This is unfortunate, since this is money better spend on innovations and people getting enough wealth to start their own thing in their garage.
Local stores, bakeries and restaurants, are closing down at a fast rate. I've been living here for a long time, and I'm sad to see small businesses being displaced by upscale chains. Downtowns areas which used to be a mix of small businesses and restaurants, are turning into chains of upscale restaurants and shops that are out of my price range (mid range tech worker)
We're going to find out what an industry town looks like when all industries but one or two are priced out, and the initial indications aren't very nice.
Atlanta, for instance, has way more culture (rap, hip hop, country, hollywood) and diversity (of race, wealth, background, career, etc). The food scene is phenomenal - I follow people on Instagram to find out where the trendiest midnight pop-ups are. Music is everywhere. Art permeates. It's about as far from a monoculture as you can imagine.
I own a huge home in the city and pay less on my mortgage than people in SF pay for rent. It's a cool hipster place too - 1800s cotton mill with 20 foot ceilings. A couple of my coworkers have fairly large machine shops in their homes. Space is practically unlimited here.
Food is cheap, rent is cheap, but the experience and lifestyle exceeds expectation.
I work for a tech company and make the same wages y'all do.
The only thing that sucks here is transit, but I live on the Beltline and walk/bike everywhere, so it's not so much a problem for me.
I feel like tech needs an exodus from SF. A lot of the money for innovation is just being handed over to landlords.
In all seriousness though, I agree with you on all points except the weather. What I fear is that the word gets out even more than it already has and we ruin a good thing. The Beltline is a transformational project and I've been rooting for it since the beginning, but lately, with all the growth, I'm starting to get a little concerned that the infrastructure really isn't in place to handle what's coming.
The irony being that if you get to travel enough to notice this, you are practically already exempt and privileged in some way.
If you can afford it, SF is a wonderful place but it does have problems big cities with large homeless populations have.
When you say "I work for a tech company and make same wages y'all do", I'd be interested in what that number is.
edit: To clarify on wages, I'm not trying to have a pissing contest. I'm curious what you consider wages that are same as SF. Frankly, I wouldn't stay here if I didn't make what I make but I also know you won't make the same in most tech companies. I'd leave if compensation was sub $200k.
Wat. I specifically think SF is the opposite of diversity. Far left ideology is the norm, with no room for dissent... and racially, it's just whites and asians. If that's your idea of diversity, no thank you. Places like Atlanta, Houston, and Tampa are much more diverse.
"You're, like, a literrrrrrallll Notzeeeee..." /s
You mean hazy and dry?
> The bay area has cultural diversity beyond what most cities aside from New York can offer.
> Frankly, I wouldn't stay here if I didn't make what I make but I also know you won't make the same in most tech companies. I'd leave if compensation was sub $200k.
How much cultural diversity is there really if daily existence is a constant struggle for anyone making less than $200k?
NYC and Chicago do not seem to have the vast homeless issues that SF does.
The weather is polarizing, to say the least. Some of us like feeling change, as in through seasons. I fucking hate feeling cold in August. There's about three good weeks of warmth in the year and the rest of the year you need layers.
Well.. it's more like the weather is constant. It's always foggy, with random periods where the "marine layer" is not present.
However, drive 30 minutes and you can get away from the annoying fog.
But damn, the sheer number of homeless people pooping on the streets is dystopic. And I've been all over the world. The garbage on the streets of New York City smells better. The tent cities all over the mission blow my mind. I used to really want to live there but when I go up there these days it's only because I have to be there.
If you like cold summers and fog over much of the city... Otherwise you'd likely prefer the weather in the peninsula, which is sunny and warm almost every summer day. In fact Redwood City's slogan is "Climate Best by Government Test", heh. But SF gets surprisingly cold even in the middle of summer.
Why do people assume everyone wants nothing but sun sun sun? It's so boring. I like a bit of cold, fog, and rain.
If you want Atlanta to grow, pray SF (and New York, and LA and Vancouver and Toronto) fix it’s real-estate problems.
Is that why it makes wierd spirals?
Parts of SF do smell but most of it and most of the Bay Area don't. Likewise, part of the Bay Area is foggy but I would say 80% of the Bay Area isn't.
There is definitely a growing monoculture here. Not sure Atlanta doesn't though. If you look deep enough most places do in at least one aspect.
Traffic is bad most places in the Bay Area though. Prices are high for many things beyond housing.
I think tech is definitely spreading itself a bit more geographically. Its overall a good thing. The concern is how many of these places have enough tech diversity to be self sustaining. The Bay Area is just much, much deeper technically than these other places.
