
Changing San Francisco is foreseen as a haven for wealthy and childless (1981) - raldi
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/09/us/changing-san-francisco-is-foreseen-as-a-haven-for-wealthy-and-childless.html?l=0
======
ucaetano
San Francisco has 50% more land area than Manhattan, 15% more area than Paris.

It has half the population of Manhattan, and roughly 1/3 of Paris. SF is
mostly low-density houses, with a small mid-density area in the east 1/3\. It
could be easily converted to a mid-density city with widespread public
transportation by opening west of Van Ness for development, while charging
development fees to fund expansion of public transportation.

But there are way too many entrenched interests preventing that. Guess that
the only way out is to wait for the next big one.

~~~
nugget
The market always corrects itself. San Francisco's high prices will continue
to create an exodus of young talent which should help support a second Silicon
Valley type nexus, whether that be in Seattle, Austin, New York, or elsewhere.
It was interesting to hear Yelp call out high developer salaries on their last
earnings call. Companies are starting to invest in satellite offices and this
will have long term consequences.

~~~
raldi
_> The market always corrects itself._

"In the long run, we're all dead." -Keynes

It took generations for a second Motor City to emerge outside of Detroit. New
York is still the unchallenged capital of the finance and fashion worlds.
There's no "Second Hollywood" in the United States. There's a Reno and an
Atlantic City, but neither holds a candle to Las Vegas.

What makes you so certain tech will have an exodus from San Francisco between
now and the year of your retirement?

~~~
Encosia
> There's no "Second Hollywood" in the United States.

Look into what's been going on in Georgia for the past few years. Not a
replacement for Hollywood yet, but it's a good example of how quickly
alternatives can take off due almost entirely to geographic differences in the
cost of doing business.

~~~
jacobolus
Where by “geographic differences in the cost of doing business” you mean
“desperate politicians in a race to the bottom competing over who can waive
the most taxes”.
[http://www.georgia.org/industries/entertainment/production-i...](http://www.georgia.org/industries/entertainment/production-
incentives/)

~~~
echelon
My rent for a two bedroom apartment in Inman Park is $700.

The costs of doing business in Atlanta are significantly less than other
regions.

------
tzs
I was curious and looked up the current rents for apartments that I used to
live in.

Pasadena, CA: $500 in 1988, $1100 now (1 bedroom, 1 bath) (2.96% increase per
year)

Cupertino, CA: $765 in 1988, $2600 now (1 bedroom, 1 bath, 750 sq ft) (4.64%
increase per year) Seattle, WA: $515 in 1992, $1180 now (1 bedroom, 1 bath,
600 sq ft) (3.67% increase pr year)

Silverdale, WA: $705 in 2007, $1200-$1500 now (1 bedroom, 1 bath, 600 sq ft)
(4.95%-7.10% per year)

(And now house, Kitsap County WA, 1400 sq ft on 1/5 acre lot, $1300/month
mortgage, taxes, insurance)

While looking this up, I noticed that Los Angeles and surrounding cities have
a lot of 1 bed/1 bath apartments in OK places for under $800/month. I don't
know why more tech companies aren't heading to Southern California. Good
weather, good rental rates, plenty of first class schools pumping out STEM
people to hire (Caltech, UCLA, Harvey Mudd, USC for instance), diverse
art/cultural attractions, good food city. Commuting isn't bad by car if you
have some flexibility in hours so you can avoid rush hours.

------
pbreit
This whole meme is tired. The whole south, southwest and west 3/4 of the city
are family friendly, less expensive and devoid of dot commers. And for the
most part, very livable.

~~~
raldi
It's true; the more-affordable housing corresponds with the empty areas of
this map:
[http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/105/2/4/San_Francisco...](http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/105/2/4/San_Francisco_subway_map_by_qweqwe321.png)

I think techies just have a stronger desire to live near transit than the
previous generation of San Franciscans did.

~~~
boulos
Proximity to transit options raises prices, which when you need "at least two"
bedrooms is a sizable increase. Like pbreit said above, there are much less
expensive parts of the city, but people mostly decide to leave once they feel
they "must" have a 3 bedroom place or a private yard.

