What Does the Future Hold for San Francisco?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 май 2024
- Analysis of the current situation in San Francisco and what may happen there in the near future. I examine the high house and rental costs, best areas to build housing, issues with homelessness, and more all within the framework of the geography of the city.
If you would like to purchase a pin for the viewer wall map or just to support the channel, please visit patreon.com/geographyking
0:00 Intro
1:00 Population statistics
2:02 Housing costs
3:16 Rental costs
4:10 The next Detroit?
4:52 City for wealthy only?
5:40 "Toronto-fy"
7:58 Office space to housing?
9:01 Suburban growth
10:06 Homelessness
10:48 Conclusion
Album displayed:
Country Joe & The Fish - "Together" (1968)
“I doubt low-wage workers will commute 45 minutes each way to work in the city”
This is already the situation in New York, which is why there are comparisons of San Francisco being the next Manhattan
They commute up to 2 hours each way where I live, and that is in a small country.
*county
@@jetfan925 No country. Denmark.
I knew a lot of teachers living in the Central Valley (Modesto Fresno etc) who would commute to the Bay Area or would rent rooms in the Bay Area during the week and keeping their permanent address in the Central Valley
So yeah SF and the Bay Area in general does not support wages for people who aren’t crazy wealthy
This is the problem in a nutshell. It takes a lot of people who are lower and middle income to support a few wealthy people. If the wealthy want the services that lower and middle income people provide, then housing must be available for these people. Some people might be willing to commute hours at a time. I am not one of those people. Luckily, where I live, we didn't have those issues until recently. My home is 15 minutes from everything in the area that I live in. I am 15 minutes from Raleigh, 15 from the airport, 15 from Chapel Hill, 15 from Durham, and 15 from the research triangle.
Since Apple, Cisco, Citrus, etc. Have decided to move in. Prices for homes here have skyrocketed. People are moving way out to better afford a home. I am lucky with the timing of the purchase of my home.
You’re like the one guy I can trust to be knowledgeable, realistic & neutral when discussing CA.
Appreciate ya!
Realistic. Let us see how much further San Fran needs to fall to shit before people actually start being realistic while discussing it.
Blaming the mass exodus on housing cost if extremley shortsided. Crime and horible leadership would be higher I imagine.
I warned friends and family for several years that California would be a 2 tier state: rich and poor. The middle class has been lost for the most part. Moved out of California last year and it was the best move I ever made.
I don't live in SF, but, it seems to me that the golden years were post 1945 - 75 - 80. Back when the waterfront still had a lot of shipping and there was a good deal of bay industrial jobs.
Kudos to you. You almost never hear a rational, fact-based talk about San Francisco.
demoralization process and ideological subversion
Good point!
so many other people in the comments didn't get the memo.
@@johnsonsmithson45NJ’s channel is the clearest example. Pure right wing sensationalism. No attempt at rational analysis and potential problem solving. Keep going Kyle. You are bang on point, along with City Beautiful 👍🇦🇺
Lol, this was an out of touch "analysis" that lacked understanding of financial ecosystems.
It's honestly my dream to see your old san francisco theory play out. To see all the tech companies leave and have San Francisco go back to being a cultural center and working class port city would be amazing
So wtf does “cultural center” mean? And why would it be any different than it is now?
Me too. I lived in (what he calls) Old SF for over 12 years (more, if you count Berkley). I was young, sure, but I could afford to rent a room in a decent flat, or, even a studio apartment in my 20s. People could start something, a cafe, art space, theater, whatever. We left for Boston (yes, I know, but no expectations) when my firstborn was 15 months old-- after the 1st tech boom-- We could, at least raise a couple of kids here. It's not cheap, but the kids walked to school. At that time 2000, we bought a house for what a 2br/1bath condo would have cost in SF. The cultural center of SF is sorely missed.
Agreed. We need to wait and see how many more VC's move their management from San Francisco to Austin and play the same polarizing stuff there.
How u gonna live there and spell it berkley
@@grownupgaming Typo
The choice doesn't have to be all or noting between 2 story flats and 50 story residential housing towers. A lot of cities (Nashville, Denver, Raleigh, etc.) are densifying their inner core areas with 6-8 story apartment buildings, sometimes with first floor retail. If the average height of buildings in an area is 2-3 stories right now, this type of construction could conceivably double the population density within a given area
A mix of this and residential skyscrapers in certain areas along with density being added to inner ring suburbs would go along way at improving the housing situation in the north bay. I just don't see that happening though, too many people with deep pockets against dense development in the bay.
I live I’m Denver and yes we’re building high rises downtown but we need affordable housing in the surrounding areas from highland ranch all the way to Boulder it’s getting better over time but we need more and more multi family units is already existing neighborhoods
SF has 17k ppm. Its basically an island and almost completely built out. Accommodating ppl isn't the problem, it's retaining commerce and restoration of a sense of order. Downtown Portland is in the same boat but our downtown adjacent urban neighborhoods are fine. SF is probably the same way.
Without good public transportation system, residential tower solution does not work.
@@thomasmcroy1756 It is the same, once you get out of downtown and tourist areas, SF is more or less the same as it's always been.
Best and most unbiased look at the city I grew up in.❤
NYMBI'ism is a truly anti-affordability movement used to secure home prices. But they also have a reason for existing, even though I dont agree with their points.
You know the acronym is NIMBY, right? It stands for Not In My Back(Yard). Spell it right.
@@robloxvids2233okay, calm down. Nobody likes a jerk. 😂
@@robloxvids2233 eh its youtube, not an official paper. I wont change it for a user named robloxvids 😆
Deep down everyone is a nimby they just don’t know it yet
@@kennypowers2341 Probably, but I care more about affordability and livability of cities than about car-dependent suburbia.
I am a native, but I left fifteen years ago because of unaffordability. Sadly it has careened downward perilously. Until the citizens wake up and change their leaders, it will remain a sad shadow of its self. But eventually it will happen. I suspect its decline will continue for another decade at least. People are slow to address problems.
Same and all San Francisco leaders have to do look at is 2008 when some cities in the USA went bankrupt especially Vallejo, CA which had the biggest Bankruptcy in 2008 due to the recession of that time. Only difference here is that VC's don't put their offices in Vallejo.
They are going to follow Portland, which is doing all it can to destroy capitalism. They have already run stores out of the city by encouraging theft. Look toward Portland to see your future. The city will have to award contracts to retailers to provide goods, which the city will disperse evenly among residents. This, of course, will be more expensive and less fair than the free market. Ultimately, STEM workers will get sick of high taxes so they get the last remaining government cheese (probably artisan of course) and will flee. In 30 years Portland will look like '80s communist USSR. San Francisco will be 5-10 years behind.
