The Presidio is populated. I shared a house with three room mates there once - great area (morning run to the Golden Gate bridge), shitty houses. It isn't densely populated, but it does have quite a few houses.
So, acknowledging the difficulty of finding affordable housing, does anyone have any practical suggestions for a young techie planning to move to the Bay Area soon?
They were talking about how to save money, and from that limited discussion you came to two completely unjustified conclusions: (1) their overall quality of life will be lower in SF, and (2) the only benefit is that SF is "cool". Nothing they said suggested either of those two things.
Logically, one would try to save money by cutting the largest disposable expense first, before proceeding to the next largest, in order.
By the time you'd get to the expense of owning a car, I presume a lot of other luxury expense would've been dispensed. Therefore, it's logical to assume you'd get a lower quality of life as a result.
If lacking a car, you find yourself walking more, aren't you healthier? Doesnt San Fran have among the greatest selection of fresh foods in the country?
We can go on, but clearly cutting expenses doesn't necessarily mean a lower quality of life.
Cars are a very expensive luxury. Probably the first thing I cut from my life. I am genuinely struggling to think of any more expensive luxury (housing costs more but it's pretty much a necessity).
TL;DR: Without even knowing anything about the topic in question, it should be blindingly obvious how stupid it is to consider "being in a cool place" in opposition to "quality of life". Particularly because "being in a cool place" doesn't just mean enjoying the cachet of getting to say you live somewhere, it means enjoying the reasons that people think the place is cool: the abundance and diversity of natural beauty within a short trip, the weather, the huge amount of things to do (arts/music/cultural events/non-cultural events), even just something as simple as enjoying the aesthetics and rhythm of a place. On top of that, the flood of people moving into these places hasn't been because it's "cool", it's in large part been because of economic opportunity. You should really glance at a newspaper once in a while...
As far as not having a car:
I grew up in Los Angeles and I can tell you that the ~10 years I've spent living without a car in SF is a trillion times better, in almost every way. Even leaving the absurd expense aside, the hassle of having a 2-ton ball and chain that needs to be fueled, parked, maintained, and moved around with you everywhere you go is not even close to worth the advantages, particularly when you can rent a car as needed and still end up paying tons less. It's hard to oversell the relative freedom of being able to make plans on the fly with friends all over the city while rarely having to figure out the logistics of how you're gonna get around and how to fit your car into your plans. Having spent a lot of time in both living situations, I'm close to the point where I consider every non-discretionary mile traveled in a car to be a failing of transit policy. And I actually enjoy driving! I just get my fill of it once every month or two when I happen to be on an excursion with friends where I'm the one driving, and being required to do so (and required to own a car) is ridiculous. On top of that, the fact that my transpo budget is almost nil means that I get to rent as nice a car as I feel like and don't have to think about whether it's "practical" to own.
Regarding roommates, this doesn't appear to be a Bay thing as much as a "dense city" thing. My take on it was always that if I'm spending enough time in my apartment that having a roommate is annoying, I'm probably living in a boring-ass city. So far, this has held up pretty damn well: I spend only a couple waking hours in my apartment each day, and I enjoy the company of my roommate quite a bit in this hours (for example, we often cook together). I readily admit that this is a preference thing and it's just as legitimate that some people are considerably more couch-and-television-bound, but it's sort of bizarre to claim that that's objectively a "lower quality of life".
As far as keeping track of expenses, I have something like an 80% savings rate and I still keep a casual eye on my discretionary expenses. How is being aware of your expenses a lower quality of life?
You pretend as if people are just moving for some "cool" factor and not because the location offers things other places do not, such as real cultural and lifestyle differences, and most importantly, job opportunities for certain professions the likes of which are simply not found in such quantities (or potentially quality) in other places.
You pay a premium for reduction in economic risk and a desirable lifestyle. The fact that younger generations overall have a lower standard of living due to baby boomers and fiscal policy decisions doesn't mean they are irresponsible.
