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.
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.
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?
> 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.
Georgia has had a presence at the Game Developers' Conference every year for as long back as I can remember. They've been wooing game developers with basically free money and other bonuses.
And while they likely have convinced a few companies (they like to showcase a half dozen or so), it's not like it even was a measurable blip on the growth of game companies in Silicon Valley.
That's interesting, but we (as far as I know) weren't talking about game development, but about TV/movie production.
Most people don't realize it, but many recent high-budget movies were filmed in Georgia, e.g. Fast Five, Vacation, Ant-Man, all three Hunger Games movies, one of the recent X-Men movies, Flight, etc. After 2008, there was an abundance of empty warehouse space here available at deep discounts, not far from the highest volume airport in the world.
As the economy rebounded, momentum in that industry seems to have remained even though there aren't many empty/cheap warehouses here anymore. A few developers are even working on purpose-built movie studios around town now.
It has been interesting to watch, and certainly could parallel what could happen in the bay area if an exodus to somewhere like Austin began in earnest.
> It has been interesting to watch, and certainly could
> parallel what could happen in the bay area if an exodus to
> somewhere like Austin began in earnest.
Tech Austinite here -- given the rate prices of food, housing, etc. are spiking here, I'm presently more inclined to see ATX as catching up to SF prices and acting as an SXSF than remaining a low-cost alternative.
Don't generally disagree with your thesis, but at least for tech I don't think the game is zero sum, and the market is expanding fast enough to support multiple tech hubs.
Definitely. Austin was just the first example that came to mind, but I think you're right that spreading out to several regional hubs is also likely (and preferable, IMO).
If the "second hollywood" is in fact in Atlanta, I think you're validating the original point (i.e. there is no second hollywood). Being second miles and miles behind the leader doesn't actually mean you're close to winning, or even competing.
According to wikipedia, as a whole $617M was spent in Georgia in 2013 on production; this compares disfavorably with Louisiana ($674M), British Columbia ($778M), and New York State (1880M). Wiki doesn't even bother to list California. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_industry_in_Georgia_%28U....)
> 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.
That's the thing... Technical people are still cheap. Really cheap, compared to the jobs where your asset is "knowing people" - our salaries haven't been increasing with the cost of living around here, unlike the real-estate agent example below.
Look at what you pay a body shop for developer time. A lot of that goes to the body shop; the people who's main asset is the "relationship" with management.
Heck, at 3%, become a real-estate agent. sell three or four houses around here a year, and you'll make more than your average developer or sysadmin.
Yeah, wake me up when we make more than recruiters. Until then, I'm going to ignore all this noise about technical people being expensive, because it's obvious bullshit.
All that said, while I don't think the cost of us is a problem for companies, the high cost of living is a problem for us. As a technical person, the bay area only really makes sense if you are the best of the best (or have those "relationship contacts" and can get real money) - for the rest of us, it mostly only makes sense if you have a deep emotional connection to the place and/or have a rent-controlled space. (In the south bay, if you own, live with family, or have a landlord who doesn't jack up rents with market... there's no actual rent control in the south bay, though I know a few people paying vastly below-market rents because they've been renting from the same person for a decade or more, and that person is being cool. There's serious rent control in San Francisco proper.)
This... is probably why companies are opening up branch offices; there are many good people who just won't move here because the cost, but that's because we aren't expensive enough, not because we're too expensive.
The advantage of the bay area is your improved chances of networking. If you are well connected enough as it is, chances are you'll do better elsewhere, maybe even doing remote work for bay area companies. There's people here that could pay for a 4 bedroom house in full every year if then wanted to, just by abusing that pay differential.
So why would we move there, if we can get paid pretty much the same with a much cheaper cost of living? The extra connections are not worth going from 1K a month mortgages to 4-5K.
I thought it was fascinating how many accuracies in that article played out, makes me wish I had bought some houses for $129,000 in San Francisco in the 80's :-).
But perhaps more interesting is the salary question, because there is so much resistance to raising salaries it pulls companies out of the Bay Area. (which has been true since I started here in the 80's) I am not sure what the opposite of a bubble is (not enough increases relative to the market) but as far as I can tell the whole country is in one of those. At some point someone is going to just say "Screw it, staff for effectiveness even it it doubles our HR cost." and if that entity successfully captures the top performers it will seriously outperform all of its competitors in the market and light off a wage war which was what happened in the late 70's and 90's in the Bay Area.