The leaders have nothing to do with anything 😂
@@duancoviero9759 They have to do with everything.
@@corruptedpoison1 NO THEY DON'T. You're just another fool who keeps pushing the narrative that if all the leaders were Republicans it would be different. It wouldn't. Plain and simple. Go push that propaganda to someone stupid.
“You can’t just have upper-middle class and rich people…”
*Atherton has entered the chat*
Great video! For 2023, it’s hard to nail down specific predictions for the housing market is because it’s not yet clear how quickly or how much the Federal Reserve can bring down inflation and borrowing costs without tanking buyer demand for everything from homes to cars.
Nobody knows anything you need to create your own process, manage risk and stick to the plan, through thick or thin while also continuously learning from mistakes and improving.
@@belobelonce35 That's fascinating. How can I contact your Asset-coach as my portfolio is dwindling?
@@belobelonce35i also googled but can’t find the name. Can you help?
FYI…..the federal reserve is dead ! Demonic evil system ! Good riddance!
Take your money out of the failing banks ! Buy silver and gold !!!!!
My two favorite large cities, SF and Chicago. Lived in Chicago and visited SF quite often. Not as bad as everyone makes it and can be cheap for the day. Riding bikes across the Golden Gate and up Hawk Hill is a blast. If prices come down another 25% it will be real tempting.
I've been to both cities...Chicago more times than I can count...yet I wouldn't live in either one. I do not understand on God's green earth what the draw to either one is. There are SO MANY nice places to live in the US alone, (not considering other countries, just to be fair), that are completely affordable, safe, and beautiful, that I just do not see what stands out as "great" about either one.
SF has remarkable year around weather with great access to nature. It's a walker's and biker's paradise and the hills keep you in great shape. If you get bored in the city you can go across the Golden Gate bridge to Marin county or wine country. Monterey and Big Sur to the south are epic, so is Lake Tahoe and Yosemite to the east. As far as Chicago goes, it's a beautiful and modern big city. The architecture is terrific, the neighborhoods are great, the food is amazing, and Lake Michigan is wonderful. I prefer SF to Chicago but they're both great places to live. Some people don't prefer dense and crowded big cities but others do. I like the ability to go outside my door and do things without having to drive.
It always and forever will be one of the most attractive physical settings in the world and there is no disputing that old real estate maxim - location, location and location.
Why? You can live in much greater comfort pretty much everywhere else for much less
@@KanyeTheGayFish69 Such as? TX and FL are s.holes.
I heard that converting office high-rise buildings into residential units often isn't so easy for architects and developers. Tall office buildings have wide floor plates and large elevator banks in the center core. Most high rise apartments or condos have windows with a view which would be different to design from existing office towers.
The utility systems usually have to be upgraded massively, especially water. Running water for shared public restrooms and a couple of break room sinks is a lot less intense than dozens of toilets, showers, sinks, water heaters, etc. on every floor.
That is true. But still they should turn the vacant office towers into homeless shelters. I don't think most homeless people would reject a nice safe secure free apartment, just because it doesn't have windows. That would be a big improvement over living on the streets. If they don't want to create windowless apartments for the homeless, they could convert the core of the building into community service offices, healthcare, job service, education, charities, etc. Apartments on the outside, services in the interior. The perfect combination. Getting the homeless off the streets would improve quality of life for everyone and attract more people to the city.
Re Zoning, or Re Zoning. I read somewhere, SFGate maybe, that, tangent to your comment, even if the SF Supervisors voted tomorrow to rezone, they can't bc of snags with the State, the issue is outside SF's direct control. I read a lot of news so that is the sum total of what I remember. But that this is why the topic of rezoning for student housing is getting traction, different state laws or agencies or whatever will apply.
Can’t be cheep to retrofit a office building to residential.
Poop and used needles
One of the most objective RUclips videos I have seen since 2020. Bravo, keep up the good work.
SF really surprised me. I always saw horrible things about the city, and it exceeded my expectations completely. Love San Francisco 💕
Really good video. Balanced, well thought out, with reasonable predictions for its future. I enjoy all of your vids, but this one stands out because of the amount of factors involved. I also have to say that I really enjoyed the SF community map you shared. I had to pause that part to study it. Thanks!
Yes, I loved the map as well. Kyle can you post a link to that map ?
I lived in SF in the 90s and we had a 2 bd apt right up against the Presidio for 1400/mo. That was higher than most CA cities but it wasn't outrageous. The problem w the SE areas you mentioned is that they are old military bases with a lot of toxic chemicals in the landfill. Recently, Hunter's Point, which was slated for large scale development was put on indefinite hold because the city says that it is far too toxic and the Navy lied about it. The area around the old Candlestick Park is more viable but this was slated as an almost quasi-urban suburban type mixed office/housing type of development w a few high rises, but none of these plans included a lot of very dense housing. With the crash in commercial real estate occupancy, which some experts say won't come back to pre-Covid levels until 2040, building more offices is out of the question and it's almost impossible to get developers to build affordable housing. Any residential development will be very expensive. Like Los Angeles, most new condo/apt construction is very expensive. I imagine San Mateo developments would also be expensive.
Where all these rich people are coming from is a mystery to me. As far as I can see, nobody is coming up with a solution for middle class and working class housing. 10 units here and 20 units there with the current affordable housing equations for new developments is not even making a dent. San Jose is building public housing for teachers and fire fighters because they can't afford to live in the city. How much longer can that go on?
Housing in SF has become unsustainable. The people you need to run places can't afford to live anywhere within 50 miles of SF. How long can that go on? In the 90s, SF had decent blue collar neighborhoods. Those are gone. It's unbalanced. Large cities are successful because they house a wide range of people, with a wide range of jobs, and a place for everyone. Can a large city survive when only the wealthy can live there?
Fresno is the last affordable large city in CA. The problem with Fresno is that it is mainly a low wage job center with an almost non-existent professional job market. So, really housing is a state-wide issue. Build lots and lots more housing? NIMBY's will absolutely fight every attempt to densify housing in today's cities even in middle class neighborhoods that will drag out for decades. The path of least NIMBY resistance it to sacrifice agricultural land to do it, possibly urbanizing the whole Merced to Sacramento corridor, and in S CA urbanizing the Fresno to Bakersfield corridor. The problem with that are the environmental issues but also the job market, these are all low wage areas with little to nothing that attract high paying industries. Low educational attainment. High crime and poverty rates. The puzzle is immense.
