issues barely exist in their own municipality. OR, and perhaps more likely, they're laying groundwork for higher office by applying top-down "progressive" housing policy to a place that won't benefit from it.

Yeah, this is true. I can't help but laugh when I see Cincinnati based Twitter Activists adopt San Francisco talking points about the unaffordability of housing. People will object to any new development unless it's 100% affordable....in one of the cheapest areas in the country. Real estate has definitely gotten more expensive there as the city has started to grow again, but it's still one of the most affordable cities around. But listening to the Twitter mob, you'd think it was like SF, NYC, LA there where people have to live 2 hours away from the central city just to find cheaper housing.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by edale

Yeah, this is true. I can't help but laugh when I see Cincinnati based Twitter Activists adopt San Francisco talking points about the unaffordability of housing. People will object to any new development unless it's 100% affordable....in one of the cheapest areas in the country. Real estate has definitely gotten more expensive there as the city has started to grow again, but it's still one of the most affordable cities around. But listening to the Twitter mob, you'd think it was like SF, NYC, LA there where people have to live 2 hours away from the central city just to find cheaper housing.

This is why I quit Twitter years ago. The format rewards hysteria.

Housing is the perfect wedge issue for Twitter's format, since everyone's experience is different, and one's experience is typically an indicator of class background. But things get interesting when someone holds an opinion that contrasts with the stereotype.

A landlord who was raised in a trailer park? A housing advocate who grew up in the Malibu Barbie beach house? Get ready for worlds to collide!

[craigs]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

...and the problem is that the issues present in the biggest cities have become the national discourse, even though those issues don't apply to 90% of the United States.

Housing costs are increasingly out of reach in more than just the biggest cities and for far more than merely 10% of Americans.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Anyone who depends on the stability of the city.

If we measure "stability" by metrics like crime, population, and employment statistics, San Francisco is a case study in how costly housing does not ensure a city's stability.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by craigs

If we measure "stability" by metrics like crime, population, and employment statistics, San Francisco is a case study in how costly housing does not ensure a city's stability.

How so? San Francisco is one of the most successful cities in the world. It is continuously growing, it regularly has crime rates lower than most U.S. cities, and salaries are higher than any other major city in the world.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

How so? San Francisco is one of the most successful cities in the world. It is continuously growing, it regularly has crime rates lower than most U.S. cities, and salaries are higher than any other major city in the world.

You're wrong regarding population growth and crime. San Francisco's significant population decline began before the pandemic, and has only gotten worse since. That's why we see of all those "Californians moving to Texas/Florida/wherever" articles: high housing costs have driven population decline in San Francisco. Meanwhile, the city most certainly does not regularly have lower crime rates than most cities: San Francisco ranks in the top 10 of major US cities for each type of property crime, and again, this predates the pandemic. I consider San Francisco the poster child for high housing costs pushing people and jobs out, but I don't want to pick on the city in which I spent over half of my adult life. My new home, Los Angeles, like other cities with housing costs that are also out of reach of the vast majority of residents, has also been losing population since before COVID (cue the "exodus" articles again).

I did not touch on salaries in the post to which you replied, and if you want to define "stability" as high salaries you're free to do so. However, in San Francisco the median income has dropped along with the population, and of those remaining high salary-earners, far fewer of them work in downtown SF. The desertion of downtown has in turn tanked public transit ridership. And high housing costs have prevented San Francisco from rebounding from pandemic knock-on effects as quickly as less costly cities have been able to.

I don't buy the idea that high housing costs alone will bring "stability" to a city, and I disagree with the overall idea that high housing costs are a universal "good." They are good for the top 1% or 10% who can easily afford those costs, but none of this is obviously good for the vast majority of existing or prospective city residents.

