
In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build - rowanseymour
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/business/economy/san-francisco-housing-tech-boom-sf-barf.html
======
rconti
The Times selected as an "NYTimes Pick" a comment from someone in Berlin who
absolutely makes my blood boil.

(S)he starts off by stating privilege as a 5th-generation San Franciscan
(obviously, the kind who DESERVE to live in the city), and who fled in the
tech boom of the 90s. The usual rant about whitewashing and yuppies and
artists being pushed out ensues. Of course they don't want more housing built,
because then dirty artists from other places would move in -- you need to
preserve the history of San Francisco's starving artists, and never let new
culture of any kind in.

Except (s)he says, okay, maybe some "affordable" housing should be built. No
discussion on the endless problems of how to manage the waiting list for this
"bucket" of housing, or what happens when those people become too successful.

And, in the end, (s)he has moved to Berlin, a city almost TWICE as dense as
San Francisco. No doubt some NIMBY in Berlin at some point whined about
building more housing for these "outsiders", but I'm sure (s)he does not have
the critical thinking necessary to recognize that such a special flower could
be the same force in Berlin that (s)he whines about happening to San
Francisco.

~~~
skewart
Yeah, the comment section on that article is pretty sad. The number of people
whose argument against building more housing is a fear that it will make the
city "ugly" is astounding. It's mind-numbingly selfish and greedy to think
that a family should barely be able to make ends meet, and children should
spend less time with their long-commuting parents, just so that SF can meet
your personal aesthetic sensibilities. Look, I love architecture and design,
and I love beautiful cities, and I would love to remake all of North America
according to my personal taste. But I'm not so entitled as to think that my
occaisional aesthetic pleasure is more important than someone else's basic
livelihood. Also, not to mention, the whole argument that density has to be
ugly and "unliveable" is utterly ridiculous and false - there are lots of
dense cities that are widely considered beautiful - Paris and Barcelona come
to mind.

/rant

As the article says, it's easy to get worked up about this stuff. I suspect
the "but it will be ugly" commenters are actually well-intentioned.

~~~
CamperBob2
There are two things that continually surprise me about life in the modern,
Internet-enabled age... two things that I would never have dreamed would
happen, if you'd asked the 1996 version of me what American life would be like
in 2016.

One is our increasing indulgence in irrationality, to the extent that we
almost celebrate it. I would never have guessed that hard-right social
conservatism would still be a dominant force in American politics, much less a
booming business. So I got that wrong, and I'm willing to admit that happened
because I didn't take the time to understand those who thought differently
from myself, or how their social motivations, family backgrounds, and economic
pressures are different from my own. So, my bad.

The other is the continuing notion that it's somehow desirable, much less
necessary, to cram everyone into a few high-density cities on either coast.
From a 1990s perspective, it appeared that the growing availability of fast
Internet connections and the rise of online social, technical, and business
networking resources was finally going to liberate us from crowded, noisy,
polluted urban prisons with endless traffic jams, out-of-control taxes, and
multi-kilobuck rents.

It should have become both possible and _desirable_ to do anything from
anywhere, from the middle of flyover territory to the north coast of Alaska to
the freaking International Space Station. Instead, we just get more of the
same complaints. Rent is too damn high, there's too much traffic, and man, San
Francisco/Seattle/Austin/New York used to be _cool_ until all these
techies/hippies/yuppies/homeless people/Republicans showed up and ruined it.

I'm not willing to concede that my worldview is wrong about this. This time,
it's everyone else who's being stupid and needs to get a clue.

Just _leave_.

~~~
willholloway
You're not wrong. Any developer for example that can find remote work can
benefit from the plummeting real estate costs to be found in any of the areas
that have seen an outflow of people in search of work in urban areas.

There are countless communities across the US that are aging, as the youth
have moved to the metropolis to work. Anyone that can extract money from the
internet can benefit from this trend.

Couple that with low interest rates, good credit and a duplex and you can live
without paying a cent for housing. This works well in towns with some sort of
natural beauty, but few jobs. Grab those tourist dollars via airbnb rentals
and take it easy.