There are structural problems in CA. Prop 13 means that anyone with a sweet legacy property tax deal isn't going to sell, and that is A LOT of people. They can't afford to lose that tax deal. They can't afford to buy a home in CA if they do sell. Again, only the wealthy can afford to buy real estate in CA.
Agreed the issues we blame San Jose and San Francisco having right now is a statewide systemic issue. How about another one move jobs out of San Jose and San Francisco to other parts of California like suburban areas such as Tracy, Vallejo, Fairfield, Antioch, Woodland, as a negotiating ploy to keep jobs within the Golden State and slow down the number of jobs moving to other states and countries. Also we need to reduce the size of the commute too.
@@blogdesign7126 good idea, but Fairfield, Vallejo, Tracy, and Antioch are also too expensive for middle and working class families.
How about moving jobs to places like Fresno, Visalia, Redding, Bakersfield? Those cities are still affordable and desperately need middle class and professional jobs.
I met a man who lives in Paso Robles and seemed to be doing pretty well. Paso Robles is beautiful, so I asked him what he did in Paso Robles? He said he works for Apple in Cupertino. He saw the confused look on my face. He told me bought an RV, drives up to San Jose to work, stays there during the week in the RV, and drives back home Fri afternoon. It was cheaper than living than living within 40 miles of the Bay Area.
Turns out, lots of people do that. El Camino Real and other boulevards in San Jose have RV's parked along them at night. That's what life in CA is becoming.
We also have to do something about foreigners and investment firms buying up homes to rent instead of living in. That is also contributing to the housing shortage.
I left CA a little under two years ago and I have zero regrets. It’s going to take at least a generation (if not more) before the situation bottoms out and begins to recover.
@@bryanCJC2105 Yes good point especially if you live in Solano County like I do we have to deal with residents (usually Middle and working Class) who have homes in the county but have to commute to the Bay Area and Sacramento areas for work reasons. But it has to deal with the same exact issues the main cities like San Francisco and Sacramento gets even though we are suburban. However in Solano County's case we need statewide help to deal with the same issues.
Also I see RV's camped out at supermarket paring lots for the same reasons usually for affordability reasons and they have to work in either Bay Area or Sacramento areas.
wrong. homeowners in calif that have that "sweet legacy propterty tax deal" can transfer their tax status to their new residences.
I've lived here in San Francisco for 31 years.
I've never seen a contributing member of society (employed or seeking employment) homeless.
They are 100% seriously mentally ill and most are junkies as well. I suppose a big problem is the compassion of the city. The homeless get lots of monetary and social benefits, around $1100/month. Many are given supportive housing and then almost immediately kicked out for drugs, fighting. They don't want to follow any rules. Because of my city's generosity it just attracts more.
SF has lawsuits against Carson City, Oklahoma City, Idaho corrections, and several others for dumping their just released mentally ill inmates off here.
The question becomes this. Is it more ethical for force these people into institutions to get help, medicated etc or is it more ethical to allow their self destruction and thus negatively impacting society.
@@MicroSBs That’s an odd way to frame that question but, yes, is our government’s negligence in (effectively) addressing mental illness worth the continued (negative) cost to our communities?
@@empresssk it's not negligence. The politicians are using the homeless to stay in power. They want and need the homeless to exist.
Both the Dems and the Reps need the homeless. The former for obvious reasons, the latter to keep blaming the former. Lots of finger pointing.
In Europe, there are no homeless camps because there's no two party system.
This isn't true, UCSF just released a study showing that an overwhelming amount of the homeless are from CA, had housing, and lost it due to the cost of living, and a majority are over the age of 50.
I don’t see SFBAY governance or Federal policy “compassionate”.
The fact that it is difficult to access mental health care, or drug rehabilitation, was a political decision which could have been corrected a long time ago.
For example Nancy Pelosi could have dedicated here entire career to establish Medicare4all, which would have at least put a dent in the problems you speak of. But she didn’t.
And the Democrats are completely controlled by the real estate investment lobbies. They are never going to do anything about making affordable housing.
The fact that Pelosi is running yet again is a symptom of the problem.
As a former resident, this was an excellent video with reasonable assumptions. A big issue not discussed are higher interest rates. It has created a very low inventory situation as sellers can't sell their home and finance a new one without incurring substantially higher housing costs. Buyers are also priced out of the market because of the higher interest rates and need the price of real estate to take a major haircut to offset the cost of borrowing. We've had low interest rates for so long that we're in a new era and it's going to take awhile to work itself out.
It seemed like he was looking at factors specific to SF and interest rates are a factor everywhere.
San Francisco needs to watch out or they get hit with the same bankruptcy issues that hit Vallejo, CA in 2008.
Even when interest rates were low, housing was unaffordable.
@@Redneck_Ed Good point. The city is dealing with the fallout of COVID and interest rates are part of that story. Excessive fiscal stimulus combined with ZIRP monetary policy in response to COVID was a major catalyst of inflation. The FED had to reverse course and raise interest rates.
This is why the FED needs to keep raising interest rates and hold for a while to expunge the bad investments. This will force the greedy that over leveraged themselves to liquidate their assets which will lower the prices of those assets. It would cause a recession but those that were conservative with their money will weather that storm. Otherwise, if the government/FED keeps propping up the markets, the poor and middle class will get wiped out from inflation and all hell will break loose.
I've been saying this for years, Rich in hills, poor below in streets
Unless you live in Brazil
I missed your point in how that statement relates to this video.
@@Matt90541 No poor on top of hills in San Francisco? Show me wrong 🤔
@@BamBamBigelow.Hunters point is covered in housing projects and poor folks.
San Francisco losing such a large piece of its population at one time isn't bad at all if you consider the fact that San Francisco was never meant to house so many... What's happening now is it's getting back to its "natural" population size. Which is where the city is at its best.
I am one of the “weirdos” who left San Francisco in the 90s. Affordability and homelessness were already a problem then. SF has always been a place in which alternative movements arose but, unfortunately, the tech boom basically ruined the city, pricing out many of the longer term residents who made the city what it was. I live in New Mexico now. Love it here and would NEVER move back. Money changes everything.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty took a great fall, All the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t put Humpty together again….
You’re definitely not a weirdo. I did the same and never went back. It’s been 23 years.
You're entitled to your opinion but I've been in sf for about ten years and it's far and away the best place I've ever lived. A billion things to do, close to everything and I make about 3 times more here than I would anywhere else. I agree with pricing out but almost all urban areas are doing that in the US now.
@@bender9222222222 Anyone who has lived in SF would say everything you just said. That’s the norm. But what’s not said is the vibe and overall consensus that SF has lost a lot of its charm. You can live there and be proud, it’s still an amazing city.
