Key jobs that don't pay enough to live in San Francisco (or some other major cities)

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Why aren't there more good TOD's around east bay and contra Costa BART stations.

Yes there are newish apartment complexes adjacent to many, but that's weak. Im talking about something on the scale of large satellite urban cores around DC metro stops in Virginia and Maryland?

Fremont, Walnut creek and Concord all oughta have some serious height and density.

The low hanging fruit is in the suburbs.

Fremont has plans for thousands of new homes, but residents are having second thoughts
May 25, 2017, 2:13pm PDT

Roland Li
Reporter, San Francisco Business Times

In a region where many communities struggle to build housing, Fremont has long been a leader.

The Bay Area’s fourth-largest city has over 1,200 homes under construction and another 4,000 units approved. The city has plans to add taller apartments as part of an effort to create a more vibrant downtown and a second new neighborhood around the newly opened Warm Springs BART station. Introducing density to the largely suburban municipality is critical for the city’s future, generating badly needed housing supply near existing transit and expanding its tax base, say city officials.

But a backlash against development rising across the Bay Area in recent years is now sweeping into Fremont. Some residents believe additional housing will result in more traffic and crowding in schools. They blame housing construction that has already taken place for today’s congestion, something city officials dispute.

Opposition has gone beyond negative comments at public hearings. In the past year, two separate lawsuits have sought to block or downsize new projects, evidence of a growing backlash.

“The vision … is to be more urban,” said Kristie Wheeler, Fremont’s planning manager. “What we’ve been seeing is maybe the community isn’t quite ready for the higher-density residential development.”

One legal challenge against developer Carmel Partners alleges that an approved 632-unit project will worsen traffic congestion and is “not compatible with the neighborhood.”

Originally proposed at 882 units, the project was downsized twice in the approvals process. Stand Up 4 Fremont, the neighborhood group that filed the suit, seeks a third reduction in size to 390 units and more parking spaces relative to residential units. (The group and its attorney did not respond to several calls and emails seeking comment).

Carmel Partners has refused to further downsize its project, saying in court filings that doing so would be incompatible under new zoning for the site, which encourages higher density. Carmel declined to comment.

Opponents of another housing project with 98 units in the Niles district won their lawsuit, and a judge ordered the project to undergo environmental review . . . .

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/...bdA37c%2FluRxObP&t=1495821344&j=78257351

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

This bolded line is interesting.

Cities back then were built to accomodate the masses. Cities now are built to accomodate the privileged.

This simply isn't true.

Who do you think lived in those Florentine villas? The "masses"? Who lived in the Haussmann-era apartment buildings in Paris? Who lived on Park Ave. in the 1920's?

Cities aren't in some new paradigm, they're just reentering the typical paradigm, following the weird postwar decades. Urban cores, throughout history, have been painfully expensive.

The NY Times sometimes runs articles on apartment building histories. The prices people paid 100 years ago were as shocking (perhaps more) as the prices paid today.

[mhays]

So the people of Fremont want people to live farther from work? They're not using their brains.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This simply isn't true.

Who do you think lived in those Florentine villas? The "masses"? Who lived in the Haussmann-era apartment buildings in Paris? Who lived on Park Ave. in the 1920's?

Cities aren't in some new paradigm, they're just reentering the typical paradigm, following the weird postwar decades. Urban cores, throughout history, have been painfully expensive.

The NY Times sometimes runs articles on apartment building histories. The prices people paid 100 years ago were as shocking (perhaps more) as the prices paid today.

Crawford is correct.

I just had a conversation with a guy about 60 years old at a pub in Notting Hill (I do this sometimes) about gentrification. He was lamenting the changes here and in New York, because he's an artist, but also very wealthy because his own house is now worth millions (and there's no annual property tax here).

He agreed that the rowhouses here were built for the wealthy, became bedsits, and now house wealthy families again. I said the same is true in New York. Those beautiful West Village or East Village or Brooklyn rowhomes were built for families with servants and stables. Brooklyn brownstones were not built to house the proletariat. They will built for wealthy merchants, lawyers and bankers.

The fact that cities emptied after WW2 and became depopulated and cheap was an anomoly, and they're now back to being what they were built to be.

He's planning to cash in and buy and 8-10 bedroom villa in Sicily to run as a B&B, which costs a fraction of his 4 bedroom house in Notting Hill, btw. Must be nice.

[mhays]

In my city the predominant new housing type is the one-bedroom apartment in a long, narrow shape, with the bedroom not fully enclosed because it doesn't have a window.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This simply isn't true.

Who do you think lived in those Florentine villas? The "masses"? Who lived in the Haussmann-era apartment buildings in Paris? Who lived on Park Ave. in the 1920's?

Cities aren't in some new paradigm, they're just reentering the typical paradigm, following the weird postwar decades. Urban cores, throughout history, have been painfully expensive.

The NY Times sometimes runs articles on apartment building histories. The prices people paid 100 years ago were as shocking (perhaps more) as the prices paid today.

these are good points and don't seem to enter the popular narrative too often. neighborhood "advocates" seem to think there is some kind of intractable history that's being erased when people get priced out, like the people that live there now somehow have roots going back many, many generations. mmm, probably not. maybe like two, three at most if grandma was born around ww2. clearly urban history is evening the keel though.

[llamaorama]

Cities also had vast areas of tenement housing as well.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

If you had any familiarity with these neighborhoods you'd know they are full of "younger people". The ones farther from the center of town on the western side of the city are full of kids, many children of the successful Asian families (many owning small businesses) who own the homes, and the ones closer to downtown, where there are many houses that have been converted to flats, have numerous Millennial renters.