~~~
nugget
What cities or towns would you put at the top of this list?

~~~
willholloway
Southeastern CT is cheap, and well located, in my opinion.

You can buy a house in walking distance to the decent downtown of Westerly, RI
for 120,000 and hop on an Amtrak train and be in Manhattan in 3 hours.

And if you like sailing, there are some great harbors here, like Mystic.

There are plenty of places to adventure to, Block Island, Nantucket, Martha's
Vinyard, Cape Cod.

------
hodwik
I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and
racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system.

If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop
whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where
they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking
requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bathrooms. Outlaw
Zoning entirely.

The nation will become more equitable economically when rich people and poor
people all share the same zipcodes again. And you can do it with capitalism,
you can do it by removing government instead of creating it, you can do it
with freedom.

Side bonus: you'll have an economic boom. Construction is an industry that
creates real wealth that usually stays in the country.

~~~
ktRolster
_If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop
whatever and whereever they deem there is demand._

That's a bad idea, too. For example, in Fremont right now, there's a
development that was built without being placed in a school district. So the
students who will live there have no real school.

Also, there are serious environmental impacts that need to be considered every
time you build a new housing unit.

Outlawing zoning _completely_ is a bad idea too: you'll end up with housing
units built next to noisy factories or smelly plants, and then the people in
the new houses will complain to get the factory shut down, even though the
factory was there before they were, and it was making noise when they moved
in.

Furthermore, when you build new housing, you need to consider how those people
are going to get transportation, water and electricity (and heating in most
places). You can't just throw up a housing unit anywhere and expect those
things to be built magically.

~~~
protomyth
> That's a bad idea, too. For example, in Fremont right now, there's a
> development that was built without being placed in a school district. So the
> students who will live there have no real school.

Perhaps abolishing the whole idea of school districts and assigning kids to
schools via address as opposed to parental decision. The whole pay for schools
via property tax and local levies has a pretty big negative impact on students
from low income neighborhoods. Its classism baked into the system. Backpack
tuitions would right a lot of wrongs in the education of our children.

~~~
ktRolster
A school district is a system of assigning kids to schools via address. In
California, the schools are funded equally based on property tax collected at
the state level. Schools are funded based on how many students are sitting in
class, not on where they are located.

~~~
protomyth
> A school district is a system of assigning kids to schools via address.

I think I'm aware of this, and it is often not what the parent's want used as
a determinate. If someone says they have moved somewhere to get their kids in
a "good" school district then the system has failed.

> In California, the schools are funded equally based on property tax
> collected at the state level. Schools are funded based on how many students
> are sitting in class, not on where they are located.

Except for districts where local property tax portion exceeds the funding
formula levels since the property tax is kept local to the district. Also, CA
schools are funded on more than property taxes such as having an income tax
share.

------
davidf18
What has happened in SF, NYC, London, is that the high cost of housing is
caused by market inefficiencies as pointed out by a number of economists (eg,
Edward Glaeser, Paul Krugman, Tim Harford) called “rent seeking” where
politics is used to artificially limit supply (in this case through zoning
restrictions) to create artificial scarcity. This is true of NYCs 13,000 limit
on Taxi medallions which caused them to have a market value of $1.2 million
until Uber came along and provided alternatives (the values have dropped to
about $700k).

The “rent seeking” is a regressive tax which transfers wealth to billionaire
real-estate developers like Donald Trump from the middle class and the poor.
It also harms the economy as a whole since more income is going towards rent
and housing mortgages less income is going towards goods and services. It also
artificially limits construction so there are few fewer construction jobs than
there would be if the market inefficiencies were removed.

Edward Glaeser is author of “Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention
Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier”

Tim Harford is author of “The Undercover Economist, Revised and Updated
Edition: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor - and Why You Can
Never Buy a Decent Used Car!”

