SkyscraperCity Forum banner

There's just no way out for The Bay Area

10K views 86 replies 39 participants last post by  gladisimo 
#1 ·
First of all, this problem is the fault of NIMBYS

Some friends and I were talking home prices over drinks the other day and we thought about ways for The Bay Area to add thousands of affordable houses without adversely affecting existing homeowners locked into mortgages or second mortgages. I think the only solution is urban infill. Urban infill would revitalize older areas in the urban core while leaving the greenspaces that every outer burb has implemented largely in place.

But then, I suspect they cant be affordable unless there are literally thousands of new units that come online at the same time which is never gonna happen. If the name of the game is to retain middle class families with children then we need to do more, a lot more.

The last 10 years has seen a meteoric rise in housing prices in San Francisco and environs. If we included San Jose, then the average would actually be higher.

According to The California Association of Realtors

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA MSA Average Home Price
April 2006 $744,070
April 2005 $723,070
April 2004 $634,830
April 2003 $554,560
April 2002 $529,950-dot com crash
April 2001 $483,850-dot com crash
April 2000 $469,250-dot com crash
April 1999 $351,170
April 1998 $322,780
April 1997 $284,820
April 1996 $218,710

San Francisco City
April 2006 $914,700
April 2005 $879,520
April 2004 $790,010
April 2003 $672,990
April 2002 $633,300
April 2001 $582,460
April 2000 $541,980
April 1999 $458,100
April 1998 $425,800
April 1997 $363,400
April 1996 $254,500

And I dont think developers could be enticed into building less expensive. I think we need at least 100,000 2-3 bd condos for as low as $100,000.

Here are some properties currently for sale in East Oakland..an area that amplifies the mess we've made of things.

East Oakland is the cheapest place in the Central Bay Area(depending on what you consider "Central"). To put things in context, The Median Home Price in The San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA is currently $744,000(Apr 2006 according to The California Association of Realtors)-so while these prices may appear excessive to outsiders, they are relatively inexpensive in The Bay Area.

East Oakland
$500,000
4 Bed, 2 Bath
934 Sq. Ft.
0.09 Acres

1646 71st Avenue(high to very high crime area)In 2000, this would have been marketed for around 100K. The 70s-105th Aves in East Oakland is the bloodiest and most dangerous section of Northern California-but all things considered, have seen a huge influx of new businesses and lots of development as far as Intl Blvd(the main thoroughfare)-the fastest growing segment of homebuyers in this area is immigrants



East Oakland
$509,999
2 Bed, 1 Bath
897 Sq. Ft.

No address, but zip is 94602, which is actually not bad for the most part. Half of this zip code is actually quite wealthy and extremely yuppiefied(the hilly section that is)with lots of established white, black and asian households-and then the part that skirts 580, such as this house, are home to long time black and asian households



East Oakland
$515,000
2 Bed, 1 Bath
851 Sq. Ft.

4419 Bancroft Av(moderate to high crime)Hispanic Immigrants are really snapping up properties in this neighborhood quickly cause its above International Bl, where Oakland's Latino Hub appears to be extending south from Fruitvale.


In Oakland, once you get into the 600s, you can either spring for a tiny house in a decent neighborhood-or a bigger house in a questionable area.


East Oakland
$615,900
3 Bed, 1.5 Bath
1,647 Sq. Ft.
0.12 Acres

5177 Fairfax Ave-this area is a pocket of prosperity within the hood. Professional and Upper Income Blacks(those who choose not to make the "ascent" into The Hills) constitute the majority of the population. Pretty much the area is safe-ish but the surrounding areas can be violent.



