• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Tawpgun

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,861
I don't think this can happen to NYC, I see high rises being put up all over the place, isn't that the problem with SF, not enough housing being built?
I dunno about NYC but when I lived in Boston it seemed like all the new construction was fancy offices and luxury apartments. I mean I guess the hope is that the more wealthy would move out of the cheaper neighborhoods into those but... I was always upset when they built housing it was always high end housing.
 

Dreamwriter

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,461
Suburban apartments are a bizarre concept to me. The reason to live in an apartment is density, proximity to a downtown core, easy access to a transit hub, etc. The suburbs are supposed to be a cheaper way to get a backyard and more space to raise a family. I'm not surprised that builders prefer townhouses and detached outside the city; of course with prices in the stratosphere it can be advantageous to move towards apartments.

And yes SF has the same density problem as other burgeoning cities. The old detached homeowners are sitting on multimillion dollar properties and will resist any and all developments that will decrease their values. Meanwhile, the high assessments increase their property taxes and they're only rich on paper; they can't even downsize and stay in the same neighbourhood with supply so low.
Well, I'm used to the Seattle area which doesn't have this problem. Sure, rental prices are much higher than they used to be, especially in the city thanks to large companies moving into the downtown core, but there are tons of apartment buildings all over the suburbs, high-rise rentals in the city, just lots of housing available everywhere, and more being built all the time. You won't end up in a Bay Area situation where everyone needs to share apartments if they don't earn $100k+ a year.
 

Omegasquash

Member
Oct 31, 2017
6,176
I dunno about NYC but when I lived in Boston it seemed like all the new construction was fancy offices and luxury apartments. I mean I guess the hope is that the more wealthy would move out of the cheaper neighborhoods into those but... I was always upset when they built housing it was always high end housing.

For the most part, that hasn't changed. The Seaport district is being built up (TBH it's got a reasonable street system and I ain't mad), and Southie is getting bought and built out too. There's supposed to be low-income units in these buildings, but for the most part, it's all high end.
 

Nephtes

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,550
I cannot explain San Francisco.
Everything I have been taught to believe is that people would have moved elsewhere by now.

SF as it exists doesn't seem like it would be sustainable.

How does Starbucks or McDonald's even work in the Bay area? There's no way those baristas are making minimum wage and living in the city. And if they're being bussed in from 1+ hour away, what's the point?

Surely it'd be better to work at a Starbucks or McDonald's where you could actually live a reasonable distance from work and afford a private domicile. Right?

Seriously, I want to know, how is it San Francisco has basic amenities like fast food when renting a bed is $1200/month?
 

JuicyPlayer

Member
Feb 8, 2018
7,321
My house mortgage is $800 a month in Tampa for a 3 bedroom and 2 baths and a one car garage. is there any reason to live in SF if you're not in the tech industry?
 

Syriel

Banned
Dec 13, 2017
11,088
Jesus fuck, I fought London was bad. Well it is but you can at least get a room of your own in a house share for reasonable prices and not that shit

When did San Francisco get so dystopian?

It started in the 50s and 60s with redlining and restricted growth policies. Prices have steadily risen since then.

Imagine being ill when you're living somewhere like that.

Somebody's going to get smothered with a pillow for coughing too much one winter.

We don't have winter here.

A lot of people keep pointing out capitalism, but isn't san franciso pretty liberal? not like republicans run it.

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

Hardcore conservative when it comes to parking, views, and density.

I can basically buy a McMansion for that amount per month here in the Midwest. On a 15-year mortgage for a rural area and probably in the exurbs for a 30-year loan.

Typical mortgage in SF and Bay Area is $4-5k/month.

That's not the problem, the problem is a lack of multi-family housing. The fact that even in downtown, San Francisco is full of single-family houses, with zoning laws and citizen groups forcing owners not to tear them down and build apartment buildings, condos, or high rises. If someone tries to make multi-family housing they get so much opposition that it can take years and a lot of money just fighting for the right to build more affordable housing for dozens of families.

