Apartment owner raises rent... (condo, tech jobs, to buy)

[rparz]

It's obvious there's plenty of money and demand, I find it shocking that everyone is so opposed to building new high rise apartment buildings.

Not only would it keep rents more reasonable, but also bring in more tax revenues for municipalities that are broke.

Whatever, I guess that's the way they like it here.

[clongirl]

Originally Posted by rparz

It's obvious there's plenty of money and demand, I find it shocking that everyone is so opposed to building new high rise apartment buildings.

Not only would it keep rents more reasonable, but also bring in more tax revenues for municipalities that are broke.

Whatever, I guess that's the way they like it here.

No, it wouldn't make anything more affordable. They'd just charge the market value (which right now is a lot... like you said, there's "money and demand").

[rparz]

Originally Posted by clongirl

No, it wouldn't make anything more affordable. They'd just charge the market value (which right now is a lot... like you said, there's "money and demand").

It's only steep as it is because for every four people looking for an apartment, only two are available.
It's not because the actual cost of building the structure justifies it.

If 6,000 apartments were to come on the market tomorrow and were all priced to move (generate cash flow for owner) you'd see the ripple throughout the area.

When a landlord lists a place and has ten calls in an hour, it's sending different signals than listing a place and getting one call in 10 days.

But, that's the way it is here. Everyone will oppose any new construction for environmental, aesthetic, or whatever reason and indirectly ensure that demand exceeds supply.


If this was Chicago and people were getting over 2k a month for a crappy studio, you'd see bulldozers clearing lowrises and tower cranes going up faster than you could say "I just made a campaign contribution to my Alderman for zoning variations."

[5thgenSF]

Originally Posted by rparz

It's only steep as it is because for every four people looking for an apartment, only two are available.
It's not because the actual cost of building the structure justifies it.

If 6,000 apartments were to come on the market tomorrow and were all priced to move (generate cash flow for owner) you'd see the ripple throughout the area.

When a landlord lists a place and has ten calls in an hour, it's sending different signals than listing a place and getting one call in 10 days.

But, that's the way it is here. Everyone will oppose any new construction for environmental, aesthetic, or whatever reason and indirectly ensure that demand exceeds supply.


If this was Chicago and people were getting over 2k a month for a crappy studio, you'd see bulldozers clearing lowrises and tower cranes going up faster than you could say "I just made a campaign contribution to my Alderman for zoning variations."

that's sounds reasonable until you then consider how many MORE people would flock in! i'd love to come back, but not when it's pure insanity. when i left the bay area in 2001 and moved to the inland empire, i didn't realize how many OTHER people were moving there as well. not enough jobs to support all the newcomers so that worked out only until the new job crapped out.

[rparz]

The only reason I came here two months ago is because of the job offer I had.
It's not that I had some childhood dream to move here. In fact, I'm hoping to ride the tail end of this recession out here and move back in two years when the economy gets better. (let's all hope)

The fact is, SF is a desirable place to live for people, expanding job and economic base, and there's little land mass to support it with lots of low rises.

With the job market here, it could probably support a more Manhattan-esque density with blocks of high-rises.

[clongirl]

Originally Posted by rparz

It's only steep as it is because for every four people looking for an apartment, only two are available.
It's not because the actual cost of building the structure justifies it.

If 6,000 apartments were to come on the market tomorrow and were all priced to move (generate cash flow for owner) you'd see the ripple throughout the area.

When a landlord lists a place and has ten calls in an hour, it's sending different signals than listing a place and getting one call in 10 days.

But, that's the way it is here. Everyone will oppose any new construction for environmental, aesthetic, or whatever reason and indirectly ensure that demand exceeds supply.


If this was Chicago and people were getting over 2k a month for a crappy studio, you'd see bulldozers clearing lowrises and tower cranes going up faster than you could say "I just made a campaign contribution to my Alderman for zoning variations."

No, you'd just find more people moving into San Francisco rather than spreading out through the Bay Area since the tech industry market is doing well right now. I've seen the ups and downs in San Francisco's housing market over the past 25years or so. You could say the same for Manhattan. Plenty of highrises there, no? Prices still crazy. It'll still be expensive because there's always been a demand. Desirable places command high prices. Piedmont will always be pricey, same with Marin, Orinda, Palo Alto, Woodside, etc. Tons of tract houses going up in San Ramon---prices there were even a million for a "McMansion" during the height of the housing bubble.

Just pay the 100$ more, see if you can get onto a yearly lease and call it a lesson in the Bay Area rental market. Getting upset won't benefit you and it's not going to change unless folks start getting laid off again en masse.