Its kind of too late for that.. I expect record number companies to IPO in the next two years; uber, dropbox, airbnb, pinterest, stripe, lyft... A lot of people are going to be really liquid and will be looking to buy property.
No doubt, but as the gap between prices in SF and everywhere else widens, it will become much more appealing for them to move and enjoy a higher quality of life elsewhere.
You'll probably see less profitable industries get out of dodge before tech companies do. Tech companies have more money, labor costs are less important to the bottom line, and young tech workers can and do spending way too much on rent.
I don't understand why people continually tend to ignore places like Oakland, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and even the nearby surrounding areas like Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno, Burlingame, and South SF.
Daly City, South SF, and even San Bruno are like a 15 min drive into SF or 20 min using Bart. Housing is more affordable in those places. Am I missing something?
EDIT: Considering that these posts are on HN, I find it very strange and disturbing to repeatedly read variants of "it's impossible to do x because of y".
I appreciate your point, but housing prices in Mountain View and Palo Alto are every bit as brutal as SF -- for the same NIMBY reasons -- and Oakland is catching up quickly. It's a shame that so much of downtown Oakland remains underdeveloped because the BART corridor could support so much more density without everyone needing to own cars like Daly City / South SF / San Bruno.
The best symbol of California's crazy development red tape is the empty lot on the south corner of 12th and Broadway in Oakland... an overgrown field at the corner of the city's commercial center, at a BART station, waiting for approval and construction of a skyscraper. It's crazy that there aren't any cranes over downtown Oakland right now, building high density on top of public transportation where it doesn't block anyone's view of the Bay.
> I appreciate your point, but housing prices in Mountain View and Palo Alto are every bit as brutal as SF
There are several other cities in the metro that are more affordable. I just figured that people have more opportunities to rent rooms there since it's slightly cheaper those cities
> without everyone needing to own cars like Daly City / South SF / San Bruno.
You don't really need to own a car even if you live in Fremont or Dublin, as long as you live reasonably close to Bart. A bike is good enough. I've done that as well and again it's very healthy since you're forced to do more exercise. Most places that are close to Bart are also close to a supermarket or two. I would also argue that it's way safer to bike outside of SF rather than in it. I also forgot to mention Caltrain as well.
* BART is straining these days. During commute hours, it's basically at capacity. The Bay Bridge is also at or over capacity.
* Housing within walking distance of BART stations in Oakland that are also somewhat close to restaurants, shops, etc., costs just as much as in San Francisco, at least until the BART ride gets up over 40 minutes to Downtown.
> BART is straining these days. During commute hours, it's basically at capacity.
Then do as I did. Don't use it during commute hours. Leave earlier. If you have a smart company, ask to conference to early meetings or schedule them later in the day if you want to leave later. After work either leave earlier, work later, or do Happy Hour and leave later.
> Housing within walking distance of BART stations in Oakland
There are other cities with Bart stations that are more affordable. You can also use a bike which lets you live a little farther away where there's cheaper housing. As I've already mentioned I did that in Fremont and Dublin.
BART and Caltrain only work because very few riders bring bikes. The platforms, the doors, and the seats are all too small to accommodate many of those things. Widespread use would require a redesign that probably couldn't accommodate today's demand, plus a huge number of showers installed at downtown employers.
One one hand, depending exclusively on Bart means you dont get to have SF at night. Being far away makes it expensive to Uber (Figure a 3xUber twice a weekend).
Its also not much cheaper, unless you start getting away from transport.
Oakland has bigger commute, and lots of shady areas, including some eventful bart stations. Its also way more sparse to go out at night.
If you live in Palo alto and work in San Francisco, you are going to have a hell of a daily commute.
> One one hand, depending exclusively on Bart means you dont get to have SF at night
You can just go to SF earlier and crash at your friends. For me I did a combination of crashing at friend's places and carpooling for the ride back.
I also going to guess that using Uber once in a while would still be cheaper than renting or owning in SF.
> Oakland has bigger commute, and lots of shady areas, including some eventful bart stations
Just like SF, you don't have to live in Oakland. There are many other cities in the Bay Area metro. Also Oakland is gentrifying. Not too long ago, a lot of places in SF were sketchy as well.
> If you live in Palo alto and work in San Francisco, you are going to have a hell of a daily commute.
Wake up a little earlier and use Caltrain. It's great for bikes too.
Living outside of SF isn't super hard. It's just not as easy as making up a million excuses as to why you need to live within SF.