East Oakland
$650,000
3 Bed, 2 Bath
2,034 Sq. Ft.
0.12 Acres

2577 99th Ave. Below 580(The psychological boundary between the haves and have nots in The Town), but not far below. This house is above the Deep East near Bishop O'Dowd(Oakland's largest private school)-once again, a large middle to upper income black population dominates this area, crime is not that bad in this particular section of The Deep East



East Oakland
$749,000
3 Bed, 2.5 Bath
1,566 Sq. Ft.
0.07 Acres

Norton Ave in Redwood Heights, a middle to upper middle class neighborhood. One common factor in even many of Oakland's wealthier areas is lots of racial diversity-this particular section is no exception.



East Oakland
$925,000
3 Bed, 3 Bath
2,800 Sq. Ft.
0.15 Acres

4190 Laguna Ave, A neighborhood called Lincoln Heights. This area and the surrounding areas is considered "Lower Hills" because its elevation is about 300-600 ft above the bay but not as high as Montclair et al. This lower hills can be characterized as quiet, safe, upper middle class and home to lots of San Francisco-bound commuters


Lastly,
I cant find the pics, but at least a dozen single family home sales in the hood(moderate to high crime) have surpassed the $1 Million mark in East Oakland in the past year-quite a milestone for that particular market-I know of one that sold for 1.6 Million in the 20s. It was a house that had 6 bd/3bth on .10 acres.

Sometimes I just feel like throwing up my hands. It sucks for young and middle class families and singles to buy here-that is not cool, its not bragworthy and it certainly isnt acceptable. Its downright shameful.
 
See less See more
7
#2 ·
I know you love to brag about SF on here with the high priced homes and beauty of the city. But those home prices will go down when the next earthquake strikes just like it did in 1906..........
It's not a question of if but when..........
So enjoy it while you can. Great city to visit....not so great to live in. :runaway:
 
#3 ·
Actaully, economic forces and the rising interest rates will stabilize the price of homes in the Bay Area, and Cali in general. If this doesn't happen soon, people will be flocking out to more affordable pastures. No doubt.
 
#4 ·
triadcat said:
I know you love to brag about SF on here with the high priced homes and beauty of the city. But those home prices will go down when the next earthquake strikes just like it did in 1906..........
It's not a question of if but when..........
So enjoy it while you can. Great city to visit....not so great to live in. :runaway:
I'm sorry but....:hahaha:
There is no way I'd pay that much for those small homes.
 
#6 · (Edited)
I bought my home (3 bed 2 bath bungalow) on Chicago's Northside for 180,000 in 1998. Homes in the neighborhood are now selling for 450-600,000.






I bought my condo in the South Loop (which I'm currently renting out to a couple from London) for 363,000 (plus parking) in 2002 pre-construction. Doors opened in Feb 2005, now 2 bed 2 baths in the building are selling for 415,000 without a parking space (add 50,000 more).



This is a pic I took of my building (center in between the steel beams)coming back from the White Sox game on the Southside.
 
#7 ·
triadcat said:
I know you love to brag about SF on here with the high priced homes and beauty of the city.
Whoa there!?! What's up with you? This is the second time where you have made personal catty remarks against me. The first time was you actually calling me out about my religion in a thread that had nothing to do with religion-dude, what's up? I hold no malice against you so please put your claws away.

But those home prices will go down when the next earthquake strikes just like it did in 1906..........
Almost sounds like you'd actually be happy to see that. If so, then that's really sad. ya know? I dont feel that way about any other city or place but it seems San Francisco just really pisses some people off.

So enjoy it while you can. Great city to visit....not so great to live in. :runaway:
Unlike some places which are sucky places to visit and even worse places to live. :)
 
#9 ·
If anything, after a major earthquake housing prices will go up even higher. With less homes on the market, people who've lost homes in the quake will be competing against each other for the remaining stock of houses. In 1906 people didn't pack up and leave, they stuck it out, camping in Golden Gate Park for example. San Francisco is just too special of a place to walk away from. San Franciscans are well aware that a major earthquake could strike at any time, one like 1906 averages about every 200 years, but we stick it out because we love it here. On the upside we don't have to deal with hurricanes, tornadoes, snowstorms, and for the most part we hardly ever get thunder and lightning storms.
 