I can (easily) afford SF. I can also afford to own a car in SF. I prefer not to because it is expensive and I prefer to spend my money on other things.
Also, contrary to your assumptions, I find my "quality of life" has dramatically increased since getting rid of a car due to not needing to stress out in traffic (and dodging cyclists); not doing any car maintenance ever; never needing to look for parking and the unknown time duration that could require.
Bicycling too - I used to ride from my apartment on Lower Haight across the Golden Gate to Marin and camp at Haypress (which was often deserted), get up at sunrise, ride back into the city, shower, and ride to work.
The answer to that question will vary somewhat, depending on the location of your original domicile.
If you are moving from Hong Kong to San Francisco, the suggestions will be quite different from those you might get if moving from Cheyenne, Wyoming, to San Francisco.
Nope. The wonderful thing about rent-creation schemes (in the economic sense, not just "rented housing" although it's obviously a canonical example) is that they create built-in constituencies. Make the built-in constituency powerful enough to crowd out the competition and it is extremely difficult to dislodge.
Examples: rent control, copyright law, professional certifications (eg law or medical license), government contracting standards, direct access to money supply...
I don't have rent control, but in my opinion it is fine to stay in the older buildings as long as we keep constructing new units. Once the percentage of units with rent control is high enough, it won't be as much of a factor.
When the number of old units full of rent-control tenants grows high enough, they can become a constituency in their own right. At this point, like any good constituency, they seek to preserve their position against dilution. Construction of new, un-controlled units would threaten such a dilution.
Some believe this has already happened in SF and has been a major driver of the current housing crisis.
The people in rent controlled units do not have enough power to stop construction. They delay projects, they even block and reduce some projects, but as time moves on, sf will build units and their power will shrink rapidly.
The problem is that for every unit that is built.. then the new dwellers then become in support of rent control. Even worse for each developer that is able to build, right after building the development they then start supporting rent control to prevent their prices from falling.
Basically everyone who joins the club essentially tries their hardest to shut the door once they get in.
Let's say a piece of land costs 1 million normally and 2 million under rent control.
I buy land for say 2 million (which would be 1 million without rent control) and estimate over 20 years I can earn 2.5 million or whatever as long as its above 2 million.
If rent control and building restrictions are removed, as more houses are built then rent will go down back to 1 million throughout the city and effect my own earnings.
Hence every person who owns developed land in San Francisco is for rent control, while if their land is just one small house their against it. However, once the person develops their own land they also start supporting it.
San Francisco's rent control only applies to buildings constructed before the law went into effect in 1979, so in principle that shouldn't be a concern.
It's property/land-owners who fight new construction - they're protecting the value of their investment. People in rent controlled apartments have no dog in that fight.
Some believe it's nice attempt to scapegoat the poor and vulnerable for the sins of the rich though.
Not necessarily. Keep in mind, property/land-owners own, as you mentioned, the land beneath their house. That land might be worth far more if it were rezoned for multi unit dwellings.
Property owners in SF are often opposed to new construction, but I don't think that they are motivated by the desire to maximize the dollar value of their real estate assets. They're happy with where they live, they often bought long ago so their costs and taxes are low, and they just don't want change, especially in medium density neighborhoods that have been stable for 75+ years. Their opposition to rezoning probably goes against their economic interests measured purely in dollar signs.
People in rent controlled apartments have a similar motivation. Their costs are very low, they don't want the disruption of new construction, and they are often concerned that there wouldn't be a place in the new construction for them. Why take that risk? The difference is that people in rent controlled units are more vulnerable than property owners. If they do find themselves out of a rent controlled apartment and on the general market, competing for the few new units that become available, they'll be displaced.
Grandma doesn't want to fight new construction because she wants to "protect her investment". If she actually wanted to maximize the value of her property she would take out a home equity loan, demolish her house, build an apartment in its place and rent it out (and maybe live on the ground floor). She just doesn't want the neighbors to be able to do that and "ruin the character" of her neighborhood.