@@bender9222222222 I guess you would have to have been there in the 70s and 80s to see the difference. It’s still a beautiful city but I prefer a more bohemian vibe.
I’m glad you are happy there. My best to you.
@@epi2045 I've been hear 50 years and it really. has not lost its charm. the problems with drug markets and homeless and mentally ill is a real one and needs to be addressed, along with the property crime and general mayhem that seems to go unchecked (side shows and motorcycle hooligan gangs). but overall most days, most of the time, the city is great. Lots of bohemian vibe still exists. the music scene is still vibrant. the art scene even more.
After 35 years in the Santa Cruz / Silicon Valley area, I was forced to move away because of housing costs. I ended up in Boise but I see the seeds of the same problems here. People say the problems of California are because of liberal policies, but I believe the problems are due to policies we have all over the USA; California is just further down the same road. There are fundamental things about housing that we do wrong in this country and we have to change them. I don't know what the answer is, but I know people keep blaming the wrong things. It's not "those people", it's stuff we all do.
Good one and agreed too.
Because of regulations in CA, it takes an average of 10 years to build any developments. In other parts of the country it’s 1 1/2 years.
i didn't vote for politicians that defunded police. did you?
You didn’t get your own place in 35 years to live?
@@DronGexi
Hes a DEMOCRAT ya GOTTA know that
This California native and resident of SF for thirty years left in 2010. I have returned numerous times to witness its steady decline. I won’t go back again, too heartbreaking. Unfettered greed is the primary reason for the tragedy, there isn’t a close second…
I say its the Covid work from home killed the city along with soft on crime, limited affordable housing homeless drug use mental health
Two other connected issues - the risk of earthquakes and some areas of the city where - as seen in the 1989 earthquake in the 'marina' district and with the Millennium Tower mess, areas where buildings, should not be built or or where the structures necessary is cost prohibitive.
Many people don't realize that downtown San Francisco is built on reclaimed land. I think they're eventually going to have to tear down the Millennium.
The millennium tower wouldn’t have any earthquake or leaning problems if they had put pylons into the bed rock instead of shallow ones just into the landfill. With the right construction we can build more even with earthquakes
New regs are going to require retrofitting of all existing buildings in the city to new earthquake code. It has not passed yet, but it is expected to in less than a year. It would give 10 years to get every building in city to that code.
You can’t build on land fill. Which is what the SE part of the city is. They did it in the Marina District, which is extremely susceptible to earthquakes because the landfill literally liquefies and magnifies the intensity of an earthquake. Liquefaction is far more destructive than building on granite, which is what most of SF is built on .
You can totally build safely on landfill, you just have to go down to bedrock. This is impractically expensive for anything other than high rise towers, though
@@clhodappI don't doubt that a foundation to bedrock is absolutely acceptable but I feel I need to ask how confident are you this is required and what are you basing it on? The reason I ask is in many locations such foundstions are rare and it requires training and expertise to be aware of and discount less stable but possibly adequate foundation setups. .
Bedrock doesn't liquefy. Yeah, the foundations would have to be deeper than the landfill
@@georgebush6002 This is well-known around here, we have skyscrapers in places that were once underwater, obviously, you have to put pilings down below the landfill to secure that.
Balderdash. Most of the perimeter of SF is built on landfill, including downtown. All of the bay area is "susceptible" to earthquake.
Always level headed information. Love this channel
From a Geologist.....seismicity and the high cost related to safety in a highly seismic zone are primary challenges to reasonably-priced high-rise residences. While it has not collapsed (and probably will not), the Millenium Tower is a reasonably good example.
great content, well presented.
I would challenge one of your premises- I have read that it actually is quite expensive and impractical to re-purpose office buildings for residential, just due to the need to completely overhaul the plumbing and electric.
San Francisco could never be the next Detriot because people will always be willing to overpay for its temperate climate and gorgeous views.
No they won't. Humans are much more adaptive to climate than they are to crime. Hope isn't a strategy.
@@robloxvids2233 Not this human. I grew up in Detroit, and spent my whole LIFE looking forward to getting the hell out and moving to CA. Now the politics here are atrocious, but I'm not letting the bastards chase me out. I'm here for the weather and the waves.
Some people will step over a person with a needle sticking out of their neck vein, and refuse to ever put a winter coat on, all because they want to stare at the ocean. I will never understand it.
@TheRealDrJoey Well, there ya go, SF. Hope there enough ex-Detroiters who have already lived in a dystopian liberal wasteland that moving to SF (and losing a bunch of spending power) is still viewed as a step up!
@maxpowerhomer Below zero? Hyperbole much??
It is not just San Francisco needs to build more high rises.
It is also Daly City, Oakland, Berkeley, San Rafael and all over the CA coast.
Excellent. Top notch content, insights, narration. I'm subscribing.
Every neighborhood of SF needs to be upzoned. The entire west side which is capped at 3 stories needs to be risen to at least 6. Cities are ever-adapting entities which need to change as the underlying population changes. SF has made this change illegal with Exclusionary Zoning. That's why all these problems are happening.
The city was a shithole 30 years before that.
The problem is that the population specifically doesn’t want that. They don’t want change. They want to drink champagne in their hills while preaching to us below to eat the rich.
@@moonshinei Yeah but you don't want to destroy the fabric of a city SF is unique and one of a kind when most other US cities all look the same. A wall of buildings does not make for a livable city just turns SF in to a faceless block of structures. The issue is that people come and go, they move, they only live for so long but the city will outlive them so there is a balance between just stuffing people in to housing and creating a city for future generations to enjoy and maintains its character.
@@drscopeify100%
@@moonshinei There are good reasons for San Francisco not to go that route. Google: SF's Millennium Tower. Also San Francisco's streets are narrow and hilly, and traffic is already gridlocked. The type of density you are proposing would make the problem 100 times worse.
This strikes me as a different kind of video from your usual fare. Looking at the title, I was concerned you were going to go political, but you kept it really neutral. You're quite the pro, Kyle.
It is very political of course, the only people who freak out are right wingers who will do summersaults and backflips to defend their ideology.
Hard to avoid politics when most of the "problems" are a result of local and state political decisions which are unlikely to change in the near future. The one thing that I think will take a long time to recover will be tourism, simply because even one person defecating on the sidewalks is one person too many for a tourist destination.
The problem is you can't ignore politics here. Politics ruined it
Kyle SHOULD HAVE gone political, and we all know which party is to blame.
The Vatican lgbt of 1995 should have left me and my mom alone
Always enjoy your videos. Thank you.