#10 ·
bay_area said:
chicagogeorge,
love your house-very charming.
Thanks, we put a lot of sweat and blood into fixing it up the way we want. It was built in the 1920's. I was thinking of selling it when I bought the condo downtown, but I decided to keep it even when I do move to the South Loop. I probably can rent my house out for 1,800-2000.
 
#11 · (Edited)
East Oakland
$515,000
2 Bed, 1 Bath
851 Sq. Ft.
4419 Bancroft Av(moderate to high crime)Hispanic Immigrants are really snapping up properties in this neighborhood quickly cause its above International Bl, where Oakland's Latino Hub appears to be extending south from Fruitvale
This thing is literally a shack! It wouldn't break 100,000 here in Louisville unless it was magically put on Cherokee drive or something.
Yikes.. :sleepy:
 
#12 ·
triadcat said:
I know you love to brag about SF on here with the high priced homes and beauty of the city. But those home prices will go down when the next earthquake strikes just like it did in 1906..........
It's not a question of if but when..........
So enjoy it while you can. Great city to visit....not so great to live in. :runaway:
A typical idiotic remark by a typical idiot. It's like he's waiting for this to happen. So I guess that after the Big One hit in 1906 the whole Bay Area went into some permanent decline until now? Wasn't there a huge quake that hit in 1989 also? Then that would mean SF must big one huge dump. I don't think so.

Fact of the matter is that the San Francisco Bay Area remains one of the most influential and most important regions in the whole world politically, socially, economically, and most of all technologically. Much more important and influencial than the whole state of North Carolina will ever be.
 
#14 ·
bay_area said:
Whoa there!?! What's up with you? This is the second time where you have made personal catty remarks against me. The first time was you actually calling me out about my religion in a thread that had nothing to do with religion-dude, what's up? I hold no malice against you so please put your claws away.


Almost sounds like you'd actually be happy to see that. If so, then that's really sad. ya know? I dont feel that way about any other city or place but it seems San Francisco just really pisses some people off.


Unlike some places which are sucky places to visit and even worse places to live. :)
If you are talking about my state being sucky to visit or live, then you are a ignorant dumbfuck. :)
My state is great to live AND visit. Why the hell do you think so many people are moving here? We don't have a city on SF's level, but we SURE as hell have the natural beauty from the coast to the Apps. Oh, and we were part of the original 13 colonies......you know; OLD American history.
And you do boost your beloved SF ALL of the time on here....it is annoying.
Oh, and what type of drinks did you have with your friend?
Hope they weren't alcoholic as your Mormon "brothers and sisters" and bishop wouldn't approve, now would they?

So have fun before the earthquake strikes again :bash:
 
#15 ·
mongozx said:
A typical idiotic remark by a typical idiot. It's like he's waiting for this to happen. So I guess that after the Big One hit in 1906 the whole Bay Area went into some permanent decline until now? Wasn't there a huge quake that hit in 1989 also? Then that would mean SF must big one huge dump. I don't think so.

Fact of the matter is that the San Francisco Bay Area remains one of the most influential and most important regions in the whole world politically, socially, economically, and most of all technologically. Much more important and influencial than the whole state of North Carolina will ever be.
Go **** yourself, asshole :bash:
 
#16 ·
bay_area, you know that i find both San Francisco and the entire Bay Area to be special places. But, let's face it...you've got a region that has some pretty scary problems that it has to deal with (and few others do). The obvious: San Francisco is easily the most misplaced US city outside of New Orleans. The San Andreas cuts right through town. A less logical site for a major city could have been hard to find.