Rent control is an ineffective band aid over the gaping wound caused by proposition 13, ZIRP and San Francisco's landed gentry working day and night to kill all forms of new development.
America has a weird obsession with ripping off these ineffectual band aids while pretending the gaping wound doesn't exist.
Absolutely coincidentally the 1%'s propaganda mouthpieces would have you believe that your real problem is rent control and occupational licensing for cat groomers:
I don't understand their class definition. Does the article imply that the class divide based on income/wealth is dead and now there is a divide based on profession instead?
I'm not even sure what differentiates any of the classes. How is creative not a subset of working and/or service classes? Wouldn't a lot of "creatives" be making less than a lot of working class?
Yeah, the use of "creative" here is odd. A corporate lawyer is a creative worker, whereas an artist or writer working in a coffee shop is probably a service worker.
Not hard to understand what they mean, but creative as a term is diluted here.
Social class is very hard to qualify—its by-definition "collectively subjective". The best I can imagine census doin is asking one to self report and report on neighbors. I imagine this would also cause an uproar.
I hope it's dead. Income should be reserved for just upper income/lower income. I shouldn't have anything to do with class.
I have found zero correlation between income and class.
I first heard it thrown around in college, and felt it was just out of date, and that was decades ago.
It not that it slipped through the cracks of political correctness; it's just wrong. So wrong--I'm still kinda taken back when anyone uses it.
Low income=poor
High income=wealthy
Low class=could be any sector of society? Would anyone call the Amish Low Class? Would anyone call a priest who took a vow to poverty low class? Would anyone call Donald Drump High Class? I can go on forever.
Bureau of Labor Statistics data set that describes the skills generally used in occupations, was used to identify occupations that involve a high level of "thinking creatively." This skill element is defined as "developing, designing, or creating new applications, ideas, relationships, systems, or products, including artistic contributions.
It tries to make events like gentrification a little more clear by focusing on working-age adult occupations. In particular, regular income/wealth statistics tend to hide trend signals because in-place retirees end up echoing the economics of the past for a long time.
65 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 142 ms ] threadWeirdly, they managed to carve out gaps for several other parks, so it's not like they didn't support unpopulated areas...
If you need to significantly lower your quality of life just to work in a cool place, you seriously need to rethink your life plans.
By the time you'd get to the expense of owning a car, I presume a lot of other luxury expense would've been dispensed. Therefore, it's logical to assume you'd get a lower quality of life as a result.
If lacking a car, you find yourself walking more, aren't you healthier? Doesnt San Fran have among the greatest selection of fresh foods in the country?
We can go on, but clearly cutting expenses doesn't necessarily mean a lower quality of life.
As far as not having a car: I grew up in Los Angeles and I can tell you that the ~10 years I've spent living without a car in SF is a trillion times better, in almost every way. Even leaving the absurd expense aside, the hassle of having a 2-ton ball and chain that needs to be fueled, parked, maintained, and moved around with you everywhere you go is not even close to worth the advantages, particularly when you can rent a car as needed and still end up paying tons less. It's hard to oversell the relative freedom of being able to make plans on the fly with friends all over the city while rarely having to figure out the logistics of how you're gonna get around and how to fit your car into your plans. Having spent a lot of time in both living situations, I'm close to the point where I consider every non-discretionary mile traveled in a car to be a failing of transit policy. And I actually enjoy driving! I just get my fill of it once every month or two when I happen to be on an excursion with friends where I'm the one driving, and being required to do so (and required to own a car) is ridiculous. On top of that, the fact that my transpo budget is almost nil means that I get to rent as nice a car as I feel like and don't have to think about whether it's "practical" to own.