Nobody ever said they're weren't. I quoted a person saying there should be less and I asked why?

The bigger point is why should people have to accept being squished into tiny apartments that cost more than mansions do in most of the country just because the wealthy residents want to keep the city only for themselves. I guess nobody is really forcing them to live there though so really the question I always have is why do people voluntary choose to pay so much for so little? Sure they're closer to a big city, but what fun is a big city if you're broke because you spent half your salary on housing?

[mhays]

We should definitely try to take the edge off prices where we can. But:

1. Location is really important for some people.

2. For some people it's about earning $120,000 while paying $48,000/year for housing vs. earning $80,000 while paying $24,000...after taxes the first guy is slighly ahead. Also maybe career growth is easier in the expensive city.

That said, San Francisco's overflow of tech jobs has gained steam lately...a lot of that is due to prices.

[BrownTown]

Even spending $24,000 a year in rent is unheard of outside of luxury rentals in much of the country. My first apartment was $425 a month in Tennessee and my second was $525 for a two bedroom in Virginia. Spending $925 right now in New Jersey feels absurdly high to me. It's almost half my spending going to rent. I spend less money total in a year than people in San Francisco do just for rent. And the city I live in has a median income of over $100,000 so it's not like you HAVE to live in San Francisco to make a decent wage either.

[Pedestrian]

^^Without knowing the particulars of your town, it's hard to discuss the issue with you. But quite a few suburban towns with high median incomes have so few actual rental apartments available that median rents are meaningless. Generally, in any town that has a median income that high AND a lot of multifamily rentals, rents are going to average a lot more than you describe. And that is not just on the west coast. Basically, you aren't going to find many places inland with median income levels that high and a significant number of rentals. There are places like Jackson, WY and some towns in Texas with lots of oil or big cattle ranches that have high incomes, but they don't have many year-around rental apartments.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Even spending $24,000 a year in rent is unheard of outside of luxury rentals in much of the country. My first apartment was $425 a month in Tennessee and my second was $525 for a two bedroom in Virginia. Spending $925 right now in New Jersey feels absurdly high to me. It's almost half my spending going to rent. I spend less money total in a year than people in San Francisco do just for rent. And the city I live in has a median income of over $100,000 so it's not like you HAVE to live in San Francisco to make a decent wage either.

I think it comes down to personal choice. Some people just have to live in certain neighborhoods or areas. Even if it means 50-60% of income on rent. Which is absurd, but not unheard of.

At the end of the day, it comes down to quality of life vs money. Some people pay a premium for a certain urban lifestyles. Others would rather have savings, and opt for cheaper areas that may not be exciting. Some will commute for an hour, others want to be walking distance.

IMO, I'd rather have money and commute. Own instead of renting. But thats just me. I couldn't fathom paying 50% of income on rent.

But hey, if thats what some people want, none of my business really. It's their life.

[mhays]

What about the people who pay 30% for housing and 20% for commuting? How is that different from 50% and 0%?

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by mhays

What about the people who pay 30% for housing and 20% for commuting? How is that different from 50% and 0%?

Totally agreed in principle, but do people actually pay 20% on commuting? I'd imagine you need to live way the hell out there and drive a 70s gas guzzler.

[10023]

The real answer is "children".

For the childless, especially childless couples, all the standard rules of thumb about affordability are completely irrelevant.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Totally agreed in principle, but do people actually pay 20% on commuting? I'd imagine you need to live way the hell out there and drive a 70s gas guzzler.

I'm guessing it's extremely common. I'm including the cost of car ownership.

[10023]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'm guessing it's extremely common. I'm including the cost of car ownership.

For someone on the median income, that's over $10k per year. A bit less if we're talking about 20% after tax. Unless they're driving a Range Rover, I don't think so.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by 10023

For someone on the median income, that's over $10k per year. A bit less if we're talking about 20% after tax. Unless they're driving a Range Rover, I don't think so.

Also need to take into account typical suburban household has at least 2 cars, often more. Wife and I have 2 cars. That's 6k a year right there. Not counting gas, maintenance...etc. Thats a small % of our income but for someone making a lot less that can eat into their income quite a bit.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by chris08876

IMO, I'd rather have money and commute.

Probably depends on the quality of your commute. I've done it largely by rail (which I susoect is the case for most NJ commuters into Manhattan) and it wasn't too bad--in my case it was reverse commute by BART from SF to Concord.

But if commuting meant a daily experience of the horror of driving across the Bay Bridge in the regular commute direction, I'd do almost anything--pay almost anything--to avoid that. Every time I am downtown after about 3 PM I see the parking lots that are the streets leading to I-80 on-ramps and I ask my retired self how people can do that day . . . after . . . day . . . after . . . day.

This is the other direction--coming into the city right now (1:30 PM) which is NOT normal commute time.

http://www.sfgate.com/sfgatetv/article/LIVE-video-coverage-from-KTVU-8313981.php

I actually have nightmares about how those folks stuck on the George Washington Bridge approaches must have felt when Gov. Christie's aides pulled their stunt. It's the ultimate helplessness.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by 10023

For someone on the median income, that's over $10k per year. A bit less if we're talking about 20% after tax. Unless they're driving a Range Rover, I don't think so.

A year ago, AAA reported an average cost of $8,558 to own and operate a vehicle. http://newsroom.aaa.com/auto/your-driving-costs/

We're talking about urban residents. Skip the parking space and savings can be much higher. I rent mine out for over $2,000 per year for example.