Meanwhile, no major (and huge) metro area in the US has anything comparable to the vast shores of San Francisco Bay right smack in its middle. The bottlenecks of such a setting are unavoidable: how much work can the GG, Bay, SM, R-SR bridges, etc., do? That's not to mention the mountainous terrain which forced most development to follow an arc from SF south through SJ and up to Oakland and beyond (Richmond, the Delta). That is pretty confining real estate, leaving much of Marin off limits and the Pacific Coast on the peninsula downt to Half Moon Bay relatively unable to handle appreciable growth. How few are the links from the coast to the peninusla's bay side cities.

None of this detracts for a moment from the incredible beauty and wonderful life style of SF and the Bay Area, but it is sobering when one considers what the region has to face compared to less beautiful, but more favorably situated metro areas.
 
#17 ·
edsg25 said:
bay_area, you know that i find both San Francisco and the entire Bay Area to be special places. But, let's face it...you've got a region that has some pretty scary problems that it has to deal with (and few others do). The obvious: San Francisco is easily the most misplaced US city outside of New Orleans. The San Andreas cuts right through town. A less logical site for a major city could have been hard to find.

Meanwhile, no major (and huge) metro area in the US has anything comparable to the vast shores of San Francisco Bay right smack in its middle. The bottlenecks of such a setting are unavoidable: how much work can the GG, Bay, SM, R-SR bridges, etc., do? That's not to mention the mountainous terrain which forced most development to follow an arc from SF south through SJ and up to Oakland and beyond (Richmond, the Delta). That is pretty confining real estate, leaving much of Marin off limits and the Pacific Coast on the peninsula downt to Half Moon Bay relatively unable to handle appreciable growth. How few are the links from the coast to the peninusla's bay side cities.

None of this detracts for a moment from the incredible beauty and wonderful life style of SF and the Bay Area, but it is sobering when one considers what the region has to face compared to less beautiful, but more favorably situated metro areas.
You know that every city has some geological, meterological problems to deal with. The last time I looked San Francisco burned to the gound the same number of times that Chicago burned to the ground. Folks in SF deal with earthquakes and have learned how to build in theiir environment. You notice the Transamerica tower did not fall down following Loma Prieta. The people that live in SF have reason to love where they are living. THey aren't criticizing anyone who lives in the midwest tornado alley or who have learned to live with eight foot snow drifts.

Remember the biggest earthquake that ever struck the US happened in Missouri. Charleston has been destroyed several times. And human beings destroyed Atlanta a few years ago. SF isn't the only city built on a peninsula. Try Boston and Seattle, or much or San Diego. And you can't get much more confined then being built on an island which hasn't slowed Manhattan down much. I think the forums would be a lot better if we all refrained from cheap shots at other cities. Even city has its own special hazzards and attractions.

Oh, and if I remember correctly, both Chicago and San Francisco emerged better after the fires than before.
 
#18 ·
It's truly a disgrace and ashamed that San Francisco is this way. This is terrible for the economy of San Francisco to have such high priced homes and ensures no more growth. The city, itself, has plateaued because of the home price issue, and can only look for stagnant population growth due to this negative phenomena. If city and business leaders could only get together, and come up with a plan for some high-rise development projects, it would be so good for San Francisco. Unfortunately, those moving to the San Francisco region, will live many miles from the urban core and eventually, San Francisco will feel the negative effects of it's housing crisis.
 
#19 ·
svs said:
You know that every city has some geological, meterological problems to deal with. The last time I looked San Francisco burned to the gound the same number of times that Chicago burned to the ground. Folks in SF deal with earthquakes and have learned how to build in theiir environment. You notice the Transamerica tower did not fall down following Loma Prieta. The people that live in SF have reason to love where they are living. THey aren't criticizing anyone who lives in the midwest tornado alley or who have learned to live with eight foot snow drifts.

Remember the biggest earthquake that ever struck the US happened in Missouri. Charleston has been destroyed several times. And human beings destroyed Atlanta a few years ago. SF isn't the only city built on a peninsula. Try Boston and Seattle, or much or San Diego. And you can't get much more confined then being built on an island which hasn't slowed Manhattan down much. I think the forums would be a lot better if we all refrained from cheap shots at other cities. Even city has its own special hazzards and attractions.