Regarding roommates, this doesn't appear to be a Bay thing as much as a "dense city" thing. My take on it was always that if I'm spending enough time in my apartment that having a roommate is annoying, I'm probably living in a boring-ass city. So far, this has held up pretty damn well: I spend only a couple waking hours in my apartment each day, and I enjoy the company of my roommate quite a bit in this hours (for example, we often cook together). I readily admit that this is a preference thing and it's just as legitimate that some people are considerably more couch-and-television-bound, but it's sort of bizarre to claim that that's objectively a "lower quality of life".
As far as keeping track of expenses, I have something like an 80% savings rate and I still keep a casual eye on my discretionary expenses. How is being aware of your expenses a lower quality of life?
You pay a premium for reduction in economic risk and a desirable lifestyle. The fact that younger generations overall have a lower standard of living due to baby boomers and fiscal policy decisions doesn't mean they are irresponsible.
Also, contrary to your assumptions, I find my "quality of life" has dramatically increased since getting rid of a car due to not needing to stress out in traffic (and dodging cyclists); not doing any car maintenance ever; never needing to look for parking and the unknown time duration that could require.
I am being completely serious.
If you are moving from Hong Kong to San Francisco, the suggestions will be quite different from those you might get if moving from Cheyenne, Wyoming, to San Francisco.
Examples: rent control, copyright law, professional certifications (eg law or medical license), government contracting standards, direct access to money supply...
Some believe this has already happened in SF and has been a major driver of the current housing crisis.
Basically everyone who joins the club essentially tries their hardest to shut the door once they get in.
Let's say a piece of land costs 1 million normally and 2 million under rent control.
I buy land for say 2 million (which would be 1 million without rent control) and estimate over 20 years I can earn 2.5 million or whatever as long as its above 2 million.
If rent control and building restrictions are removed, as more houses are built then rent will go down back to 1 million throughout the city and effect my own earnings.
Hence every person who owns developed land in San Francisco is for rent control, while if their land is just one small house their against it. However, once the person develops their own land they also start supporting it.
Some believe it's nice attempt to scapegoat the poor and vulnerable for the sins of the rich though.
Property owners in SF are often opposed to new construction, but I don't think that they are motivated by the desire to maximize the dollar value of their real estate assets. They're happy with where they live, they often bought long ago so their costs and taxes are low, and they just don't want change, especially in medium density neighborhoods that have been stable for 75+ years. Their opposition to rezoning probably goes against their economic interests measured purely in dollar signs.
People in rent controlled apartments have a similar motivation. Their costs are very low, they don't want the disruption of new construction, and they are often concerned that there wouldn't be a place in the new construction for them. Why take that risk? The difference is that people in rent controlled units are more vulnerable than property owners. If they do find themselves out of a rent controlled apartment and on the general market, competing for the few new units that become available, they'll be displaced.
America has a weird obsession with ripping off these ineffectual band aids while pretending the gaping wound doesn't exist.
Absolutely coincidentally the 1%'s propaganda mouthpieces would have you believe that your real problem is rent control and occupational licensing for cat groomers:
http://www.cato.org/blog/occupational-licensing-it-isnt-just...
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274.html
... but you've gotta be "fair" to the people who extract eye watering rents:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/property-ownersh...
https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/
Probably the best written summary of the SF housing shortage.
Not hard to understand what they mean, but creative as a term is diluted here.
Much fewer households receive the census but they are much more rich in the questions asked.
I have found zero correlation between income and class.
I first heard it thrown around in college, and felt it was just out of date, and that was decades ago.
It not that it slipped through the cracks of political correctness; it's just wrong. So wrong--I'm still kinda taken back when anyone uses it.
Low income=poor
High income=wealthy
Low class=could be any sector of society? Would anyone call the Amish Low Class? Would anyone call a priest who took a vow to poverty low class? Would anyone call Donald Drump High Class? I can go on forever.
[0] http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/creative-class-county-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_class
It tries to make events like gentrification a little more clear by focusing on working-age adult occupations. In particular, regular income/wealth statistics tend to hide trend signals because in-place retirees end up echoing the economics of the past for a long time.