This was a great view into SF . Please consider doing something like this on Seattle. take care
You don’t have to imagine SF or Toronto in the future, look at Vancouver, BC-plenty of dense, high rise housing yet still high prices and high demand. Why do people think cities will become “affordable” if they become Manhattan or Vancouver?
i feel really torn on San Francisco’s development. on one hand, the urbanist in me sees plenty of potential to densify blocks and extend bart/muni subways up through the west and north sides of the city. but then the architect i am sees the beautiful victorian architecture that is so essential to sfo’s character that would be destroyed by new construction. idk, im really torn.
Agreed. I like the townhouse look of San Francisco. There are single family home neighborhoods that could be up zoned to row houses which offers a solution, but it won’t be as dense. I am partial to keeping the rowhouse character of the city.
There's no historic Victorian architecture in the Sunset district - the 4 blocks to the pacific. there are only ugly 2 story garage-on-the-bottom houses. displacement? Figure a 25 year project as home owners desire to sell to developers. The elderly like to sell their big house and move to hassle free ocean view condos. Perhaps make the 1st 50 story condo an over 55 building.
only a small part of the city actually has victorian architecture, those being areas developed in the mid to late 1800s which survived the 1906 earthquake, and the construction of housing projects . plenty of areas can be densified besides these historic areas.
"sfo" is an airport code not a city.
Are cites just giant museums or places for people to live/work?
Good video, thank you for sharing.
Great video :)- I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area for over 35 years and I left in August 2011. I have been in Vegas for 12 years now and it seems that things have gotten severly worse :(- Kudos to you for your efforts to this video :)- !!!
Of course its bad in vegas!! What did you expect?!?! Vegas is disney for adults!! Lolololol!!
great nuanced breakdown of this issue! i agree with basically everything you said
people who think sf is going the way of detroit are just jealous of all of the assets the city has (walkable, best transit in west coast, vibrant history, great people) and want to see it fail.
i love san francisco, and i’m sure it will rebound. i think the best case scenario is that the tech bros get driven out of the city, the state government imposes more housing laws that make it easier to build housing in the city (especially around the richmond and sunset) and all around the bay area, and sf has a return to its old form as a weird, charming working class city.
San Francisco doesn't have the racism of 1950s Detroit (the overwhelming cause for its failure), and didn't put all its eggs in one basket with the car. The next Detroit is the next city in Florida that gets hit with a Cat 5. The last private insurers in the state will leave, putting the state on the line for all insurance, raising rates and/or taxes, and chasing away potential movers. It's the Cat 5 after that which bankrupts a US state.
Small hotels with single rooms and the bath down the hall were abundant in the 1960's in San Francisco.These rooms in over a hundred small hotels offered a cheap place for those of us new to the city and just starting out.
A quality and professional vid! Fantastic!
For non-biased videos on the USA Geography King is the go-to. With all the variables/issues people are facing - his work is a massive public service.
Perhaps a new generation will move in to revitalize. No one is going to move back. Reason being there will never be what was...our moments here. There may be that for those who come, but not for those who left. I live in the TL. It's horrible here.
This was the first time I heard the term "Torontify". We "Torontonians" refer to what's happening to our city as "Manhatinization". Great video.
I spent most of a day there in 1989. Mostly I walked after getting off Caltrain near the Moscone Center (and eventually walking back there). Beautiful place then although there were a few signs of future troubles. Walked under the Golden Gate Bridge, went up the Coit Tower, ate at Fisherman’s Wharf, and so on.
I don’t think I’ll ever visit again.
Thirty five years ago I moved out of SF on a job transfer, homelessness had always been where the homelessness are now except, they are now more concentrated to certain areas because of gentrification especially south of market. Before the homeless lived on cardboards and shoping cards, and today they are in tents. There are more homelessness now than before but the percentage is consistent with the increase in the general population.
The tech companies are facing conflicting choices. On the one hand they want people back in the office but that means they have to pay high wages so people can live near those offices.On the other hand they want lower labor cost so could hire remotely, even overseas. Being profit seeking entities I think that they will opt for the later in the end thus SF will lose a lot of high paying jobs and go back to a more balanced income city like it used to be. The insanity of the vicious cycle of paying people a lot to live in SF only to find those high wages bidding up housing costs thus necessitating even higher wages has come to and end because the tech companies are now putting profits first since that is what Wall Street is now demanding.
And on the other hand, those well paid workers now find it useful to work remotely from their rural area home instead of being on such a mega city. A win-win situation for both sides?...
@@nunagoras No the tech companies will stop paying those higher wages needed to live in SF since it's workers won't have to live there. They'll look at the cons of remote work (less supervision) and pros (much lower wages) and come down on the side of hiring cheaper labor elsewhere,
All good points. I enjoyed your rational perspective. It's refreshing to see something about SF that isn't all about negative complaints and grievances.
"I doubt anyone is going to commute 45 miles to work a low wage job in the city." Clearly, he's never met the hotel staff working in Vail or Aspen, Colorado.
I left the Bay Area because the quality of life and cost of living does not add up. We’re dual income no kids household and it was still impossible to find housing that didn’t cost massive amounts of money. I got tired of it and fled to Chicago. Our money goes much further out here
Into the pockets of the criminal that robs you. From one shithole to another.
Are you seriously bragging about Chicago??!!
great video kyle. i love how measured and level-headed your approach is to such sensitive topics. very refreshing compared to the sensationalist mainstream media
Measured and level-headed is a weird way to say unrealistic
Born and raised in S.F., but no longer live there. There is only 1 place in the whole city where they can build new high-rise condos. That is where CandleStick park used to be. They can do like Vancouver, BC. Everywhere else is completely saturated with old houses. The city is only 7 1/4 by 7 miles and and is already overpopulated for the space.
it's already been done sir
As usual great report!!!
San Francisco has always been a boom / bust city, and the biggest reason I see that it absolutely won’t become another Detroit is physical geography: as long as there is that weather, the bay, the Pacific, the Redwoods and access to the Sierras, there will be demand to live there. Sure, home prices are coming down and they’re dealing with some strain, but when a steep population drop only undoes one decade worth of growth, things aren’t too terrible.
Modern homelessness is confusing to me; I’m sure that some of it is traditional issues of mental problems and drugs, but a lot seems to be political and, again, geographical: homeless people seem to flock en masse to liberal sanctuaries with good weather, which doesn’t seem like a move that someone with major mental deficiencies would naturally think of. Perhaps the simplicity of travel now facilitates some of it, but it seems to be a common burden of attractive cultural meccas so I don’t see that one going away.
My own take is that San Francisco will indeed experience some more drop in housing prices, and the next time there’s a recession that drives interest rates down, new companies will take advantage of the financing opportunity, flock to the area with their people and fill it right back up.