[rparz]

Originally Posted by clongirl

No, you'd just find more people moving into San Francisco rather than spreading out through the Bay Area since the tech industry market is doing well right now. I've seen the ups and downs in San Francisco's housing market over the past 25years or so. You could say the same for Manhattan. Plenty of highrises there, no? Prices still crazy. It'll still be expensive because there's always been a demand. Desirable places command high prices. Piedmont will always be pricey, same with Marin, Orinda, Palo Alto, Woodside, etc. Tons of tract houses going up in San Ramon---prices there were even a million for a "McMansion" during the height of the housing bubble.

Pretty much, but Manhattan has tried to meet demand. I really can't see them doing much more as it's extremely dense as it is.
San Francisco, on the other hand, has a lot of two story buildings that could easily be replaced with larger ones. We have the technology.

[clongirl]

Originally Posted by rparz

Pretty much, but Manhattan has tried to meet demand. I really can't see them doing much more as it's extremely dense as it is.
San Francisco, on the other hand, has a lot of two story buildings that could easily be replaced with larger ones. We have the technology.

It's more affordable when you leave the City (with the exception on places like Palo Alto or other more desirable areas near job centers). You actually sound like you're not paying very much at all by today's going rate, to be honest.

I don't agree with building up the City to appease the masses of people unhappy renters. People from San Francisco like the City just the way it is (more or less). It's considered charming...a small, more intimate, architecturally unique European feeling City rather than a new modern one. Save that sort of thing for Chicago or Minneapolis.

I don't want San Francisco to be able to attract more people....yuck, no thanks.

[rparz]

Originally Posted by clongirl

It's more affordable when you leave the City (with the exception on places like Palo Alto or other more desirable areas near job centers). You actually sound like you're not paying very much at all by today's going rate, to be honest.

I'm in Oakland in a tiny unit and am paying almost double what I would in Chicago for a comparable unit in some of the more upper tier areas. Remember though, they don't have rent control there, so no one is paying less than half of what I would in Chicago, and keeps availability pretty stable. Sure, it prices some poor people out of gentrifying areas, but property tax alone (set by local govt) does most of that.
I've chose Oakland over SF as a matter of principal, I'm not paying that much for living. F-U. I'll save my money and buy another building that generates cash flow before I lay out that kind of cash for a lease where I have nothing to show for it at the end.

I don't agree with building up the City to appease the masses of people unhappy renters. People from San Francisco like the City just the way it is (more or less). It's considered charming...a small, more intimate, architecturally unique European feeling City rather than a new modern one. Save that sort of thing for Chicago or Minneapolis.

I don't want San Francisco to be able to attract more people....yuck, no thanks.

Really? I call that progress, economic expansion and influence, along with increases tax revenue for the city and state. (Which I'm sure they desperately need)

[clongirl]

Originally Posted by rparz

I'm in Oakland in a tiny unit and am paying almost double what I would in Chicago for a comparable unit in some of the more upper tier areas. Remember though, they don't have rent control there, so no one is paying less than half of what I would in Chicago, and keeps availability pretty stable. Sure, it prices some poor people out of gentrifying areas, but property tax alone (set by local govt) does most of that.
I've chose Oakland over SF as a matter of principal, I'm not paying that much for living. F-U. I'll save my money and buy another building that generates cash flow before I lay out that kind of cash for a lease where I have nothing to show for it at the end.




Really? I call that progress, economic expansion and influence, along with increases tax revenue for the city and state. (Which I'm sure they desperately need)

Yeah,...really. There have been huge changes with building going on around the whole SOMA, Mission Bay, and South Beach areas. Seems like there's plenty going on in this area in terms of growth and progress in the Southeast corner. These areas used to be "no man's land". Nobody really lived there, there wasn't anything there but gritty industrial warehouses, and a lot of barren nothingness. Rental prices didn't go down. So throw that theory away...building skyscrapers for people to live in won't solve your problem no matter how badly you want to believe.

I've stated this before...when and if jobs start drying up or the tech industry starts going south, then rents will decrease (it's happened before). After the dot.com bust in the 90's, there were a lot more vacancies, tons of moving trucks with folks leaving, and landlords actually began taking less rent to keep the good tenants! (I know, shocking).

There are plenty of people now days moving into the city making really good money and don't mind paying for the privilege of being in the City. Perhaps you think it's crazy as do MANY other people, but there are always people that don't think as you do and they keep on coming when the job market is good! They want to live in a City and that's that!

You're not going to solve San Francisco's crazy rent prices by getting mad about it or stating what should be done. San Francisco is an island. You're not in Chicago anymore and what might work there, may not work here. If you can't afford your Oakland rent increase then move to Concord. There are always cheaper alternatives.