~~~
tamana
The construction bit seems silly. Everyone lives somewhere, so construction
industry is just more active in exurbs and building more roads. Skyscrapers
are very expensive per unit, they are only a bargain where land is expensive

~~~
davidf18
Many people are living with roommates because of the high cost of housing or
they are living in smaller apartments than they otherwise would. Removing the
politically caused scarcity in land use would ensure more construction as
these people would move into new apartments.

------
shykes
When I moved to the Bay area from France, I was very surprised by the complete
lack of organized government at the regional level. Decisions, planning an
budgeting seem to happen either at the San Francisco level, or at the
California level. That is a huge gap! The result is that nothing ever seems to
get done at the scale of the bay, and SF is left to deal with a problem bigger
than one city. The fact that SF seems to get blamed for everything, without
any visible cooperation with Palo Alto, Mountain View or Cupertino, is absurd.

Contrast this with France which, for all its flaws, has an intermediate level
of government called "region" with actual decision-making power and budgets.
The result is an exceptionally good transportation infrastructure and overall
decent housing situation in the "greater Paris" region, which has 3x the
population density of SF and a much larger population than the bay overall.

If the city of Paris alone were left to deal with the challenges of a fast-
growing population hub, then there would be no counter-balance to the natural
inter-city politics and they too would have a non-existent transportation
network and an embarrassing lack of adequate housing.

~~~
bufordsharkley
I think this is a big reason why Los Angeles does (when compared to the Bay
Area) an adequate job at delivering public transit-- unified governance over
the entire city allows for this, as opposed to the power than any mid-
peninsula city has to stop the advance of subway lines.

------
Decade
These articles always pit “newcomers” like Sonja Trauss (2012, originally from
Philadelphia) against “long-time residents” like Jennifer Fieber (1990 from
wherever).

What about my generation: Kids born in San Francisco, who are growing up in a
city where either we stay with our parents indefinitely, we move into tech, or
we move out of the area. In terms of the economy, we are newcomers, but in
terms of community, we’re losing our friends and family. We need more room so
we can move out of our parents’ houses.

So, when I see people like Fieber campaigning against more housing, I find it
quite upsetting. This is the past stealing from the future.

~~~
SonjaKT
YEP! +1 SF has 11,000 "newcomers" per year that come here by being born here.
Some of my most active volunteers are in just the situation you're describing
- frustrated by the stress on their families caused by the kids either having
to stay at home or move far away.

The councilman from Mountain View who was instrumental in getting the 8000 new
homes approved down there was anti-growth his whole life, until a couple years
ago when both of his children, both in their 20s, were still living with him.
It was a revelation for him. heh.

------
raldi
The audio clip from the Lafayette city manager smears BARF by implying the
group is trying to destroy the Bay Area's wilderness.

In actuality, the efforts over there involve a large area of land that
Lafayette wants to use for a single-family-housing development, whereas BARF
believes that state law requires it to be used for apartment buildings.

Also, if you want to preserve the region's wilderness, the last thing you want
to do is obstruct housing density in the urban center. That just pushes people
to sprawl outward into the surrounding countryside.

------
salimmadjd
SV is becoming a real estate business instead of tech. When you have 50% or
more of salaries spent on rent or mortgage then so much of the revenue
generated is just lost into real estate instead of innovation growth,
investment and R&D.

I don't understand why FB, Apple, Google, etc. do not lobby hard the local
cities and push to build 100,000 new units. It'll bring the rent or house
prices down and it will allow many new startups to afford local hires or bring
developers over here.

~~~
mrep
They've tried before and it hardly ever works.

I remember reading an article a few years ago about google trying to build
1000+ housing units in mountain view and the town shut them down as they
didn't want the town to become controlled by Googlers.