Yeah but you can have all of that in San Jose, Sacramento, Vallejo or any other neighboring cities that are cheaper. Frisco's magic wears off after a year. It's just inconvenient, expensive, and frankly grimey. I rather live elsewhere and occasionally visit. Can't even extend my arms out properly in some of those showers in the bay. 800k for that lol.
@@maxpowerhomer I remember San Jose was another place people complained to be overpriced during the booms and they cite people from Tracy and Modesto commuting to San Jose for job reasons.
@@maxpowerhomer Yes I heard of this and actually San Jose has more people than San Francisco Proper. Yes Elon Musk was the stereotype behind the name "Bro Jose" back before he hyped up moving his main offices to Austin along with other Silicon Valley leaders.
Vallejo because they went bankrupt in 2008 during the recession. Vallejo houses some of the people that cannot afford being in the SF city proper. But since Vallejo is in a county called Solano County, which is viewed as the outer suburbs for both San Francisco and Sacramento Commuters. We need to pick up on the slack for jobs and housing density for both places. Also we need to put more jobs on Mare Island. I knew there has been an issue over Vallejo keeping Mare Island as a historical area due to the place being a ship building area in the past but we need to do a better job attracting jobs and increase housing density here. We need to offset overcrowding from San Francisco one way or another.
Sacramento because its scapegoated the most because this is where the West Coast Branches of Lobbying firms are located.
From what I heard, CA purposely buses in homeless people from other cities and states.
@@maxpowerhomer Good one too!
It is actually very difficult to convert office buildings to residential. It's going to be interesting to see what cities decide to do with them in the future. In some cities I wouldn't be surprised if they just knock some of them down. It might make more sense to rebuild than convert.
That’s more money to spend right?
I live in San Mateo County. There is quite a bit of housing construction going on here. But one thing you didn't point out is that most of San Mateo County consists of steep forested mountains. The area along the bay side of the county that is flat enough for urban/suburban development has already been developed. There is no room to build any more single family detached houses. The only way to add additional housing is to build apartment buildings, condos, and townhouses on parking lots, strip malls and other underutilized land in the existing urban area.
I concur. I think the person who put out this content did very little research
thanks for the vid kyle, really appreciate the unbiased content
There are so many haters out there and I'm sick of it. Thanks, GK, for a balanced take as always.
You know what the animal on the San Francisco city flag is? A phoenix rising from the ashes. Ok the flag is atrocious- but the point is the city is continuously reinventing itself.
The weather is gorgeous here today. People are out and about and having a great time. And only about a century until they build Starfleet Academy...
SF is beautiful but it's not reinventing itself, and that's the problem. Back in the 1880s when Chicago boomed, we got a beautiful futuristic city out of it. But in the 2000s when the Bay Area boomed, we got... the same Bay Area just more expensive. So what happened? The issue is restrictive zoning that locked the area in a straight jacket. Back when Chicago boomed, zoning didn't exist. There is so much demand for housing that the west side of SF would have been 8 stories tall by now if not for restrictive zoning. The city SHOULD reinvent itself and loosen all these arbitrary zoning laws that are causing the housing crisis and homelessness crisis.
The phoenix is actually rising out of the ashes of the old city charter. This was the result of electing a progressive city council to replace a notoriously corrupt one and then having the people vote in a new city charter. Everyone thinks it had something to do with the earthquake and fire as it certainly sounds reasonable.
@@mariusfacktor3597 homelessness is caused by drug usage of those people, drug dealers there are not prosecuted etc.
@@denysivanov3364 America has a drug problem. Rural Tennessee has a meth problem. But the reason you don't see mass homelessness in rural Tennessee is because housing is within reach for everyone there. Not the case in SF.
The less affordable housing there is, the higher the homelessness rate. This trend holds true for every city in America. So it's no surprise that after decades of banning low-cost housing, SF has lots of homeless people.
@@mariusfacktor3597 SF created environment where dealers feel safe to sell drugs, criminals feel safe to steal stuff in stores and from cars and so on. I don't know about Tennessee I haven't been there. But I also can say SF is much better than Los Angeles. In SF as I guy I never been attacked, but in SF young woman are non existent in 10PM bus, I think they are afraid (in my home country you will see young woman in public transport at anytime). In LA though, homeless criminals behave aggressively and attack random people on the street or in the bus. Every day there I had a problem and was attacked twice in 5 days. You can send one cop undercover (male or female) inside the bus, or into Santa Monica/Venice beach day/night and arrest only idiots attacking, I bet there will be 5-10 zombies per day minus from the street, from each undercover person just waiting to be attacked. If SF is heading in this direction its very bad. Talking about LA only Beverly Hills is good, because police there works, everything else is garbage, small percentage of criminals poison living environment for everybody. Criminals should be in prison, aggressive mentally ill people in the mental facility. City shouldn't be wasteland where working people should hide in cars from zombies waiting for you in the bus or on the sidewalks/public parks. I've been in a lot of countries but never seen problems of this scale, ignored! When ignored problem increases, not reduces.
Also I don't have issue when somebody peacefully drinking at home, or smoking something. But they shouldn't harm other people, when they harm neighbors with smoke its bad and probably should be fined, if they fight neighbors/ random people, if they commit crimes such as stealing/ robbing they should be in prison.
I even have idea related to drugs. Legalize more stuff then weed BUT it should be sold using computerized system and people shouldn't buy more then can be considered harmful, including alcohol. I guess alcohol once per week is safe, 2 times should be forbidden. With another substances also should be safe amount, I think its good idea and doctors can judge better. If guy bought 2 beers or one bottle of whiskey he can't buy weed for a week and so on. This way we can eliminate crime/ drug dealers and cartels and also control health of the people.
Great insights...I grew up in San Jose moved to Asia in 2017--still love SF and the Bay Area--resided in the Bay Area from 1967 to 2026 and in California for 50 years
Good, balanced overview.
There’s a whole confluence of factors impeding true urban renewal in the city. It’s historical foundations, earthquake risk, NIMBYS, and more so when the conservatives talk about the city failing, I’d say we are in a better spot than lots of places in America. But still.
As much as the council and city hall talks up urban revival they are just as stuck in the pocket of the companies and the legacy residents to make much sweeping change.
The pandemic fucked up any short term downtown revival and I personally like people being able to work from home. I want downtown to be more than just boring offices downtown so maybe this could shake things up but it will take decades to truly settle.
The bay is a tangle of contradictory ideology, incentives and economics it would take a real plan and the social pressure to do so to really get this much needed ball rolling and the people with all the power and money have many reasons to resist that.