It gets better in the suburbs but apartment buildings are still rare, and tend to be pricey. I live an hour drive from San Francisco in one of the rare apartment buildings, my 600 sq ft apartment is $2000 a month, and is far from luxurious. I only afford it by sharing it, my landlady lives in the livingroom.

You can get a room for $2000 in SF. Hell, a typical two bed/two bath averages $5k. A 1 bed (which it sounds like you share) is an average of $3500-$3700.

Interesting. So there's currently no mechanism in place that keeps employment and housing opportunities correlated in SF?

Is there no such thing as municipal taxes?

Plenty of taxes in SF. SF has a yearly budget larger than some states and countries. The City budget is currently just north of $12 billion. Yes, with a b.

The issue is the local control of both planning and money. Individual residents can block/delay a lot of planning decisions and budget money is locked in by set asides and salary obligations. SF has nearly 32k employees at an average comp of $175k/yr.

After set asides and other obligations, about 3.5b of that 12b is making it to the general fund which is what City gov has discretion to spend.
 

Tawpgun

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,861
There needs to be some sort of buyout or other system to tackle the NIMBY's. Boston and NYC at the very least have the population density and public transit to make it work. But I am honestly blown away by how many single family homes are so close to downtown in Seattle. Build more Boston style triple deckers if you want that homey neighborhood feel while fitting more people in.

I do sympathize with homeowners that owned the homes before the population/industry exploded but it's becoming a really big issue when people fight against zoning and new construction.
 

Malovis

Member
Oct 27, 2017
767
I cannot explain San Francisco.
Everything I have been taught to believe is that people would have moved elsewhere by now.

SF as it exists doesn't seem like it would be sustainable.

How does Starbucks or McDonald's even work in the Bay area? There's no way those baristas are making minimum wage and living in the city. And if they're being bussed in from 1+ hour away, what's the point?

Surely it'd be better to work at a Starbucks or McDonald's where you could actually live a reasonable distance from work and afford a private domicile. Right?

Seriously, I want to know, how is it San Francisco has basic amenities like fast food when renting a bed is $1200/month?

There is always some small % of a population that might as well eat shit for money. Seems like SF has most of them.
 

Tawpgun

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,861
SF is a beautiful area, great climate, close to a bunch of awesome things. That is reason enough to live there but I would need a very well paying job to move there.
 

Shroki

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,911
It might be worth it to pay 1200 to sleep in a fucking bunk if you're one of those people making 250k a year. Spend a year or two there and transition to a much lower paying job in a much more reasonable economy with potentially six figure savings.

Even then maybe that's too much of a sacrifice, even for the short term.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,182
I have to pay FIVE DOLLARS UNITED STATES DOLLARS PER LOAD OF LAUNDRY?

San Fran is fucking crazy.

Those prices are pretty standard for any coin-op laundromats in the city. Anywhere from $2-$5 depending on the size of the washing machine and 4-8 quarters for the dryer, and not including the price of detergent. Last time I lived in SF, I was paying $2.50 for a small load washer (stuffing more clothes into the machine than recommended) and paid $1.25 for the 35 min dry time.
 

Landford

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,678
What city is this? How is the internet connectivity? Are there software engineering jobs? I would love to live in a mansion on the beach.

Here you go.

Edit: Its pretty much your dream city, it seems, lol

"
Florianópolis (Portuguese pronunciation: [floɾi.aˈnɔpolis]) is the capital and second largest city of the state of Santa Catarina, in the South region of Brazil. The city encompasses Santa Catarina Island and surrounding small islands, as well as part of the mainland. It has a population of 477,798, according to the 2016 IBGE population estimate,[1] the second most populous city in the state (after Joinville), and the 47th in Brazil. The metropolitan area has an estimated population of 1,111,702, the 21st largest in the country. The city is known for having the country's third highest Human Development Index score among all Brazilian cities (0.847).[2] The city is considered safe by Brazilian standards. In 2014, Florianópolis had the second-lowest incidence of murders of Brazilian capitals.[3]