Edit: @joe_the_user posted a link about facebook trying to

~~~
mtviewdave
There are currently plans to build over 10,000 units in North Bayshore (the
area around Google's campus):

[http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2016/03/03/council-oks-plans-
fo...](http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2016/03/03/council-oks-plans-for-dense-
housing-in-north-bayshore)

------
gorkemyurt
Article doesn't mention that none of the developers are trying to raze down
beautiful Victorian houses to build skyscrapers. Most of SF, West of Van Ness
avenue, remains untouched, even the super ugly single family houses in
Richmond and Sunset. All the development is happening in Eastern
Neighborhoods; SOMA, Mission Bay and Central Waterfront.

A very small percentage of the construction overall that's happening in the
Mission district and Potrero hill is creating all this anti development noise.
Even in these neighborhoods developers just want to build housing in
underutilized land..

like this laundromat: [http://sf.curbed.com/2014/5/23/10095908/38-housing-
units-pro...](http://sf.curbed.com/2014/5/23/10095908/38-housing-units-
proposed-for-mission-street-laundromat)

or a graffiti lined warehouse:
[http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-
estate/201...](http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-
estate/2015/06/mission-housing-development-to-replace-moratorium.html#g1)

------
brianmcconnell
Twenty year SF resident here, and property owner. I am consistently amazed at
how selfish a lot of people here are. They'll talk about how pro-housing they
are, until someone bulldozes a teardown home on their street and _gasp_ builds
infill development.

I am one of the last single family homes on my street, and as much as I would
like it to remain a quaint little street, it needs denser development, so I've
never complained about the condos going up. My property rights end at my
property line (simple concept but one that confounds weak minds who can't be
bothered to read the fine print when they bought their place).

~~~
kafkaesq
_My property rights end at my property line (simple concept but one that
confounds weak minds who can 't be bothered to read the fine print when they
bought their place)._

Zoning is a bit more complex than that. And isn't simply about "property
rights."

------
pfarnsworth
The problem is that the Bay Area has too much money. Period, end of story. You
can't fix things by going unregulated.

Douglas Rushkoff talks about how Internet companies these days are extractive,
and Facebook is the prime example of this. (I'm not demonizing Facebook in any
way, I respect the hell out of them.) The nature of how they make money is
that they have users from around the world, and all their money essentially
flows from those countries of origin into Menlo Park. It's extractive, and
there's more money flowing into Menlo Park than would have normally occurred
without a global economy. The same goes with Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, etc.
There's an inordinate amount of money flowing into the Valley because of this
globally extractive nature of the Internet and that's the problem.

So now, Facebook et al can afford to hire very good engineers. Friends of mine
with 8-10 years of experience are making $180-200k with 15% bonus and $350,000
in RSUs over 4 years. That figure is unbelievable. Over 4 years they are
making over $1,300,000 each. And they are good but run-of-the-mill engineers
that passed the interview. I'm assuming all the engineers at places like
Netflix, LinkedIn, Salesforce, Google, etc are all making equivalent amounts
of money, or more.

How can anyone in a "normal" job compete against this? My kids' daycare
teachers make $40-50,000/yr. Two Facebook engineers make more money than the
entire daycare that my children go to. Of course there is going to be rampant
inflation across the board when there is so much money circulating in this
area. Things like Uber can thrive because it's cheap relative to time.

So, deregulation is not the answer because it will just be exploited by the
rich. Do you really think that rampant building across the

The only answer is for companies like Facebook to distribute their workforce
back around the US or around the world. Having Silicon Valley being the money
capital of the world is causing this problem, just like it does for Wall
Street. Facebook, Google, etc, need to move their workforce around, with real
equal development centers in the MidWest, in the South, on the East Coast, in
Europe, Africa, Asia. This will distribute the money and cause income
inequality to abate here.

This is the only answer. You can't stop it with deregulation, or even
regulation, because the money won't stop flowing.

~~~
drumdance
So do you feel like Saudia Arabia is extracting money from the West? And while
we worry about being dependent on foreign energy sources, should they be
worried about foreign money sources?

Google and Facebook succeed in part because they attract the best engineers.
Those people aren't going to move to the midwest or wherever just because it's
"better" for the economy.

It's called trade.