Good analysis and metrics of the problems. Only four years ago, I would have come to SF for dinner, but not now, and the change is attributable to city government policy changes. The geography of that beautiful city means that it will rebound, once citizens change their requirements for government - and that is not a solution to expect in the near term.
I'd say never. The decline won't stop.
I grew up in SF, in the top half of what we called a flat, at 422 Naples St. One of the houses you highlighted here is on Naples. That area is called the Excelsior District and is considered one of the last "affordable" neighborhoods in the City. Much of the housing you spoke of here is in or very near the Excelsior. I thought actually that several of the prices you showed were "suspiciously low." The house at 278 Niagara Ave is absolutely beautiful. For me, that is classic San Francisco, Excelsior District architecture. It reminds me of my childhood. Oh! As a matter of fact, my thumbnail is a picture of the neighborhood famous Azteca Market at the corner of Naples and Excelsior. Great food. You must go.
azteca market you mean Don Chuys?
Here in Melbourne high rise apartments in the downtown area barely existed before the year 2000 and have now become the main solution for creating more affordable housing. Affordability to buyers/ renters, profits for builders combined with lack of planning and guidelines with design means we now have a city centre full of high rise apartments that are mostly visually unappealing making the city look and feel worse. Housing is important but so is the aesthetics of a city. Im nervous to see a city such as San Fran with so much beauty and character be overly changed and developed..
I liked melbourn..
@@peter-pg5yc why? It’s an ugly city with ugly people
I remember in the 1970’s when people said NYC was dying - crime, homelessness, businesses moving out, etc. And every few years, like clockwork, the NY-based media has predicted LA and/or California’s impending doom. As bad as it is at the moment it is very unlikely to suffer “permanent” decline like the rust belt cities.
I was there in June. It as so disappointing. The streets were dirty, tent city’s, empty storefronts
greeting. we are from Croatia. we had a scholarship to SFN last winter and stayed in the city like Alice in Wonderland. Only now that we are better acquainted, we cannot believe what is happening to San Francisco and America in general. We are of the opinion that the problem is drug legalization in the first place.
what drugs are legal 😂
Great genius analysis.
The problem with trying to densify SF with high rises is trying to earthquake-proof them, which would be very expensive. Take a look at what happened to Hong Kong - it's an earthquake-prone city with a tone of density but has some of the highest housing costs in the world. SF could wind up in that situation.
I agree with the San Mateo upzoning suggestion. But people there like their $5M homes, and are fiercely opposed to ANYTHING that might lower their property values (like increased density).
Love this channel
San Francisco needs to look to cities like Vienna Austria with 60 percent of residents living in social housing with affordable rent based off income. SB9 will eventually help add more affordable housing options in surrounding suburbs with room for lot splits, duplexes and ADUs.
The problem is everyone is dense US cities wants to live in singles family homes.
Vienna is not a good example, because every Austrian pays to subsidize Vienna....also you need connections to the local party or wait decades to get public housing. The people with public housing are called "rent nobility"
I appreciate your thoughtful analysis on the situation. I visited San Francisco for the first time a couple months ago and it aligned with what you are saying. Before I left, I heard a lot of negative talk from people about how awful the city was, and yes, there are a lot of homeless in certain parts, but it is also stunningly beautiful in many areas. Right now, if you have the money, it's a great place to live. The weather is nice, lots of cool stuff to do, etc. But for most people moving there doesn't make a lot of sense right now. It's a very unique city so I'm hoping things moderate just a little bit. I think it will.
I too visited San Francisco for the first time ever a few months ago. We went through every part of the city and it doesn't seem to be nowhere near as bad as you hear about. I've been pretty much everywhere and this is by far the most beautiful city I have ever seen. I hope they can figure it out but it starts with voting for republicans. Democrats have no clue on how to run anything
I haven't really had a bad experience there, except for maybe a few aggressive drivers. But the homeless people are unsightly. They're all over the place and it makes me uncomfortable because their numbers are growing.
Stunningly beautiful is right. Clean air. Goid economy, tolerable weather. Right now even the Pac northwest boiling, SF still pleasant. I don't know where people go where they see so much homeless. I see 50 tourists for every homeless.
@@michaelwhite2823 I was stunned at the lack of homelessness, and like I said we went everywhere in the city. I know it's there but I've seen several cities way worse than San Francisco
Moderate itself 😂😂😂😂it’s been going downhill even when I was living there in the early 90’s……..you get what you vote for in the end.
I lived in the Bay Area for 30years and worked in the “City”however I noticed ~3 years ago things changed for the worse. High home prices, crazy leadership, drug abuse and distribution out in the open, car break ins, overall theft, lack of unity and understanding for anything that’s not to the extremes.
The house I owned in Santa Clara county my yearly property tax was ~$3500/year. The new owners now pay $18,500/year!!!
Last March I moved out of California. I left my heart in San Francisco.
Very interesting video. One big typo error-in the map of Bay Area counties, the county on the north side of the Golden Gate Bridge is labeled as Mann County. That’s actually Marin County.
Interesting to compare to Vancouver, a west coast city thats experincing super high house and rent prices and that also needs way more supply. The difference is Canada has less options when it comes to big cities to live in, and Vancouver is the only major city with mild winter weather. Needless to say there won't be any downward momentum on housing prices here anytime soon, unlike San Francisco.
The city of South San Francisco is in San Mateo county and is building dozens of apartment buildings, especially near 101. The longtime residents hate it, because we have always been a quiet suburb with neighborhoods. But the city council is continuing to build more and more.
Wow! the stuff I hear about is that some of the Bay Area residents that cannot afford to leave the state move to Tracy, Modesto for 2 decades. Congrats to the current South San Francisco leaders.
Also don't forget the Biotech Industry has some of their main Bay Area offices in South City like Genentech does. Also South City has the convenience of being near SFO.
SF is not in San Mateo; SF is its own county.
@user-fb4zo8wd5n commenter wrote South San Francisco which is in San Mateo County
“South City,” as the Caltrain conductors call it. (San Francisco being “The City.”)
I appreciate your California content very much
You raise some great points
When I lived there in the 2010s there was a lot of talk about torontofying Treasure Island. They were talking about over the media, and I really thought that would be the pressure release valve. But nothing ever came of it - er, well they eventually put in the ferry.
I recall hearing that SF intentionally resists vertical growth and prefers the suburban low rise, low-efficiency land-use layout, especially near the water. Is that (still) a phenomenon that is going on? Has SF lost the momentum of the tech growth while other cities now vie for those companies to set up shop there?
