$400 / month rent in San Fran - but there's a catch!!

It's not that bad. My parents bough a condo for me (maybe $1M) while I was in grad school there 10 years ago and I haven't moved out. Property taxes are not that bad either since there are a lot more expensive apt's around me. Overall, it is a great city to live in.

Of course you're not going to find anything for $400, but wages are high and you can live comfortably.

SF Dude wrote:

It's not that bad. My parents bough a condo for me (maybe $1M) while I was in grad school

well doesn't that sound charming!

yeah rent is expensive. but you get what you pay for - an amazing city, can walk to a million things from your apartment. no need for a car.

also there's a lot of rent control.

askingaquestion wrote:

also there's a lot of rent control.

Which demonstrably doesn't work.

SF Dude wrote:

It's not that bad. My parents bough a condo for me (maybe $1M) while I was in grad school there 10 years ago and I haven't moved out. Property taxes are not that bad either since there are a lot more expensive apt's around me. Overall, it is a great city to live in.

Of course you're not going to find anything for $400, but wages are high and you can live comfortably.

A lot has changed in 10 years and yes, it is really bad. In many neighborhoods 2/3 of 1 bedroom apts are over $3,000.

Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:

askingaquestion wrote:

also there's a lot of rent control.

Which demonstrably doesn't work.

no, what doesn't work is a massive influx of people and ridiculously restrictive, outdated zoning laws that prevent the construction of new places to live. increased demand leads to increased price on the market, which prevents some of the people from living in the city proper and then they spread to suburbia. something's gotta give...

SF Dude wrote:

It's not that bad. My parents bough a condo for me (maybe $1M) while I was in grad school there 10 years ago and I haven't moved out.

Be prepared for a lot of hate bro!

askingaquestion wrote:

Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:

Which demonstrably doesn't work.

no, what doesn't work is a massive influx of people and ridiculously restrictive, outdated zoning laws that prevent the construction of new places to live. increased demand leads to increased price on the market, which prevents some of the people from living in the city proper and then they spread to suburbia. something's gotta give...

You're correct that it's a supply issue. Rent control does not address this which is why it does not work.

Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:

You're correct that it's a supply issue. Rent control does not address this which is why it does not work.

It's not a supply issue, it's a demand issue.

Way too many people in SF already, considering it's bulls eye for the long overdue "big one" earthquake.

SF Dude wrote:

It's not that bad. My parents bough a condo for me (maybe $1M) while I was in grad school there 10 years ago and I haven't moved out. Property taxes are not that bad either since there are a lot more expensive apt's around me. Overall, it is a great city to live in.

Of course you're not going to find anything for $400, but wages are high and you can live comfortably.

Whose wages are high? Not the person driving the uber you used.

Posted the guy living off the bank of Mom and Dad putting up an easy $1 million for their son. It must be nice to live such a sheltered life.

That box would be a really cool play fort if I were still 8 years old. I'd find it really creepy to be sitting in my dining room with an adult sleeping there every night.

Glad I don't have to live in Frisco. I hear they put on a decent 'thon though. Maybe I'll visit some day.

A couple of months ago the story about this google employee who lives in a van on the google parking lot was all over the news.

Imagine you work at Google, make $130k entry salary a year and yet you can't afford your own apartment without roommates. It is kinda sad.

flowers in my hair wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/31/san-francisco-high-rent-creative-living

Has rent really become that bad in SF?

Is this not just an early April fool? The bit about him jerking off quietly gives it away.

Nutella1 wrote:

A couple of months ago the story about this google employee who lives in a van on the google parking lot was all over the news.

Imagine you work at Google, make $130k entry salary a year and yet you can't afford your own apartment without roommates. It is kinda sad.

He did it to save money, not because he couldn't afford a place.

Question: how come they don't build more high rise apartment buildings? Last I was there, it seemed there were only condo-looking places and very few skyscrapers. Maybe a city ordinance that doesn't permit such things?

broskeet wrote:

Question: how come they don't build more high rise apartment buildings? Last I was there, it seemed there were only condo-looking places and very few skyscrapers. Maybe a city ordinance that doesn't permit such things?

Long time city residents are extremely anti-development. It's the most difficult city in the country to get a new building project approved. Basically, anyone can hold up a project indefinitely by filing petition after petition.

Long-time residents don't want development because artificially reducing housing supply increases their property values and because they don't want their views ruined by other buildings. These wealthy homeowners have managed to convince the poor and economically uneducated to vote against building and against their own interest but stirring up good old fashioned populist resentment and blaming everything on "techies" and newcomers.

A recent study found that rents in SF are 41% higher than they would be without the Zoning laws and rent control.

broskeet wrote:

Question: how come they don't build more high rise apartment buildings? Last I was there, it seemed there were only condo-looking places and very few skyscrapers. Maybe a city ordinance that doesn't permit such things?

read what i wrote above about zoning. this is exactly the problem.

but then again, it would be less pleasant to live here if the beautiful 3-story victorians were overrun by skyscrapers. gotta meet in the middle somewhere...

askingaquestion wrote:

broskeet wrote:

Question: how come they don't build more high rise apartment buildings? Last I was there, it seemed there were only condo-looking places and very few skyscrapers. Maybe a city ordinance that doesn't permit such things?

read what i wrote above about zoning. this is exactly the problem.

but then again, it would be less pleasant to live here if the beautiful 3-story victorians were overrun by skyscrapers. gotta meet in the middle somewhere...

It actually is primarily to physical limitations with the current Wifi (802.11ad) standard, and the havoc it could wreak on the city in having so many signals beaming out and down from the taller buildings, into the "cloud", etc. They're understandably very cautious about those type of issues there.

and yeah, someone making 130k can definitely afford to live by his/herself. the googler was just making a statement.

askingaquestion wrote:

broskeet wrote:

Question: how come they don't build more high rise apartment buildings? Last I was there, it seemed there were only condo-looking places and very few skyscrapers. Maybe a city ordinance that doesn't permit such things?

read what i wrote above about zoning. this is exactly the problem.

but then again, it would be less pleasant to live here if the beautiful 3-story victorians were overrun by skyscrapers. gotta meet in the middle somewhere...

No, you don't have to meet in the middle somewhere. Property owners should have the right to build on their own land of they want. If there is economic incentive to build a bunch for skyscrapers, then this is clearly what most people want and no one has the right to impose on others how a city should look just because they got there first and think it looks pretty.

If you care so much about how San Francisco looks, please feel free to buy the whole city and do with it as you please.