~~~
pfarnsworth
Look at the inordinate amount of wealth built up in Saudi Arabia along with
its massive income inequality and then you tell me.

~~~
drumdance
One may as well pass a law banning high tide.

------
SonjaKT
Hi guys, it's me, Sonja Trauss, AMA.

~~~
Decade
One of your volunteers got me involved with the Balboa Reservoir CAC, so I’ve
been going to those meetings, except when they reschedule it to Wednesday
evening (I already have something scheduled for Wednesday evening, why do they
keep rescheduling transportation to Wednesday evening, I wanted to hear the
presentation), and I wonder, do you see benefit in having heavy BARF
representation in so few meetings?

A bunch showed up for a meeting early last year, and then disappeared until
February, when the committee published the revision to lower the maximum
allowed density. For the rest of the year, local anti-housing residents
complained about those invaders from Oakland (such provincialism!) without
much counter-point. And a contingent from the Mission keeps pushing to
associate random Spanish words with unrealistic economic policies. (“I come
from Poder, and I believe in 100% affordable housing!”)

It seems that small community meetings have outsized political influence, but
I have a busy life. I like my job, I volunteer to tutor kids in math and
science in the evening, and sometimes I cook and clean. How can I increase my
influence in community politics?

~~~
SonjaKT
Oh this is great.

Yeah the Balboa CAC meetings are particularly frustrating. The answer is yes -
there is benefit to SFBARF representation at the Res meetings. It's not
obvious, but on the CAC there are pro building people, and having supportive
people commenting helps them argue that housing at the reservoir is something
people want. I know it helps because I got calls and emails asking me to
encourage people to go when we hadn't been there for a while. If our presence
didn't matter, no one would have complained when we weren't there. :D

However much you can go is good. When you're there introduce yourself to the
CAC members, and chat them up. Definitely testify whenever you get a chance.
Especially trade information with whichever CAC members seem the most pro-
building and let them know they should get in touch with you for particularly
important meetings or if they need a letter written.

For spring - vote for the pro-housing slate, that's easy at least
www.sfyimby.org/slate/

------
willholloway
With the secular urbanization trend created by the consolidation of jobs in
the city for work, contrarians that can work remotely have an incredible
opportunity for easy living.

I've given up on living in major metro areas and the rat race it entails.

I tried it in a few different cities, and it was fun in my 20's. But now at
31, I want to semi-retire, do some remote consulting and work on my ideas.

There are a lot of places that let you do this, Southeastern Connecticut is
one. You don't need much money at all, and it's very doable for competent
developers.

Get a good deal on a multi-family house, let the tenant(s) pay all your
housing costs.

Find some remote work. Find someone with a sailboat that needs to sell quick,
get a deal. Spend the summer on the water. Keep a small nut, stay free.

Take Amtrak to NYC, or Boston, get hotel rooms for short trips or find someone
that will cut a deal for a room mate that only wants to come in a few weekends
a month for all your city excitement needs.

Make some friends in Providence and take the short drive on 95 to play disk
golf with them or go to concerts.

You can rent a million+ waterfront home for the fall, winter and spring for <
$1,000 a month here.

I had always wanted to take a startup all the way to a big exit for the FU
money I thought I needed to be free. It turns out you don't even really needs
millions to live life on your own terms if you do it in the right place.

If you do it right you can spend 1.5-2x Thailand/Vietnam digital nomad costs
in quiet, scenic, pockets of the Northeast Megalopolis.

~~~
beachstartup
i know of people doing this in vermont and oregon.

