Skyline Pictures

[ColDayMan]

Oakland has an actual downtown. Mississauga has Square One. A Toronto area equivalent for Oakland would be if Hamilton were much closer.

[whiteford]

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

Oakland has an actual downtown. Mississauga has Square One. A Toronto area equivalent for Oakland would be if Hamilton were much closer.

right.

[uaarkson]

Originally Posted by LMich

I'm pretty surprised you'd say that being that that is perhaps the very worst angle to photograph the albeit small Flint skyline from. lol

True, but as far as I can tell it was taken from the third floor of the RTC building at Mott, a place where I have spent many many hours. I recognized the angle instantly. Plus it's nice to see some hometown rep.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by SLO

Dont act so surprised. No there is no real estate in San Francisco as cheap as $250k. Its the suburbs for you. Every city or metro has areas average income earners can not afford, in SF's case its the entire city.

Well I've never been to San Francisco so the only way to get an understanding of the situation there is to ask questions. So, one can buy a house in the suburbs for $250,000?

If that's the case, there in lies the problem for Toronto and its suburbs. You can't buy a house that cheap no matter where you go. A high rise condo is the only option available for average income earners in Toronto unless you're a dual income household pulling in $100,000+. A detached house is just not an option... not even in the suburbs. You need $400,000 - $500,000 for a complete dump and even those are hard to come by.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by mthd

not really. is there a reason it should be? san francisco is a great city to rent in, with many protections for renters and a wide range of choices.

You realize that's why Europeans left Europe en masse for the New World 1850-1970? The New World was 'the land of opportunity' where the masses could aspire to something better; it very much had to do with home ownership.

Restricting home ownership to the wealthy goes against everything the US and Canada are supposed to be about. In your country I believe you call it 'The American Dream'?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by fflint

Detached? Only 17% of San Francisco housing units are detached.

Local teachers and retail workers most likely rent like everyone else, probably outside city limits. If they own, they own far outside the city.

Correct. Hell, if you have a relatively good-paying job home ownership isn't really an option, and hasn't been for decades. I find your questions oddly naive--did you really expect me to tell you a retail worker can afford to buy a detached house in the city of San Francisco for $250,000?

Thanks for your answers. Naive? No, I was under the impression that home ownership for all was something Americans valued. My perception was at odds with your statement that high rise condos aren't built in SF despite high house prices. It begged the question, maybe houses are cheaper there than I thought? Either houses were available at $250,000 or 'home ownership for all' isn't something valued in that part of the US any more.

You answered the question for me though. It's the latter.

Where I live we make an effort to make the dream of home ownership possible if we can. We consider it more important than protecting the views of rich home owners. A house for $250,000 isn't an option in Toronto either, so we build high rise condos for those people.

People in San Francisco may not agree with that line of thought, but the dream of home ownership FOR ALL is still highly valued in Canada.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Thanks for your answers. Naive? No, I was under the impression that home ownership for all was something Americans valued. My perception was at odds with your statement that high rise condos aren't built in SF despite high house prices. It begged the question, maybe houses are cheaper there than I thought? Either houses were available at $250,000 or 'home ownership for all' isn't something valued in that part of the US any more.

You answered the question for me though. It's the latter.

Where I live we make an effort to make the dream of home ownership possible if we can. We consider it more important than protecting the views of rich home owners. A house for $250,000 isn't an option in Toronto either, so we build high rise condos for those people.

People in San Francisco may not agree with that line of thought, but the dream of home ownership FOR ALL is still highly valued in Canada.

Homeownership is for those with the income to support it...the majority of people just don't make that much money, so a dream is all it may ever be. I know it may seem like most people make 6 figures and own homes, but that's not reality - in Canada or anywhere else. The majority are not that wealthy.

[Beedok]

Wait, why is owning a place such an important thing? I don't plan on ever buying a condo, I would rather rent.

[10023]

Home ownership isn't a fundamental right. That's one of the reasons that doing away with landholding requirements for voting, etc was such a big deal (because the latter is a fundamental right).

In fact, one could argue that home ownership rates in the US are too high, or were as of 2007. People that couldn't really afford to own (read: didn't really have excess capital) were stretching their budgets excessively to do so. And home ownership also reduces labor force mobility (and is one of the contributors to current high unemployment).

People certainly don't have a fundamental right to own their home, or even live, in San Francisco or Toronto or any other highly desirable locality. If one lives in a place and it becomes too expensive for them to live there... they should move.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Restricting home ownership to the wealthy goes against everything the US and Canada are supposed to be about. In your country I believe you call it 'The American Dream'?

There are plenty of homeownership opportunities in the Bay Area for the non-wealthy. Keep in mind that 1. Salaries are very high; 2. Existing homeowners already have the equity to buy something new; and 3. The fringe is generally affordable.

People always seem to exaggerate relative affordability in high-cost areas. You have plenty of middle class dual income couples that can afford something, even in expensive communities on the Peninsula, for example. I have friends who recently bought in Burlingame, and they are hardly wealthy. They're a two-earner upper middle class couple.

[Ex-Ithacan]

After 10 posts without a pic, I had to throw one on. Here's Lynchburg, VA:

[fflint]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Either houses were available at $250,000 or 'home ownership for all' isn't something valued in that part of the US any more.