~~~
raldi
I think it's more that they _must_ have proximity to transit, and the ones who
can't afford that figure that if they're going to be forced to live a car-
centric lifestyle, they might as well move out to the suburbs where the prices
are somewhat cheaper than SF's transit-poor neighborhoods.

~~~
tsotha
That's a good observation. For me it's an either/or thing: Either I'm going to
live in an area with good public transit, or I'm going to live in an area
where I can drive a car to work in less than half an hour with convenient,
free parking on both ends.

Transit-poor SF neighborhoods are the worst of both worlds.

------
notacoward
Seems apropos:

"The Uberfication of everything is turning San Francisco into an assisted
living community for the young."

[https://twitter.com/startupljackson/status/40813723253330329...](https://twitter.com/startupljackson/status/408137232533303296)

~~~
raldi
Why just the young? I don't remember there being an age limit to sign up for
Uber.

~~~
notacoward
Probably because the majority of people who can afford to use all those
services all the time are young techies. But then, it's not my tweet.

~~~
raldi
That's not really true, though.

~~~
notacoward
What do you base that on? Who do you think uses these "gig economy" services?
First, people with high disposable income - i.e. not the poor or those with
families. Second, people who are so comfortable with their smartphone apps
that they'll use them to replace _very small_ amounts of time doing the same
things in more traditional ways - i.e. not a lot of old people. Sure, there
are _some_ outliers, but "young techie" pretty well captures the core
demographic here.

~~~
raldi
You're backpedaling. Earlier you said only young people _can afford_ to use
these services. Now you're saying only young people _choose_ to use these
services.

The latter may be true; the former certainly isn't.

When the horseless carriage came out, or electric light, or the radio,
traditonal-minded folk chose not to buy them. But I don't think anyone would
say those inventions made the world into an assisted-living facility for the
young.

~~~
notacoward
I'm not backpedaling; you're moving the goalposts. I said _all of those
services_ _all the time_. In other words, not occasional but habitual use, and
that demographic is dominated by the young Google/Facebook/VC techno-elite.
You don't like where that thought leads, or how the conclusion reflects on
you? Too bad. The facts are the facts.

~~~
raldi
You haven't established any facts about young San Franciscans supposedly
having more money than older ones. The evidence suggests the opposite:
[http://www.sfrealtors.com/US/Neighborhood/CA/San-
Francisco-D...](http://www.sfrealtors.com/US/Neighborhood/CA/San-Francisco-
Demographics.html)

And anecdotally, I've noticed that my neighbors who happen to own two or three
cars tend to be older, and the ones with one or none tend to be younger. The
San Franciscans I know with a second home somewhere tend to be older; the ones
who can barely _dream_ of ever owning a home tend to be younger. Go to the
opera or look at the nice seats at AT&T Park, and see who's sitting there. By
and large, you're not going to see many young people.

Anyway, you didn't answer my other question: when things like dishwashers and
refrigerators were invented, would you characterize their impact on the world
to be turning it into an assisted-living facility for the young?

~~~
notacoward
Seriously, do you not know the difference between total income and disposable
income? Figures for one don't refute a point about the other.

------
SQL2219
[http://www.jobdensity.com/QueryGrid.aspx?q=936&t=Software%20...](http://www.jobdensity.com/QueryGrid.aspx?q=936&t=Software%20Engineer&qt=6/29/2015%208:51:25%20PM)

------
inguinalhernia
Same as it ever was. Boom, bust, boom, bust.

Booming now, when's the bust?

~~~
raldi
There have been short-term booms and busts, but the long-term trend looks like
this:
[http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/54aadb0df92ea1558800c86...](http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/54aadb0df92ea1558800c86a/Case-
Shiller_Simpl-Percentages.jpg)

Imagine a version of yourself in 1987 waiting for the bubble to burst.

------
beatpanda
Are y'all finished with denying your role in destroying the city yet or are
you still in denial?

~~~
raldi
By "y'all" are you referring to the people who moved to San Francisco in 1981
and "destroyed" the city by making all the changes this article describes?

Or are you referring to the gays and hippies who did the same a decade
earlier?

Or do you mean all the civilians who destroyed what used to be a nice military
town?

Or do you mean the soldiers who ruined a nice Gold Rush town?

Or do you mean the 49ers who destroyed a Mexican ranching and missionary
outpost?

Or the Mexicans who spoiled a charming Ohlone village?