------
dawhizkid
Anyone else in SF notice rents have either stabilized or gone down a bit?

~~~
tommoor
They have indeed, decent 1 bed in downtown is ~2800 now instead of 3000+ a
year ago

------
Animats
SF just needs to get 60,000 people to move out to get back to 2000.

One possibility is to take over Colma, the city of cemeteries. Living
population 1,792, area 1.9 square miles. South San Francisco could take more
apartments. South San Francisco has an abandoned railyard, a demolished
ballpark, and a large dump.

------
alanh
[http://www.sfbarf.org](http://www.sfbarf.org) ← The organization mentioned in
the article. You can apparently sign up for ~4x/year email from them. Seems
like a no-brainer for concerned locals.

------
Tempest1981
In March 2016, there was a slowing of job growth (increase of only 1300, vs.
8700 in February). Jobs actually decreased in the "San Francisco Area", but
grew in South Bay and East Bay:

[http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_29771531/bay-area-
job...](http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_29771531/bay-area-job-gains-
slow-sharply-but-south)

Nice summary graphic:
[http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay...](http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=7489112)

------
narrator
Serious question: why does everyone have to live in San Francisco? There are
lots and lots of cheaper places to live and work, but it seems there is
something that only San Francisco can do that everywhere else can't. Why
aren't city planners working on creating that special "whateveritis" in their
city as fast as possible?

I don't want any pat answers like "the people are there" or "the jobs are
there" because that's basically a tautology saying "everybody is there because
everybody is there".

~~~
superuser2
It's not a tautology. As an employee, taking a job somewhere that is not a
tech hub means that when it's time for the next job, you probably have to
move. Moving cross country with the frequency that SV engineers hop between
startups is a horrible way to live.

If, as an employer, you move somewhere that is not a tech hub, people who can
get what they need from San Francisco won't follow you.

You could in principle have a tech hub somewhere else, but there's a major
synchronization problem there, and more pressingly anywhere you put a large
number of high income earners is going to see rents rise sharply, at least in
the short term, and people who live there don't want that. So it's not
necessarily going to be any better than SF.

~~~
noobermin
>There's a major synchronization problem

I think the "having to move for your next job" makes sense, but what is this
major synchronization problem you are talking about? Could you expand upon
this?

~~~
superuser2
The major SV/SF tech companies and employees aren't all going to decide to
move to Omaha on the same day. For a new city to become a tech hub, some
people have to take the risk of living in a non-tech-hub city for a few years
while it becomes one (and if it doesn't, well, sucks for them).

~~~
noobermin
Sounds like you meant something closer to "equilibrating" instead of
synchronizing, at least that makes more sense for me as a scientist.

------
intrasight
In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the residences of a city saying
"this city is done". I'm not saying that I agree with SF being "done". It's
not all that different from arguing with a manager asking when some complex IT
system is going to be "done". My answer is always the same - it will never be
done until you pull the plug on it. But back to cities like SF. Who other than
the people who live there should be able to say it's done in terms of new
development? I certainly don't want to give a vote to anyone who benefits from
development (unless they live in the city, and in that case their vote should
count no more or less than anybody else).

There is plenty of good greenfield and brownfield space in the USA. Developers
and people that want cheaper housing have places to go. There are so many
great medium and large sized cities. There are places that may very well be
the next SF. If I were a young adult, I'd be collaborating with other like-
minded young adults to do some urban homesteading. But do your homework. And
decide if what you are trying to do is get in on the ground floor of the "next
happening thing" or just find a place that you like just the way it is. Rarely
if ever can you have both. Go to local planning meetings to verify that others
mostly share you point of view. And later when other claim NIMBYism, call them
out on it and say "we came here because we like the way it is and want to keep
it that way". That is neither elitist nor racist. The consensus may change -
that is democracy. If the place you are changes into something you don't like
then just go look for a new place. Change can be a good thing. It clears away
the cobwebs and detritus of being in one place too long.

Clearly this "5th-generation San Franciscan" thing carries no weight. One's
dead ancestors don't get to vote.

------
cm3
There are so many nice places to live in the US, why is remote work not more
prevalent? Yes, it's nice to meet face to face, but there are many jobs where
remote is perfectly possible and saves a lot of resources. Also it's a lot
more fun if you only meet face to face occasionally.

------
tomjacobs
12,000 people moved to San Francisco in 2014. How many new units of housing
were built? Almost 4,000!

What housing crisis? [https://medium.com/@TomPJacobs/what-housing-
crisis-3c0568a5d...](https://medium.com/@TomPJacobs/what-housing-
crisis-3c0568a5dd44)

~~~
raldi
Actually, 64,000 people moved to San Francisco in 2014.