The economy of Florianópolis is heavily based on information technology, tourism and services.[4] The city has 60 beaches and is a center of surfing activity. Lagoa da Conceição is the most famous area for tourism, recreation, nature and radical sports. The New York Times reported that "Florianopolis is the Party Destination of the Year in 2009."[5] Newsweek placed Florianópolis in the "Ten most dynamic cities of the world" list in 2006.[6] Veja, a Brazilian publication, named the city as "the best place to live in Brazil."[7]As a result of this exposure, Florianópolis is growing as a second home destination for many Paulistas, Argentines, North Americans, and Europeans."
 

demondance

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,808
thanks to the miracle of capitalism we've figured out how to charge $1200 for one bunk of a bunk bed

really wish well off white people would've stuck to fleeing cities like their parents and grandparents insisted on, now these places are packed with people bringing their isolated suburban childhood mindset to what should be cultural centers
 

t26

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
4,559
My house mortgage is $800 a month in Tampa for a 3 bedroom and 2 baths and a one car garage. is there any reason to live in SF if you're not in the tech industry?
[/QUOTE]
the non tech job also get a nice salary due to cost of living. Someone here make more as a nurse doing the same job than in Florida
 

Driver

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,053
Southern California
Here you go.

Edit: Its pretty much your dream city, it seems, lol

"
Florianópolis (Portuguese pronunciation: [floɾi.aˈnɔpolis]) is the capital and second largest city of the state of Santa Catarina, in the South region of Brazil. The city encompasses Santa Catarina Island and surrounding small islands, as well as part of the mainland. It has a population of 477,798, according to the 2016 IBGE population estimate,[1] the second most populous city in the state (after Joinville), and the 47th in Brazil. The metropolitan area has an estimated population of 1,111,702, the 21st largest in the country. The city is known for having the country's third highest Human Development Index score among all Brazilian cities (0.847).[2] The city is considered safe by Brazilian standards. In 2014, Florianópolis had the second-lowest incidence of murders of Brazilian capitals.[3]

The economy of Florianópolis is heavily based on information technology, tourism and services.[4] The city has 60 beaches and is a center of surfing activity. Lagoa da Conceição is the most famous area for tourism, recreation, nature and radical sports. The New York Times reported that "Florianopolis is the Party Destination of the Year in 2009."[5] Newsweek placed Florianópolis in the "Ten most dynamic cities of the world" list in 2006.[6] Veja, a Brazilian publication, named the city as "the best place to live in Brazil."[7]As a result of this exposure, Florianópolis is growing as a second home destination for many Paulistas, Argentines, North Americans, and Europeans."

Wow, that place looks absolutely beautiful, great weather too! I would love to check it out. I live in San Diego, California now and its great but I'll never be able to afford even a small cottage on the beach. There are plenty of jobs and people are great and weather and food and everything but cost of living is pretty high. I'm pretty sick of working in an office and I just want to open a coffee shop on a beach somewhere. Your city seems like such a nice place.
 

Dreamwriter

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,461
You can get a room for $2000 in SF. Hell, a typical two bed/two bath averages $5k. A 1 bed (which it sounds like you share) is an average of $3500-$3700.
Yeah, I have to go to the suburbs an hour away to get cheaper than that. $2000 for just a room is insane, when that's my entire 600 sq foot apartment (which is still insane). San Francisco and the Bay Area overall needs many, many more multi-family housing.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,686
Plenty of taxes in SF. SF has a yearly budget larger than some states and countries. The City budget is currently just north of $12 billion. Yes, with a b.

The issue is the local control of both planning and money. Individual residents can block/delay a lot of planning decisions and budget money is locked in by set asides and salary obligations. SF has nearly 32k employees at an average comp of $175k/yr.