Oh, and if I remember correctly, both Chicago and San Francisco emerged better after the fires than before.
i wasn't trying to be critical of San Francisco or the Bay Area, svs. And my observations were coming more as a "San Franciscan" than a "Chicagoan". I lived in SF for awhile as a kid. I have family all over the Bay Area with roots in SF from the turn of the 20th century.

I adore San Francisco.

The point I was trying to make that , along with the sheer joy that the SF and the Bay Area can deliver is the most active fault lines of any major US city. And my point on the bay, a beautiful body of water, is that is can be divisive in the way it separates the Bay Area communities.

Chicago and San Francisco both rebuilt admirably after 1871 and 1906 respectively. But keep in mind that the Chicago Fire had no basis on an questionable site but due to the wood construction that so domnated the city prior to the fire.

I hope SF never experiences the "Big One", but we all know that the prospect is quite real. That's all I was trying to identify.
 
#21 ·
urban lover said:
It's probably a safe bet to say that more people leave the northeast and midwest because of their extremely harsh winters than Californians leave the state due to earthquakes or fear of them.
People may leave, but look at how many people still live in the Northeast and Midwest. Just like earthquakes isn't a deterrent to those people living in California, snowstorms isn't a deterrent for people living in the Northeast or the Midwest.
 
#22 ·
triadcat said:
If you are talking about my state being sucky to visit or live, then you are a ignorant dumbfuck. :)
LOL..what response were you expecting exactly? And I never said anything about your state at all-you need to take a break or something.

We don't have a city on SF's level,
Truer words have never been posted by you.

but we SURE as hell have the natural beauty from the coast to the Apps. Oh, and we were part of the original 13 colonies......you know; OLD American history.
Oh wow, the 13 colonies....that's so impressive in 2006*rolls eyes*but if that's the best you can do then run with it!

And you do boost your beloved SF ALL of the time on here....it is annoying.
Nope, I never boost San Francisco-in fact all I do is state what's going on here but your sour grapes make it next to impossible for you to see beyond "it as to be boosting"-in fact, Ive said more positives about other cities then San Francisco by a really wide margin.

Oh, and what type of drinks did you have with your friend?
Hope they weren't alcoholic as your Mormon "brothers and sisters" and bishop wouldn't approve, now would they?
Me? Water with Lime.

So have fun before the earthquake strikes again :bash:
I have fun everyday, such is the life in world class cities.
 
#23 ·
jesus.. i thougth we were talking about home prices. what the hell does that have to do with earthquakes. bay-area, sounds like the situation in almost all the cities in la. im just glad they are building up alot of condos to ease the exponental raise in land value
 
#24 ·
edsg25 said:
bay_area, you know that i find both San Francisco and the entire Bay Area to be special places. But, let's face it...you've got a region that has some pretty scary problems that it has to deal with (and few others do). The obvious: San Francisco is easily the most misplaced US city outside of New Orleans. The San Andreas cuts right through town. A less logical site for a major city could have been hard to find.
The possibility for a natural disaster is always on the back of our minds. It behooves me to mention that Loma Prieta-for the most part left us unscathed. Sure there were 60 someodd deaths and there was siginificant infrastructure damage to the Bay Bridge, Old Embarcadero Fy, Nimitz Fy and a fire in The Marina-but there are over 6 million+ residents that really came out with little or no damage to property and personal injury.

What we need to focus intensely on now is new housing. New, affordable housing in the inner core of The Bay Area. Its not a matter of trying to save anyone from moving but to sustain those who want to stay and are not able to find a house.
 
#25 ·
^^
Is there anything specifically that has been keeping the city from building up?
It seems that highrises are the next best solution. But SF is so dense already. Its gonna take Japanese-style infrastructure to keep life as top-notch as it is today. :tongue2:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top