
A startup is filling SF's empty luxury rentals - derwiki
http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Startup-is-quietly-packing-SF-s-empty-luxury-11039436.php
======
thedarkginger
Maybe I am reading into this but I feel like the author makes this sound
nefarious and really uncommon.

When I was moving to the South Bay and had only two weeks to figure out my
plan, can't tell you how many somewhat affordable room rentals in non-luxury
apartments had crazier setups.

Some of my favorites: 1\. Spacious open room with bed (it was someone's garage
with a sheet down and a mattress on top of the concrete)

2\. Pretty common: nice place but you were not allowed to use the kitchen

3\. Converted Living Room (no joke, the photo was a twin bed in a living room
with Office Depot boxes to create a divider)

So yeah, I get why someone would share a room in exchange for having some
amenities.

~~~
John23832
Number 2 always stuck out to me on rental listings... Why would I want to live
somewhere where I couldn't use a vital function of a home/shelter?

~~~
aianus
It makes me angry that I have to pay for a kitchen by law (if I rent or buy a
whole 'dwelling'), despite never cooking.

Different strokes.

~~~
teh_klev
I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not :/

~~~
CamelCaseName
Would you be happy if you had to pay for a toolshed by law?

Yes, you have to keep your grass short, but why do you need to pay for a
toolshed to store your lawn mower when you might just want to hire someone
instead and not waste time?

You don't need a kitchen any more than you need a toolshed, and it sucks to be
forced to pay for something you don't use, especially when every inch costs
you.

~~~
crystalPalace
Some people have unique situations and do not need the use of a kitchen at
all. My diet consists entirely of bottled Soylent and protein bars. I never
need to cook or utilize any other functions provided by a kitchen.

~~~
teh_klev
I reckon the number of folks who claim never to have any need of a kitchen is
probably a statistical rounding error, well maybe only slightly more if SF.

But good luck trying to flog your flat or house to the next potential owner
when you decided to rip out the worktops, hob etc to re-purpose the kitchen
for some other non-food activity.

I thought I'd heard it all regarding peculiar habitation behaviours until this
sub-thread.

~~~
aianus
If it's going to be so hard to flog anyways then why does government feel the
need to mandate kitchens? Sounds like the free market should take care of it.

------
closeparen
> market glut of dense, expensive housing. Since the beginning of 2015, nearly
> 22,000 units have been built or approved in San Francisco (excluding the
> massive Candlestick Point development). Of these, 19,500—89 percent—are
> “above moderate,” meaning they can likely only be afforded by individuals
> making more than $90,000 a year. “We are in the midst of the biggest
> apartment-building boom since World War II,” says Patrick Carlisle, chief
> market analyst at the Paragon Real Estate Group.

The author insinuating that enough housing has already been built, or that
building doesn't bring rents down, is pretty rage-inducing.

How many new _people_ have started seeking housing in San Francisco since
2015? I'm going to guess it's more like 200,000.

~~~
falsedan
200k in the Bay, maybe. SF city population is 800k-odd, no way there's 25%
churn in two years…

The message I got was that the new housing is aimed at top of market when mid
& low end is where it's really needed.

~~~
ufo
That said, if someone moves from an older (and therefore cheaper) apartment
into one of the new and expensive apartments it frees up some mid&low end
housing.

~~~
seanp2k2
Most rent-control laws allow re-pricing to market prices when someone moves
out, so someone moving out doesn't typically open up that same price point.
You end up with situations where your next-door neighbor is paying half as
much for the same apartment. Property owners and real estate developers aren't
going to price units lower out of the goodness of their hearts, or due to
"supply and demand"...they're happy to let $3k/month 1bedrooms sit empty until
some sucker comes along to pay their ransom. By colluding to create a
situation where one can't get a studio below $2600/month in SF proper, they
can ensure slow but steady growth.

It'd be a great experiment if someone had the cash to do it: open an apartment
tower with units priced much closer to their actual cost in SF. It'd probably
be around 30% of what they currently go for.

~~~
m0llusk
No they are not happy. This is why there are deals on apartments in many
buildings with vacancies. A great example of this is the big "L7" complex that
just started renting the first finished units at 8th and Harrison. Those
studios are advertised as $3000/mo but with two free months now given to those
who lease for a year which means they are actually $2500/mo units. This kind
of gaming is going on all over the market and there will probably be some
property owners slash bag holders selling off assets and being restructured in
order to get through this. Much of the recent construction was based on the
idea that the market could support any amount of luxury units that were built.
The current slump is testing that.

------
gmarx
So they are building too much luxury housing which normally would cause prices
to go down but fortunately a startup is making it easier to pack people in
like college students or illegal migrants? Wonderbar.

If I rented a "luxury" apartment by myself and found I was living next door to
5-10 people crammed into one place I'd be pretty angry.

~~~
galdosdi
Why the heck would that make you angry? What's it to ya?

~~~
JimboOmega
So they overuse the shared resources - the other poster mentioned elevators,
but also gym, parking, etc etc.

But also the more people, the higher the odds that there's one of them that
just has to do whatever obnoxious thing - like smoke, make noise at all hours,
etc etc. Nobody agrees on whose responsibility taking out the trash it is so
it piles up and smells.

Vetting can reduce but not eliminate that.

Nobody wants to be next to the "Frat apartment" that is always partying at 2AM
on a weeknight.