[edale]

Originally Posted by craigs

You're wrong regarding population growth and crime. San Francisco's significant population decline began before the pandemic, and has only gotten worse since. That's why we see of all those "Californians moving to Texas/Florida/wherever" articles: high housing costs have driven population decline in San Francisco. Meanwhile, the city most certainly does not regularly have lower crime rates than most cities: San Francisco ranks in the top 10 of major US cities for each type of property crime, and again, this predates the pandemic. I consider San Francisco the poster child for high housing costs pushing people and jobs out, but I don't want to pick on the city in which I spent over half of my adult life. My new home, Los Angeles, like other cities with housing costs that are also out of reach of the vast majority of residents, has also been losing population since before COVID (cue the "exodus" articles again).

I did not touch on salaries in the post to which you replied, and if you want to define "stability" as high salaries you're free to do so. However, in San Francisco the median income has dropped along with the population, and of those remaining high salary-earners, far fewer of them work in downtown SF. The desertion of downtown has in turn tanked public transit ridership. And high housing costs have prevented San Francisco from rebounding from pandemic knock-on effects as quickly as less costly cities have been able to.

I don't buy the idea that high housing costs alone will bring "stability" to a city, and I disagree with the overall idea that high housing costs are a universal "good." They are good for the top 1% or 10% who can easily afford those costs, but none of this is obviously good for the vast majority of existing or prospective city residents.

I think it's more that high housing costs are a symptom of a stable/healthy city, rather than high housing costs bringing stability to a city. Housing costs are high because people want to live there. Gary, Indiana has super cheap housing because no one wants to live there and there are few amenities or opportunities for residents.

And while SF is in a bit of a rough patch at the moment, it's in a totally different league compared to cities that have been declining for decades. Can you imagine a scenario where whole neighborhoods of SF are torn down and left to revert to prairie? The idea of that is preposterous, really. But it's the reality in Rust Belt cities. High housing costs haven't caused San Francisco's problems. The pandemic and high amount of WFH, coupled with the tech recession and the utter refusal to actually deal with the vagrants are what have led to SF's current struggles. And even still, these problems seem extremely minor compared to the struggles facing the Detroits, St. Louises and Clevelands of the world...

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by craigs

If we measure "stability" by metrics like crime, population, and employment statistics, San Francisco is a case study in how costly housing does not ensure a city's stability.

SF is a low-crime city with robust population and economic growth, and seems to typify the positive outcomes of historically more desirable central cities. Detroit is a high-crime city with poor population and economic growth, and seems to typify the negative outcomes of historically less desirable central cities. Of course it's more complex, but SF seems like a pretty good example of the relative benefits of high demand. I think most cities around the world would rather deal with SF problems over the last 70 years than Detroit problems over the same timeframe.

[Crawford]

Sorry, wrong thread.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by edale

High housing costs haven't caused San Francisco's problems. The pandemic and high amount of WFH, coupled with the tech recession and the utter refusal to actually deal with the vagrants are what have led to SF's current struggles. And even still, these problems seem extremely minor compared to the struggles facing the Detroits, St. Louises and Clevelands of the world...

San Francisco's problem with significant population decline began before the pandemic and is due to the city's high housing costs. Francisco's problem with very high property crime rates also began long before the pandemic. And those problems that we can completely or mostly ascribe to COVID have been exacerbated by the city's high housing costs. San Francisco is not bouncing back as quickly or strongly as other cities because fewer people can afford to move in and replace all those who left in the last few years.

Originally Posted by Crawford

SF is a low-crime city with robust population and economic growth, and seems to typify the positive outcomes of historically more desirable central cities. Detroit is a high-crime city with poor population and economic growth, and seems to typify the negative outcomes of historically less desirable central cities. Of course it's more complex, but SF seems like a pretty good example of the relative benefits of high demand. I think most cities around the world would rather deal with SF problems over the last 70 years than Detroit problems over the same timeframe.

San Francisco is ranked in the top 10 major US cities for all categories of property crime. I posted a link just above this paragraph. Meanwhile, it's median income has dropped along with its population as high salary earners leave and there aren't enough wealthy people interested in replacing them, at least not yet. And this idea that it's either unaffordability or death--that it's either San Francisco housing costs or it's Detroit's urban prairie--is a false dilemma. Minneapolis is affordable for far more of its residents and hasn't turned to dust. Cities should have affordable housing for most of their residents.