After set asides and other obligations, about 3.5b of that 12b is making it to the general fund which is what City gov has discretion to spend.
So either buy out the land from home owners or raise property taxes through the roof until they sell it and then start building high-rise apartment buildings on it like there's no tomorrow.
 

Dreamwriter

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,461
So raise property taxes through the roof until all those home owners sell their land and then start building high-rise apartment buildings on it like there's no tomorrow.
They aren't allowed to build high rise apartment buildings. A combination of zoning laws, city councils, and organizations made up of people living in the neighborhoods fight with tooth and nail to keep San Francisco exactly as it is.
 

PeskyToaster

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,314
thanks to the miracle of capitalism we've figured out how to charge $1200 for one bunk of a bunk bed

really wish well off white people would've stuck to fleeing cities like their parents and grandparents insisted on, now these places are packed with people bringing their isolated suburban childhood mindset to what should be cultural centers

Is it even because of capitalism though? People aren't allowed to build high rise apartments in San Fran due to regulations, ordinances, and zoning. That's the opposite of capitalism.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Is it even because of capitalism though? People aren't allowed to build high rise apartments in San Fran due to regulations, ordinances, and zoning. That's the opposite of capitalism.
Those regulations, ordinances and zoning laws were instigated and are supported by private interests.

It's a case of public good (housing people, even the low-income ones) vs private interests (muh property values, muh city character).

Yeah I'd say it's an example of the problems of capitalism. Specifically when private capital intervenes in public governance with outsized power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
 

demondance

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,808
Is it even because of capitalism though? People aren't allowed to build high rise apartments in San Fran due to regulations, ordinances, and zoning. That's the opposite of capitalism.

NIMBY lobbying absolutely comes out of people wanting to keep their property values sky high, not exactly the "opposite of capitalism"

You're poising capitalism like it means "anything unregulated" which isn't quite what capitalism refers to. Private property, finance, etc. all require laws and government enforcement to function.
 

Mars

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,988
Wonder if traditional hostels in the city will take advantage of this... I did the hostel work trade thing for a good chuck of time while in SF in 2018. But I only paid $250 bi-weekly near union square/nob hill; spent a fair amount if time working part time as a IT Technician and hopping around the city during my free time. I was barely there and only had one roommate.

This is amazing (not in a positive way... at all)and wouldn't blame hostel owners for taking advantage if this becomes a thing...
 

Syriel

Banned
Dec 13, 2017
11,088
The owners wanted this to be a hostel, but they don't have short term rental permits.

In any other city this is a short term option.
 

Darknight

"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,842
but why not live a bit outside of san fran? Get a nice little house in a rural non-expensive area and drive to work.
I don't understand why you have to literally live in a single bed for 1200/month when you could possibly rent an entire nice apartment/house for the same price maybe 30 miles away.
is that a status thing or what

The problem is the whole area is expensive even 30 miles away. One of the reasons is there are two hot areas which is SF itself and then down south is Silicon Valley 40 miles away. So combining these two together, you've increased the radius of the area people want to live in significantly. Rent 30 miles south of San Francisco is just as high. 30 miles East is a bit cheaper say in Walnut Creek, but you're still looking at $2400 for a single bedroom apartment plus now you've introduced a 90 min to 2 hour commute each way especially now that you need to cross the Bay Bridge which is the only way over to SF from the East. I just checked now, and it's 50 minute to go from Walnut Creek to SF and it's noon right now. People suggest move outside of SF without realizing that doesn't get you much difference in price, but now you're spending way more time getting in and out of SF. That's time out of your every day life that you don't get back where as money you can at least save and grow it.

I'll stick to visiting SF lol

You get only one life, and that life is spent living in a bunk bed with strangers? hahahaha F that

Why do people act like this is a permanent lifestyle? This is a stepping stone. You're young, you start here, save some money and move up by taking advantage of the money you saved. While it sucks, the reality is sometimes you make sacrifices now for long term gains.
 