~~~
galdosdi
Thanks for explaining, I didn't even think of shared resources since I've
never lived in such a place (and find the idea odd -- wouldn't it be safer,
providing more choice, NOT to get all your services from one provider?)

Shouldn't a luxury place have good walls in place to avoid noise though? Seems
like a luxury place that doesn't do this is kind of a scam.

~~~
JimboOmega
Things like elevators and hallways are really pretty basic, and not subject to
choice. But then, many people choose to live in detached houses so they don't
have to rely on cooperating with neighbors for anything (I guess there are
always shared civic resources, like water/sewer/streets, but you get the
idea).

I honestly don't know when it comes to walls. I've asked at a bunch of places
and the answer seems to be a variant of "they're normal, I guess?"

Your neighbors having a small house party with ~10 people over, a few drinks,
some music is one thing. It's when it becomes very big and/or intoxicated
event that it becomes a huge pain.

People barfing in the stairwells, physically running into the walls, ringing
the neighbor's doorbell at 2am because they can't figure out where they're
going (or need to lean on it to keep from collapsing). My last apartment was
next to a perpetual AirBnB where these kind of things were sometimes a problem
(probably < 5 % of the tenants, but 1 out of 20 nights of noise at all hours
still sucks)

My current apartment does not have these issues. I still have the sirens and
motorcycles of a very busy street to deal with, but earplugs deal with that
well enough to leave the windows open at night.

------
atria
Interesting. It looks like they are not subletting/subleasing, but working
with property management companies to sign up tenants. They are basically
offering a service to match tenants and collect payment without any risk of
dealing with roomate issues. The tenants sign a lease directly with the
property management company.

The are probably "quiet" about it because they don't want property managers to
do it themselves.

I looked at one apartment complext LSeven. The floorplan 2bd/2ba goes for
$4,683, but HomeShare is probably collecting $6,300 per month on that unit.

I had roomates in college. I would never, ever do that ever again.

I had one roomate who would masterbate at night on the couch in the living
room, and seemed to think it was acceptable behavior. Had another one who
would come in after 2 am strip down and fall asleep on the couch in his
whitey-tighty underwear while watching ESPN. I've had to kick out roomates
that stopped paying rent. I had a roomate break our lease so he could move in
with his ex-girlfriend so he could try to save their relationship -- and that
didn't work out so well for him.

~~~
csomar
Seems to me like you didn't vet your roommates carefully. I have had one
roommate in my whole life (maybe lived together for 6 months). I was a bit of
a pain in his ass as I was obsessing a lot over cleanliness of the place but
we managed quite well. We had guests come over, parties, bring GF/Date and
allocate time for the other guy to have sex (it was a studio). So I think it
can be managed, you just need to vet carefully and be strict.

------
gojomo

       Skyscrapers bloom in America
       Cadillacs zoom in America
       Industry boom in America
       12 to a room in America
    

`America`, West Side Story, 1961

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy6wo2wpT2k&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy6wo2wpT2k&feature=youtu.be&t=2m20s)

------
friedman23
The only thing luxurious about some of these apartments is that they cost a
lot and sometimes have air conditioning and heating.

~~~
falsedan
> _sometimes have air conditioning and heating_

For SF, having both _is_ a luxury!

~~~
friedman23
Yes but in the rest of the US it isn't

~~~
falsedan
That's grand pal

~~~
friedman23
What? Don't like being told your city is screwed up?

------
hardtke
A lot of these new buildings are in less desirable neighborhoods. SOMA is
desirable from a convenience to freeways and work standpoint, but it does not
have the charm of the more established neighborhoods. I wonder if some of the
glut is simply that the new housing is in areas where high end renters don't
want to live.

~~~
Hydraulix989
Everything (restaurants) closes at 4 PM too in SOMA because people go to SOMA
to work but don't live there.

------
johan_larson
I think the startup industry in SF is, in its own odd sort of way, sending a
clear message to young people: "Get married." You can share an apartment, and
you don't need separate bedrooms.

~~~
paulddraper
And the tax incentives!

------
stale2002
I was looking into homeshare a while ago, and it is a reasonable deal.

They take spacious 2 bedroom apartments and put 3-5 people in them, by
converting the living room.

(currently I am living in a 2 bedroom with 3 people in it, via Craigslist . )

It is a moderately better situation than living in a college dorm.

So the article is way overblown with its talk of "giving up privacy".

~~~
user5994461
> It is a moderately better situation than living in a college dorm.

That is not a good situation by any standard.

Maybe that's okay when you're a broke 20 yo student with no income.

~~~
stale2002
Basically everyone I know in the bay area lives with a roommate, and these are
well paid software engineers.

Renting out the living room of your apartment is usually a pretty good deal,
and is perfectly normal.

Sure, if you start to talk about hacker house levels of bad, that sucks. But
this is NOT that.

~~~
kspaans
Is it legal though? Both according to your lease and according to occupancy
laws? (Referring to over-occupancy by renting out living rooms and/or multiple
people per room.)