I once lived in SF, and over the years visited there frequently. There is no place in the world like it. I expect, however, that the future that the W.E.F. has for large American cities is going to be comparable to what is happening to cities in France right now. It's going to be a very bumpy ride going forward.
SF should be converted into a gated and walled city reserved to those who have sufficient revenues and corporate-reviewed right of residence. The privilege to be a resident should be marketable at a high price and transmittable as a heirloom. Only tourists ready to tour the city in organized guided groups following a tour schedule should be allowed in, at a hefty price. This city should be made international and all Americans should be asked for a passport and visa. The people known to have participated in the hippie movement of the 1960's, together with their descendants, should be excluded forever. In brief, let the snobs pay themselves for their own snobbishness. The present-day homeless should be moved to another even better securitized town at a certain distance, paid by the very high taxes and rents elicited on SF, that would serve as a top-notch hospital town with facilities to treat their drug problems : they would be allowed to take their drugs (all Americans take one dope or another, the worst being prescription drugs available through compliant MDs) but any unruly behaviour resulting from drugs should be rigorously treated by fasting and exercise. Living in tents should be offered as an option so as to enjoy nature but they should be subject to military inspection for orderliness and cleanliness. Any drug user no matter legal or illegal should go un-harassed as long as his behaviour is orderly but if caught manifesting unruly or delinquent behaviour due to drugs he should be driven to that hospital city.
As a Canadian, I'm not sure whether I should be impressed or disappointed seeing the rent and housing prices in SF be roughly the same as Toronto, if not lower, even factoring in currency conversion.
Excellent analysis !!!! My thoughts are, solve the crime issues, and/or homelessness first. An unsafe city, real or imagined will continue to drive business and people away. Spot on with the SE corner of San Francisco....that's the only place available to develop more housing.
There has been some wonderful mid rise construction in Los Angeles. The new University Village near USC is a great example of the type of human scaled, dense, mixed-use development that I hope catches on. SF is absolutely not "completely built out" -there is certainly infill and upzoning opportunities, and buildings will naturally be updated and rebuilt over time. SF has fairly old housing stock for the type of construction used.
Luckily, people are catching on that density is essential for the health of the city, long term. You can move people around more efficiently and be overall more productive when people are close to work. The amount of people that have to travel into the city for work is crazy, and the time they spend commuting is wasted for everyone.
The slaves should be at their place of work and no where else. No autonomy. No choices. Just work and sleep. Crammed like a fish in a tin.
You pointed out a big problem with reducing homeless. A lot of these people are not functional. Its not like they hit a streak of bad luck, its a combination of mental illness and drug use that have gotten them to a point where there is no return. We need to build asylums in an isolated location and have them placed there where they can get into a rehabilitation program, become stable, then pick up a skill. But we have to come to terms also with the fact that many will never qualify to go back into society as functional members due to the potential for relapse. Thats where you use taxes plus the skills they earn, whether thats carpentry, farming or low wage jobs, they go back to the asylum campus every evening and live out the rest of their lives there. I know, it sounds like I'm sweeping them on the carpet. Well yes, technically, but what better options are there?
This is just like Seattle. It's difficult as a dual income household making decent money to afford to rent anything in the city. It's just become unrealistic to keep living here.
Well done video with great insight. You should be a city planner.
I’m looking forward to a day when San Francisco gets an iron-fisted government, and makes “The Final Sweep” through areas like the Tenderloin and improves on it. There was a day when I was empathetic to the homeless and the troubled downtrodden. But those days have long since sailed. San Francisco deserves better, even if it means being strategically tough and merciless. Enough is enough!!
Imaging if the Tenderloin was cleared out of the drug dealers, addicts and homeless and was populated by people who actually worked and contributed to the life of the city.
Homelessness is directly correlated with the cost of living. Until you address the cost of living and lack of housing, homelessness will get worse.
I love it here in Ypsilanti MI!
Is ESU still a pretty good party school? I got wasted more than once in your hamlet in the 60s.
@@TheRealDrJoey I think you meant EMU, right?
@@BS-vx8dg Right.
@TheRealDrJoey still partying!
@@jeffgerndt2813 You guys have always been way cooler than UofM.
I remember watching “The Streets of San Francisco” growing up. Even though the location on the map is the same, it’s a totally differed place, and not in a good way. 📺
Where I worked they had a main office downtown, and satellite offices out where a lot of employees lived.
Realistically I think there is going to be a massive price correction on all the commercial real estate. I live in Portland where commercial rent is 1/4 of what bay area rent goes for. When genentech closed their south bay office with 300 patient advisors, guess where they moved their office to? Oregon. They work in my building. Portland too is seeing a fair share of vacancy but our downtown seems like its doing pretty good for a west coast city. I wonder if foreign investors will step in eventually. If the Chinese are flush with cash maybe there will be a real estate rush if prices fall enough. I think US cities will see stuff like that happen.
I live in San Mateo County. A lot of the land here is mandated as permanent open space. In the town I live in along the Pacific coast, it's about 50% permanent open space. For the remaining land that you supposedly can build on, building regulations are onerous and existing laws make it incredibly easy for a single individual to tie up any kind of development by filing a lawsuit or appeal. You can't build a birdhouse here without someone suing to stop it. This is actually a problem along the whole coast of California.
State tax laws here are such that cities get a lot more tax dollars back for building commercial space than housing, so that's another impediment.
Also, the people who own the empty skyscrapers in downtown SF say it's far too expensive to convert the empty office space to housing, due to substantial differences in building codes between office buildings and residential buildings. Only really old buildings can be converted. I do think more people need to be living downtown. Without office workers, much of downtown has become a 24/7 ghost town.
I do expect SF will fully recover, but into what, who knows? The political leadership that SF has now needs to be almost totally replaced before that can happen, though.
Urban blight is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The worse it gets, the more people stay away. I live in the East Bay, and my neighbors no longer go to the City just to hang out like we used to. We'll go for a specific event like a concert or museum, pay extra to park in a guarded lot, then high tail it home.
But the opposite could also happen in the future if a few issues like car break-ins and public sanitation can improve. San Francisco has great potential.
When I make it out of the city with all my windows intact, it feels like I won a prize. You didn't get me today San Francisco!
inconvenient truths... thoughtful insights.. reasoned conclusions
Good job! Can you do a similar type of analysis for Chicago?
Just moved here in February and loving it so far. Rent is less than 1k but I have 3 roommates. It's a great place to live, but no doubt has some major issues. Definitely nice to see some potential positive outcomes for the future because I keep hearing the total opposite. Also--pretty sure there's some new housing going up on treasure island which is great. It's cool to see a highrise being constructed out in the middle of the bay.