Crashing on friends houses is not really a solution, its something some people can sometimes do.
Using Uber for long distances: figure 10 rides a month (which means you only go out twice a week at night) at 60 bucks each is 600 dollars a month. Most of your rent advantage from being in many places in SF in comparison to Daly city is going to be kept by the expensive commute.
I mention Oakland because of the parent post. Its a place many people go to because Bart gets there, but its far from being a panacea.
Even with Caltrain you have commute issues: you have limited time options, and it still takes a long time. And Palo alto is not cheap either.
You don't HAVE to live in SF, almost nobody does. The point is that all the other options have a high price of convenience which is up to people's lifestyle.
I made friends with several people in Oakland and the commute was always an issue in designing where to go for drinks or dinner, because either part gets locked in the other zone after Bart is out.
If you live far away, there's a high probability that you'll also make friends where you live. There's also a decent probability that one of them will have a car and will want to hang out with you in SF on the weekend from time to time. If you live in a place like Palo Alto, there's also a strong chance that you're not going to want to hang out in SF every weekend as well.
> I mention Oakland because of the parent post... And Palo alto is not cheap either.
There are many other cities in the Bay Area that are accessible with either Bart or Caltrain. Like you I only mentioned Palo Alto because of a parent comment.
> The point is that all the other options have a high price of convenience which is up to people's lifestyle.
Well I felt that the way people were complaining about not being able to live in SF is like they were going to be homeless. The price of a little convenience is not high when you are flexible and adaptable.
My only real point is that if you have a problem, you'll probably find a decent solution for it.
Parking just adds $200-$300. (I could be wrong but I feel that it's also tax deductible if you keep the receipts.) It's still a lot cheaper by approximately $1000 depending on your living situation (It's even cheaper if you just rent / sublet a room outside of SF: $600-$900 including utilities). I used to do the same thing even though I could have taken Bart instead which would make it a lot more affordable and healthier from all the walking.
As for time my drive was about 15-20 min one way and I used it to listen to podcasts and audiobooks. For Bart, I would either work, sleep, or listen to podcasts plus I saved a lot of time and money that I would have used for a gym.
Interestingly, Paris does have strict height restrictions for buildings. But two big differences are:
* it is easier to find tiny (and thus cheaper) housing in Paris, since the standards of comfort are lower. For people who want a simple shelter and spend most of their time outside, it can frustrating to look for housing in SF.
* public transit is everywhere in Paris and most areas inside the city are safe, whereas in SF people tend to choose from a small subset of neighborhoods. Cars are unnecessary - they generally create more problems than they solve.
Van Ness corridor itself is going through a massive makeover with multiple housing projects and a rapid bus transit system. I expect a similar makeover on Lombard between Lyon and Van ness.. As presidio becomes a real tourist attraction, current state of the lombard corridor is just pathetic
Oh god, Pac Heights and Marina are such status symbol neighborhoods, I cannot imagine them allowing for much change. Public transit is horrible there and they really could do anything to improve it. That's just my inner-jaded self talking though. :)
> Guess that the only way out is to wait for the next big one.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that seems like a pretty gross sentiment. "I hope a natural disaster gets these old people out of their homes so me and my hip friends can move into our favorite city." I know you probably didn't mean it that way, but I feel like I see a lot of similar animosity towards the longstanding residents (or as you put it, "entrenched interests") of SF.
For many people, SF wouldn't be SF without the older buildings and neighborhoods. You'd arguably be destroying the character of the city just for the chance to live there.
Also, I don't think I've ever seen an affordable apartment highrise in a major city. Think those new and shiny skyscrapers will be able to compete with rent-controlled housing? What's actually going to happen is that the longtime residents are going to get pushed out into the outskirts while the Silicon Valley rich fill out the city.
The character of cities changes all the time, who are we to say what should be the character of a city? Let it change, let it evolve. SF's character only became what it is by changing from it's previous character, again and again and again.
Sorry, you're reading it wrong. It isn't about old people, it's about entrenched interests, from young, old, rich and poor people who constantly pass legislation stopping others from converting their (others') houses into apartment buildings.
Entrenched interests != longstanding residents. There is some overlap though.
Think of it like the people from Los Altos Hill passing laws effectively banning poor people: the minimum lot size is 1 acre, and all lost can only have on family living in them.
Charge a premium fee for building height above a certain number of stories. Fee goes directly towards public infrastructure. Surprised more communities don't do this.
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.