Tawpgun

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,861
The employment isnt the problem its housing nimby laws. let them build a 50 story highrise and stuff that fucker with millenials, fuck beach views and landscapes.
Also stop trying to add bullshit frills to raise cost.

Build those shitty NYC apartments. Hallways, units, laundry in building if you are nice, trash chute. No one that needs housing is gonna care if theres free coffee, and a common game room or a gym and pool
 

never

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,837
There has to be a better solution to housing issues than people paying for a bunk bed they can't get laid in.
 

dragonbane

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,585
Germany
I just can't wrap my head around this. This costs $150 more than my 3 room 1k square feet apartment in a nice neighbourhood in Berlin lol
 

Tawpgun

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,861
I've lived in Boston, within city limits and now I'm on the outskirts of Seattle. I've lived 45 minutes from manhattan my whole life.

SF honestly seems like a different level. Like some technological dystopia.
 

SonicXtreme

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,713
It might be worth it to pay 1200 to sleep in a fucking bunk if you're one of those people making 250k a year. Spend a year or two there and transition to a much lower paying job in a much more reasonable economy with potentially six figure savings.

Even then maybe that's too much of a sacrifice, even for the short term.
well lots of the companies are start ups, so working 60-80 hours a week you might find yourself with almost no time to enjoy home anyway which makes things more reasonable. but yeah your first sentence. i've met a lot of people who worked for google for a few years then moved to a cheap place and had a huge nest egg to show for it. it's something
 

Tawpgun

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,861
It'd be nice if people could get some sort of assistance if they are locals who are getting priced out.
 
OP
OP
Lunchbox-

Lunchbox-

Member
Nov 2, 2017
11,914
bEast Coast
Also stop trying to add bullshit frills to raise cost.

Build those shitty NYC apartments. Hallways, units, laundry in building if you are nice, trash chute. No one that needs housing is gonna care if theres free coffee, and a common game room or a gym and pool
one issue with that is california gets earthquakes

The north east/NYC doesn't. So it's a little safer to build Manhattans here
 

Syriel

Banned
Dec 13, 2017
11,088
I cannot explain San Francisco.
Everything I have been taught to believe is that people would have moved elsewhere by now.

SF as it exists doesn't seem like it would be sustainable.

How does Starbucks or McDonald's even work in the Bay area? There's no way those baristas are making minimum wage and living in the city. And if they're being bussed in from 1+ hour away, what's the point?

Surely it'd be better to work at a Starbucks or McDonald's where you could actually live a reasonable distance from work and afford a private domicile. Right?

Seriously, I want to know, how is it San Francisco has basic amenities like fast food when renting a bed is $1200/month?

People are either long term residents (so low housing costs), live with a lot of roomies, or commute in a long distance because of the higher wages.

It'd be nice if people could get some sort of assistance if they are locals who are getting priced out.

Locals are generally protected.

Long term owners?
Rising property values just means a bigger windfall if you leave.

Long term renters?
You're covered by rent control.

A long term renter can only have their lease terminated against their will if the building owner wants to move in or if the building is being taken off the rental market entirely. And in both cases, a payment has to me made to the renter.
 

Umbrella Carp

Banned
Jan 16, 2019
3,265
hongkong-cage-3-e1515062803438.jpg


It's not. Everyone's just trying to get their piece of the pie before it collapses.

If this is seriously the future for the working class worldwide then just kill me now cause I want out
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
If this is seriously the future for the working class worldwide then just kill me now cause I want out
The people stuck in the cage "apartments" in Hong Kong are, according to what I've read, generally underprivileged, either because they're unskilled or they're elderly or they have drug addiction problems. It's basically your last resort before you're homeless or just die on the streets.

Just don't be old, addicted, or unskilled.
 

Chirotera

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
4,274
It's hard not to look at things like this and not see a worldwide collapse of some sort incoming. This kind of life is not sustainable.
 

RPGam3r

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,519
Just get an RV or travel trailer (even a small one). It is significantly cheaper within a year for cheaper ones, but way more of everything (including privacy) else.