Problems with the surrounding culture of the state are real, though. Being in a progressive city in a regressive state sucks, because those state laws still affect you.
I've also lived in Georgia, and not in Atlanta, but in Augusta and Macon with a sprinkling of Savannah, as a relatively poor person (average white male) during their early 20s, if you want some context behind what I'm saying...
Sure, but by that same interpretation, ice cream sales cause summer temperatures.
I think there is a correlation that politically regressive areas also feature worse poverty rates for minorities. My strong hunch is that the causation goes in the opposite direction of what you imply. Places that care less about civil rights and equality are less likely to work to address the systemic racism that leads to relatively greater poverty for blacks than whites.
For example as a Black person I know my vote won't count for much in Georgia, and that the state is actively working to disenfranchise it . I also know that I won't have the ability to plan my family . I know I might get weird looks if I'm in a non-heteronormative relationship .
So the problem most people have with "red" states isn't that people love God, love cops and love pickup trucks, it's that these areas actively working to restrict our "blue" freedoms.
2: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/20/us/tennessee-internet-min... (Note, this is about Tennessee, but similar attitudes pervade the South)
Say what you will about voter suppression in Atlanta, but a vote counted there is worth a lot more than a vote counted in California.
Flip Georgia blue, and you’re making real change.
The idea that liking diversity means liking all possible humans is flawed.
California votes are "useless", whereas Georgia votes "matter". (I don't mean to offend by this, but the swing states have an outsized impact.)
I voted out Karen Handel last election -- in a very close race -- which felt truly amazing.
We were so close to defeating Governor Kemp and making this not happen. Now it's a risk to you and the entire nation.
It’s not all roses, there are improvements to be had, but it’s leaning in the right direction. I don’t even know why people consider states without family leave acts.
I appreciate that you are helping turn the tide though by living in a Georgia and voting to support the people that will help push the country forward, but unfortunately I can afford to live elsewhere where my daughter doesn’t have to worry about unpaid maternity leave or having to go back to work after a few weeks. I’m flummoxed as to how to fix the political system giving too much voting power per capita to conservative states without a war though.
To me it seems like we are doing terrible where it matters;
- cost of living is terrible due to unwise regulation (housing, taxes for ineffective measures etc)
- the vast amount of poor that live on our streets do not tell anything good about our safety net
- peoples capability to engage with people of different opinions is dystopic, leading to social isolation
- the education system has in the last 40 years gone from one of the best to one of the worst
My favorite thing about SF is that it is rarely hot and it's relatively close to incredible mountains. I'm certainly not here for the nightlife, food scene, or art/creative scene, but more power to those who are.
As SF? Are you making, say, over $400K in Atlanta?
The bay area cities tried to maintain their "suburban" image, and ended up all being the same.
I realize this is subjective, but... What? I don't think I've ever been there when the high temperature was under 55.
Further the bay area is home to many unique cultures that are sadly seriously distressed thanks to the housing situation, yet tenaciously persist as best they can.
Take a walk through an upper class neighborhood (Noe Valley is a good example) and it's either really expensive versions of the same ($7 for a cupcake? sure!) or weird niche stores that only the wealthy can afford (skin care clinics, high-end clothing, etc).
Off the top of my head, we lost the newspaper/magazine shop, hardware store, a few cheap restaurants, the glass blowing shop, the running store, a bunch of nice boutiques, the local butcher and most (but not all) of the businesses that made someone want to live in Noe in the first place. We gained a ton of financial and real-estate frontage (useless for day-to-day life) a couple of nice but expensive upgrades like a Whole Foods. All this money and no-one seems to actually spend it on local business, so nothing stays open for long.
Now it’s like a playground for the rich with a standard 1,500 sq ft home nearing $2.5M.
Here's the median sale price from Trulia:
We've also done some analysis on home prices in the popular cities. Compared to 6 months ago:
Single family homes in the 1500-2000 sqft range are down by about 1%
San Jose is up by about 2%
Up by 4%. Inventory in PA is usually quite thin.
SF is flat.
In my 'hood on the Peninsula, single datapoint I know, a house was just listed yesterday at $1.25m with a zillow estimate of its peak value at $1.5m in October 2018. That corresponds with my "feel" of the market in the area, as someone who still has zillow listings emailed regularly for the past 5 years for my zip.
> In California overall, there is now a bifurcation: Condo prices are already falling on a year-over-year basis, and house prices are still rising.
in california (which i am sure you know is different from the sf bay area) house prices are slightly up.