7,000 moved into the 4,000 new housing units that were built.

5,000 crowded in with existing residents.

52,000 displaced 52,000 existing residents.

Source: [http://www.sfexaminer.com/exposing-special-interests-room-
ba...](http://www.sfexaminer.com/exposing-special-interests-room-ballot-box/)

~~~
timr
No. You're reading that incorrectly.

That article says that 64k people were born or moved here, and that 63k moved
out or died, for a net population gain of 1k.

(EDIT: I misattributed this. That's Aaron Peskin's reading of the ACS numbers,
which appear to be low. The actual ACS numbers suggest that the net gain has
been around 12k per year since 2010. Still nowhere near a 64k net gain per
year.)

SF has grown by about 45k (edit: 60k) residents since 2010 -- which, by the
way, is about 70% faster than average growth rates since the 1980s. No city
can handle that level of hypergrowth without problems.

[http://sf.curbed.com/2015/2/4/9995388/sfs-population-is-
grow...](http://sf.curbed.com/2015/2/4/9995388/sfs-population-is-growing-way-
faster-than-its-housing-stock)

~~~
raldi
_> That article says that 64k people were born or moved here, and that 63k
moved out or died, for a net population gain of 1k._

No, it really doesn't. Could you quote the part of the article that leads you
to that conclusion?

Here's the quote from the article that leads me to a different conclusion
(that population growth was ten times higher): "In order to make room for the
52,000 people who come here each year that aren’t accommodated by new building
or by crowding, 52,000 current residents have to leave [and] about 12,000 of
those new people become a net addition to our city"

Here's another: "The population estimate for San Francisco in 2014 is 852,537.
The estimate for 2015 is 864,816. This represents a population increase of
12,279"

 _> No city can handle [9,000 new people per year] without problems._

Certainly not insurmountable problems; Manhattan went from 942,292 people in
1870 to 1,164,673 in 1880.

San Francisco went from 506,676 in 1920 to 634,394 in 1930.

Shanghai did this: [http://apps.chicagotribune.com/news/chicago-architecture-
in-...](http://apps.chicagotribune.com/news/chicago-architecture-in-
china/img/grfc-shanghai.png)

What kind of problems are you referring to, and are they really worse than the
horrific housing and displacement problems they would solve?

~~~
timr
I was wrong about the 1k net -- that's the article's quote from Aaron Peskin,
which I read as their summary. But your original comment ("64,000 in 2014") is
still way off:

 _“This official census data [the American Community Survey] shows a one-year
in-migration of 63,991 people, with an out-migration of 62,757 residents — a
net population increase of 1,234.”_

That's the article's quote from Peskin. The article contends he's wrong, and
that the net migration, per year since 2010, is ~10k.

The actual census website [1] says that SF had a population of 805k in 2010,
and estimates that it will be 865k by 2015. So ~12k per year, net. Peskin's
numbers look low, but your original claim ("64,000 in 2014") is wrong by a
factor of >500%.

 _" Certainly not insurmountable problems; Manhattan went from 942,292 people
in 1870 to 1,164,673 in 1880."_

If you think that Manhattan was a magical wonderland between 1870 and 1880, I
suggest you pick up a history book. It was a brutal time for poor people in
that city. [2]

[1]
[http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/06075](http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/06075)
[2]
[http://www.livingcityarchive.org/htm/decades/1870.htm](http://www.livingcityarchive.org/htm/decades/1870.htm)

~~~
raldi
_> Peskin's numbers look low, but your original claim ("64,000 in 2014") is
wrong by a factor of >500%._