~~~
stale2002
Yes it is legal. The apartment complex that I am living in allows 5 people to
a 2 person bedroom, and I've seen a couple groups do that.

Renting out the living room or even putting 2 people to a room is almost
always legal.

Over occupancy laws only come into play in completely ridiculous situations
like 3 people to a room and up.

~~~
almost_usual
"Unapproved subtenant (approval can be either stated or implied) is the only
person still remaining in the unit (subtenant holding over)"

Here is a list of just causes for eviction in San Francisco.
[https://www.sftu.org/justcauses/](https://www.sftu.org/justcauses/)

~~~
stale2002
They are not unapproved though.

The way these things work is that the apartment complex puts you on the lease!
That is by definition approved.

------
yonran
That so-called “luxury” apartments end up getting rented to students and
entry-level workers (even if they have to share) should be celebrated, not
mocked or viewed with suspicion. Hopefully, it will be a sign that developers
will start to target the broader market in earnest in the near future. But the
article spins it as some nefarious plot, and anti-displacement groups (of the
supply and demand denier type) share it cynically without even realizing that
it is positive news[1]

[1]
[https://www.facebook.com/Vanishingsf/posts/647239248801218](https://www.facebook.com/Vanishingsf/posts/647239248801218)

------
altonzheng
I've noticed the huge wave of new luxury apartments being completed. I wonder
why they don't lower the rental prices instead of partnering with HomeShare.

~~~
falsedan
I guess, because they get more money this way.

------
wankerrific
I thought building tons of apartments and kicking people out of stable living
situations was supposed to decrease rents.

Apparently the investors/builders have a price floor they cant go under else
the situation becomes financially unviable.

Also - it would appear that several of these new builds are having a tough
time filling units at luxury prices.

Who knew?! I thought if we just kept building the market fairy would magically
lower prices everywhere.

~~~
beatpanda
Also, I'd love to hear more about how building a high rise on what used to be
a parking lot involves "kicking people out of stable living situations"

~~~
yonran
Indeed, _none_ of the new buildings that Homeshare advertises displaced any
residences. It’s a common misconception that construction in San Francisco
displaces housing. It was true during Redevelopment, but it is not the case
with the past couple decades of construction.

• 1222 Harrison St was a bus depot[1]

• 340 Fremont St used to be a few “institutional” buildings including the
“Seafarer’s Union” building[2][3]

• 1010 16th St aka Daggett Project was a paint factory[4]

• 1333 Powell St, Emeryville aka Parkside Project was a couple office
buildings and large parking lots[5]

[1]
[http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/12/the_massive_plans...](http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/12/the_massive_plans_for_the_shortsited_soma_site_at_8th_a.html)

[2]
[http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/09/340_fremont_scoop...](http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/09/340_fremont_scoop_permits_pulled_for_400_foot_tower.html)

[3] [http://sf-
planning.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Docume...](http://sf-
planning.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/24-2000.1081E_Rincon_Hill_Plan_EIR_Part_1.pdf)

[4] [http://oewd.org/daggett-project](http://oewd.org/daggett-project)

[5]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZkY04cvzUE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZkY04cvzUE)

------
angryasian
How do they get around violating rental leases ? Are they essentially
subletting ?

~~~
sushid
It looks like they quietly make agreements with the corporate housing
developers beforehand. They don't want the deal to be publicized since it's
not good for their image.

------
QML
This was one of the plans I had for housing next year as a college student. My
friend had invited me to share the living room with another person in a
2-bedroom apartment that goes for $4400 a month; splitting the costs, we
would've paid around $750 a person. The deal with the manager turned south,
however, because he wanted to increase the rent. Now I'm aiming for a
1-bedroom apartment or studio to share with my brother that typically goes for
$2000+. This is Berkeley we're talking about, so I can't imagine how crazy it
is in San Francisco.

~~~
tsunamifury
Hate to break it to you, but Berkeley is going to be more expensive to rent
than SF.

~~~
closeparen
Absolutely not. I pay $2500 for a 650sqft 1-bedroom in West Berkeley with a
parking space. The fixtures are a little cheap, but it's 2001 construction in
good shape with solid noise isolation, no pests, etc. The location is urban
infill, so industrial, but safe, and similar apartment buildings are popping
up around it. It's an obnoxiously long walk (or longer bus ride) to BART, but
if you're willing to drive/Uber to a station, the location is fine.

Last I checked, similar units in SF were running at least $3800.

Yes, I could have a crappier apartment, or a shared apartment, or no parking,
or several of the above, for a little less in SF. Berkeley is still my best
option.

If 2-3 of my peers decide to live in the same amount of space I claim for
myself, then the price will rise until the only way I can afford to live here
is by sharing with 2-3 people. So while I am excited about the new housing
construction in my neighborhood, I am not very excited about HomeShare.

------
ajsharp
stay hungry. stay foolish.

------
rexicus
> quietly

when pretending your article isn't clickbait or can't work a scare quote in
your headline

~~~
sctb
Thanks! We've removed that from the HN headline.