It just depends on the debt to collateral ratio
25% could be good enough, but when they do 50% or overleverage then you should worry
The bay area would definitely be hit hard temporarily if tech, housing and lending slowed as some real estate companies take on greater risk than others, like offering no money down if you work at a FAANG with a lien on your shares.
But if there isnt much leverage then asset prices themselves dont magically become a problem just because the upward trajectory lasted a while
1999 and 2008 were leverage problems, with 2008 exacerbated by the surprise implosion of a large bank - Lehman - a few days after getting the highest credit rating, this simultaneously froze all lending since the confidence system failed. Morgan Stanley was leverage 40x the assets they had. So regulations since then ensure certain capital ratios: deleverage. As long as people find wealth and buy with that found wealth, bull market continues. If people buy with the future prospects of finding wealth, and that fails, bull market fails. Less future betting, continued steady bull market.
However, I wonder how median price is impacted by a shifting mix of the houses that change hands?
If buyers were moving towards the lower end of the market and away from the upper end, you could see the median price decrease when in fact any given house has actually gone up in price.
If the city has jobs and the weather is relatively nice versus the rest of the country then don't expect the home prices to drop for any long period of time.
What ends up happening is that a set of people that can't get the right paying jobs get priced out and those that have the right skills move in. We see it over and over again. You would think that technology would have disrupted the situation but it has not.
My thinking is that with the deliver anything in 2 hours apps. It will be easier for people to move into an area where they don't have all the restaurants and small shops people usually like in the neighborhood. They can just order it. Therefore, making it easier for prices to stay up as long as there's a way to pay.
Los Angeles is one of those cities that has long ago priced many people out of being able to buy a home. So what has happened is that people commute into the city from cities around LA. I don't expect that to change in most of our lifetimes.
people move there because of the companies and their HQs, and how the density drives the salary up, it has very little to do with the weather?
"My thinking is that with the deliver anything in 2 hours apps. It will be easier for people to move into an area where they don't have all the restaurants and small shops people usually like in the neighborhood. They can just order it. Therefore, making it easier for prices to stay up as long as there's a way to pay." Again, what does this have to do with the primary motivations to move?
I'm quietly hoping for it to flatten off or drop, but I don't see it in those charts.
The pattern has been the same since the 1980s.
Apart from fires and earthquakes, I don’t see why the trend will change.
A. Housing is one of the basic requirements, and there are a variety of reasons why you wouldn't be able to time it like that. E.g. ended a old job, started a new job, marriage, birth, death.
B. Even outside large life events, many people don't want to disrupt large holidays with a stressful move. Ditto for school terms.
C. Houses look and show better in summer that winter. Seeing a healthy yard instead of bare trees, snow, and brown grass is good for value.
D. Often, the person buying a house is selling a house at the same time. Your new house costs 10% less in the winter, but your old house sells for 10% less as well. (Still a good deal if you are upgrading; just less of a good deal than you might initially think.)
E. If buying a house is absolutely conditional on selling one, winter is a somewhat riskier time since the market's volume is lower.
I don't think people are opting away from home ownership but rather forced away from home ownership due to high down payment requirement and lack of enough jobs that allow someone to save enough.
Who has $100,000 in cash to put down 10% downpayment?
It is a vicious cycle.
Less people are able to afford downpayment. So more people are crowding into rental market. But affordable rental supply is decreasing as more rental units are converted into condo/house AND more people are forced into rentals.
It is really a vicious, destructive downward spiral.
Do you think people on HN don't know where Sydney is?
It looks like prices peak in the summer and bottom out in the winter. The difference in price isn't far off from what a Realtor would charge in commission (otherwise there would be arbitrage.)
Am I right about that?
(Winter is coming)
If we’re going to pick targets, then comparing it to other large metropolises in the US makes more sense (LA: $678, Seattle: $526, San Diego: $447)
Take a look at a city that knows what they're doing with housing, like Chicago or Houston (population 2 million and over, and Houston growing x4.5 faster than SF!). Houston added 364K people in the last 8 years. How many did SF do, a pathetic 80K in a city that has sooo many tech companies and soo much money. SF and other blue cities have a lot to learn about how to grow, and how to create the type of policies that allow them to do so (some of the population is hellbent against that).
Know how much housing costs in a city twice as large as SF, growing x4.5 times faster, Houston is 143$/sq foot and puts the entire West coast and every other blue state/city to shame.
They're stilling tallying the damages from the recent flooding there and it's in the billions.
Also, Chicago is one of the bluest cities in the country. It's even bluer than Los Angeles or San Diego, both of which have sizable conservative populations.