Your thinking here is muddled and error-prone.

First, you fall way outside the scope of the discussion and indulge in outrageously broad generalizations when concluding San Francisco's high home prices show everyone in this part of the United States no longer values owning a house.

Second, you have it all backward. It is precisely because of the high value placed on owning a home here that prices are so very high; and because prices are so very high, many would-be homeowners must rent.

According to today's papers, the median sales price for all types of homes--condos, townhomes and single family detached--in the nine-county Bay Area is $510,000. There is, of course, tremendous variation in median price by location: Alameda $448,250; Contra Costa $397,500; Marin $799,000; Napa $385,000; Santa Clara $645,000; San Francisco $815,000; San Mateo $726,000; Solano $238,000; Sonoma $376,000.

Your $250,000 detached houses can be had in Solano County cities like Fairfield, about 50 miles northeast of San Francisco.

Where I live we make an effort to make the dream of home ownership possible if we can. We consider it more important than protecting the views of rich home owners. A house for $250,000 isn't an option in Toronto either, so we build high rise condos for those people.

Zoning for hundreds of high-rise private residential developments is the 'effort' you're claiming you collectively make, right?

Look, domestic and international demand for a pad in San Francisco will always outstrip the supply in these hilly, waterbound 47-square miles. Even if we filled all practicable sites with residential skyscrapers, prices would not likely drop down to something a retail worker could afford--the endless parade of foreign and institutional investors will still outbid the local cashier.

Of course, it's possible I'm wrong and that sort of building frenzy could indeed depress housing costs. Disappearing the mountains, hills, bridges, bay, and ocean behind tall, bland cement curtains could indeed slacken demand for living here, since such a place would be neither special nor attractive.

The beauty of San Francisco isn't the cityscape itself, but rather the setting within which this cityscape exists. It has always been important to keep the balance right--not allowing the built environment to overwhelm the natural setting, but not allowing the natural beauty to completely stunt the growth and prosperity of the city. I'm really glad prior generations prevented the wholesale destruction of this unique place, and I share their skepticism of theoretical arguments amounting to little more than the idea we need to destroy San Francisco in order to save San Francisco.

[fflint]

And now, more skyline!


Thrashgordon on flickr

[isaidso]

Toronto by imcconac, on Flickr



what.we.have.done by jonathancastellino, on Flickr

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There are plenty of homeownership opportunities in the Bay Area for the non-wealthy. Keep in mind that 1. Salaries are very high; 2. Existing homeowners already have the equity to buy something new; and 3. The fringe is generally affordable.

I don't know what to believe at this point. A few people are arguing that home ownership for average income earners is out of the question, you're saying it is. So these affordable houses in SF, can you buy them for $250,000?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by 10023

Home ownership isn't a fundamental right.

Of course it's not, but when it becomes out of reach for the middle classes you've basically removed the entire premise of what society here was based on. People came here by the millions because Canada and the US represented a place where they could aspire to home ownership. It was a central part of the mass exodus from Europe to the New World for over a century.

If that is no longer viewed as important, you've fundamentally changed the promise that the New World held for people. Well we still view it as important, hence why Canadian cities build high rise residential in markets where real estate is expensive.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by fflint

Your thinking here is muddled and error-prone.

Not at all. You actually answered the question for me quite a few posts ago. A large number of people are effectively reduced to renting because SF won't build high rise residential. Got it!

[mthd]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Not at all. You actually answered the question for me quite a few posts ago. SF prioritizes views over making home ownership possible for more people.

there is absolutely no evidence which supports he supposition that building a huge number of high rise condos would make homes (of any sort) more affordable in San Francisco. some individuals may be interested in protecting their views, but that really isn't the issue. in fact, city policy states clearly that private views are not protected.

the reason homes are expensive is very simply a question of demand exceeding any reasonable supply which could be provided in a geographically constrained city. by your logic New Yorkers don't care about 'the American dream' because homea in manhattan are very expensive, and to fix the problem New York should build a few thousand more towers. this is also known as 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'

[mthd]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Not at all. You actually answered the question for me quite a few posts ago. A large number of people are effectively reduced to renting because SF won't build high rise residential.

many people would rather be 'reduced to renting' in SF or NYC or Boston that 'owning' in Bakersfield or Phoenix or Atlanta.

and SF is building a lot of high rise residential. tens of thousands of units are in the pipeline. it would be nice if you did some research before spouting off. you could start with San Francisco's zoning and planning regulations, the planning department's pipeline report, and census statistics on population density, of which most neighborhoods in SF (high rise or not) are quite high by North American standards.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I don't know what to believe at this point. A few people are arguing that home ownership for average income earners is out of the question, you're saying it is. So these affordable houses in SF, can you buy them for $250,000?

I never wrote that average earners could or should be homeowners. I wrote that the Bay Area is affordable to a broad range of people, which seems quite obvious, given the variability in housing prices and median incomes, and relatively high homeownership.

If you want a $250,000 home, they do exist, but obviously not in prime areas. I don't know why you have this 250k standard as a barometer of affordability, though. A 500k home can be affordable to a huge proportion of residents in high-income areas. Or a 100k home can be completely unaffordable. Housing price isn't a direct proxy for relative housing affordability.