[Crawford]

SF proper had 679k residents in the 1980 Census, and 874k residents in the 2020 Census. That may be the best population growth of any old-line U.S. city. I think only DC would challenge this.

I believe SF has the highest per capita economic output of any major city on the planet.

Looking at homicide numbers, SF appears to be one of the safest U.S. cities. Really the only safer big cities appear to be San Jose (giant suburb) San Diego, Seattle and NYC. Granted homicides aren't necessarily a proxy for overall safety.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

SF is a low-crime city with robust population and economic growth...

Are we talking about the same SF? The one in California?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

Are we talking about the same SF? The one in California?

Wait, people really want to argue this?

Have we entered bizzaroland? Has SSP been bought out by Fox? SF, the Gary of the West Coast, with endless urban prairie, poverty worse than Delta Mississippi and a murder rate that makes East St. Louis look good.

SF (or, more accurately the Bay Area) is arguably the most successful metropolitan area in recent world history. Its problem is too much success.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Wait, people really want to argue this?

Have we entered bizzaroland? Has SSP been bought out by Fox? SF, the Gary of the West Coast, with endless urban prairie, poverty worse than Delta Mississippi and a murder rate that puts East St. Louis look good.

There's that false "total unaffordability or urban prairie!" dichotomy again.

[Steely Dan]

Don't mind me, just eating some popcorn here in my creamy middle city.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Wait, people really want to argue this?

Have we entered bizzaroland? Has SSP been bought out by Fox? SF, the Gary of the West Coast, with endless urban prairie, poverty worse than Delta Mississippi and a murder rate that makes East St. Louis look good.

SF (or, more accurately the Bay Area) is arguably the most successful metropolitan area in recent world history. Its problem is too much success.

You said 'SF is a low-crime city with robust population and economic growth.' which is simply not true. That doesn't mean it's Detroit but crime is a serious issue here and the economy is feeling the pain of the tech industry culling tens of thousands of jobs. Not to mention, SF never fully bounced back from Covid.

The attitutide on the ground around here is pretty pessimistic but I think the Bay Area will bounce back.

[Comrade]

Someone in the early 2000s is posting on a vBulletin board, not unlike this one, photos from the 1980s titled: The 1980s - when the rent was cheap.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by craigs

Housing costs are increasingly out of reach in more than just the biggest cities and for far more than merely 10% of Americans.

The capacity is out there in the form of spare bedrooms, but the market isn't paying high enough to motivate a lot of people to rent them out and/or two families live together in the same house.

A google search estimates that there are between 30 and 50 million unused bedrooms in the United States.

[jmecklenborg]

I remember looking at renting an entire floor of this place in 2012 for $1,600. The ceiling and space was big enough for a basketball court. You could have had a flying trapeze over a noise band at 3am and nobody would have called the cops.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1...63628587_zpid/

EDIT...this is the current listing -- NOT the unit I looked at 10+ years ago (does the unit come with the kegerator?!):
https://www.citycenterproperties.com...QaAlZrEALw_wcB

The unit I looked at back in 2012 was below this one and about 2X as big. It was...ridiculous.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The capacity is out there in the form of spare bedrooms, but the market isn't paying high enough to motivate a lot of people to rent them out and/or two families live together in the same house.

A google search estimates that there are between 30 and 50 million unused bedrooms in the United States.

Who wants to live in a spare bedroom if you're over 25 or be forced to rent out a room to a stranger to survive in an urban area. This mere notion highlights the issue with affordability in most cities.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

Who wants to live in a spare bedroom if you're over 25 or be forced to rent out a room to a stranger to survive in an urban area. This mere notion highlights the issue with affordability in most cities.

This is typical throughout the world. One of the reasons the U.S. has a housing crisis is bc we have such odd housing preferences. Renting is for losers, anything less than 3,000 sq. ft. SFH with yard and 2-3 car attached garage means you're poor, you have to leave the family house at 18, and all kinds of other weird crap. In rich countries like Germany and Switzerland, it's very normal to rent a room in someone else's house, or to live with parents forever.