You misread my comment. I never claimed a net gain of 64,000 people. I said
that 64,000 people moved in in 2014, 52,000 moved out, for a net gain of
12,000 people. This is exactly in line with your census numbers.

~~~
timr
You said that 64,000 people moved in (incorrect; some were born) and that
52,000 were "displaced" (also incorrect).

Every large city has a flux of people moving in and out, constantly. What
matters is the net change. You can't simply take the top-line number, subtract
housing, and conclude that everyone else was "displaced".

------
thegayngler
I guess I think they should keep things as they are and let the prices keep
going up. Sure people will be displaced. Ohhh well. The free market can sort
this out. Companies have to go set up shop somewhere else to get their needs
met and likely for cheaper. Prices will come down in San Francisco and some
other city who is more willing to accommodate the tech industry will arise. I
think Austin Texas or Portland or LA or Atlanta would be happy to accommodate
the tech industry.

------
lalala12399
I can't tell you how many people I know making very good money in tech and
finance living in rent-controlled units paying ridiculously low rents in SF.

~~~
long
What's an example ridiculously low rent?

~~~
refurb
$900 per month for a one bedroom unit, with parking, in the Mission.

------
everyone
Why is the bay area important? In the software industry, in theory, where you
are should be irrelevant as long as you have decent internet. Why not just
choose a city that has the requirements your business needs and set up there.
One example I can think of is Id deciding to set up Austin.

~~~
cylinder
It will happen more when the current cycle of tech enters maturity. Right now
shareholders just want Growth! and don't care about profits. Once the big
companies enter maturity, they will be forced to cut costs, and salaries will
come down, real estate costs will be scrutinized so offices will be spread
around the world.

It happens in every industry, it is nothing new and will happen in tech.

~~~
someguydave
Agreed. As someone who owns san francisco/sv companies via my s&p 500 fund,
I'm disappointed that their boards aren't considering their fiduciary duty to
contain real estate and salary costs.

After all, what percentage of the highly paid tech workers come from elsewhere
in the US? Is there really a justification for them to all be present
physically in san francisco other than to swell the egos of their bosses?

------
old-gregg
I suspect that building more will not make a dent because everyone (at least
everyone here in HN comments) assumes that more construction is the solution
with _everything else_ staying the same. But it won't.

More housing will bring more people. SF is one of the most desirable places in
the world to live, with striving economy, great climate, liberal culture and
breathtaking scenery. Half of Americans want to live in SF, and probably
billions world wide.

Building insane amount of additional housing units in SF, say 4,000,000, will
result in Bay Area economy expanding even further, more companies will be
created and the existing ones will probably grow faster. SF will completely
eclipse NYC as the economic powerhouse and we'll have 5MM people living in
skyscrapers with 1br apartments going for the same $4K/mo as they are now: see
Hong Kong.

~~~
Apocryphon
There's a lot more space in the Bay Area. If we truly put our minds to it, we
could expand from Novato to Gilroy, from Pacifica to Contra Costa.

------
nosefrog
If you live in SF and want to do something about the housing crisis, vote with
us on May 10th: [http://www.sfyimby.org/](http://www.sfyimby.org/)

------
spoonie
Would reduced housing costs put downward pressure on salaries? Or could some
combination of growth/competition keep them where they are?

------
Animats
Move YCombinator out of Silicon Valley and the SF housing problem will go
away. Too many startups in too small an area.

Livermore, perhaps.

------
tryitnow
"We really need everything right now"

I support more building but I can't agree with the above. Straus's statement
is the embodiment of the kind of short term thinking that inevitably leads to
planning disasters.

------
make3
What a long, sparse on content article.

------
rokhayakebe
Why can't people just move out? Take 1000 people/families and go start your
own min SF elsewhere.

~~~
tamana
Because there's demand for labor in SF.

------
siculars
The solution is terminally simple:

_All_ new development must include 10% to 20% of units to low income people.

Everywhere. SF. NYC. LA. etc. The end.

~~~
guard-of-terra
How would those low income people be determined? Lottery? First come first
serve?

I think that this solution in actually employed in Russia, and it kind of
works in half-assed way, but does not produce any miracles.

