Rent control has strange side effects
November 7, 2015 7:51 PM Subscribe
Life in a Studio Apartment with my Wife and Two Sons - Between July 2011 and August 2015 I lived in a ~400sqft studio apartment in San Francisco. I moved in a bachelor but by the time I moved out, I was one member of a four person family. Here are some things I learned along the way. (via)
One thing I've learnt is that IKEA catalogues and showrooms always assume an extreme amount of Z space and your typical ceiling is 8 feet tall.
posted by Talez at 8:07 PM on November 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Talez at 8:07 PM on November 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
or moving to a neighborhood with higher crime rates.
Is this not dog whistle racism?
posted by 256 at 8:09 PM on November 7, 2015 [29 favorites]
Is this not dog whistle racism?
posted by 256 at 8:09 PM on November 7, 2015 [29 favorites]
It's interesting and disconcerting to me that we seem to be headed back to an era in which privacy and the ability to be alone are viewed as luxury goods.
posted by en forme de poire at 8:13 PM on November 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 8:13 PM on November 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
or moving to a neighborhood with higher crime rates.
Is this not dog whistle racism?
I would attribute it more to clueless catastrophizing (i.e., even in a "higher crime rate" neighborhood, you're not really that likely to be the victim of a crime), because I'd be willing to bet that this guy actually looked up the crime rates rather than just saying "Oh, one of those neighborhoods..."
posted by Etrigan at 8:14 PM on November 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
Is this not dog whistle racism?
I would attribute it more to clueless catastrophizing (i.e., even in a "higher crime rate" neighborhood, you're not really that likely to be the victim of a crime), because I'd be willing to bet that this guy actually looked up the crime rates rather than just saying "Oh, one of those neighborhoods..."
posted by Etrigan at 8:14 PM on November 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
This reminded me of that photo series someone did maybe a decade or so ago of families around the world with all their posessions brought out in front of their houses. American families had posessions in an alarming order of magnitude more than anyone else.
posted by gusandrews at 8:16 PM on November 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by gusandrews at 8:16 PM on November 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Weird article. He says, "But thanks to rent control we weren’t able to move anywhere else." and then goes onto say that he and his wife applied for many other, expensive apartments but got turned down because they have don't make enough.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:25 PM on November 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:25 PM on November 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
Uber is to cars what city parks have long been to backyards.
Who are these people that think these things.
posted by johnnydummkopf at 8:28 PM on November 7, 2015 [71 favorites]
Who are these people that think these things.
posted by johnnydummkopf at 8:28 PM on November 7, 2015 [71 favorites]
I think rent control increases demand a bit, but demand in SF is very high already, and helped along by other things, like the fact that it's a peninsula, and the limits on building heights. Rent's going up all around the Bay Area, not just SF where there's rent control.
So the side effect is not that the author couldn't afford to move, it's that they even have the option of staying where they are in the first place.
The big side effect of rent control in SF that I have seen is that landlords want you to move the fuck out so they can flip the place. So for example, they have no incentive to fix anything. They drag their heels, they play phone tag, they leave things half fixed with giant holes in your kitchen or bathroom (not random examples) left open indefinitely. Or they do things like strategic owner move-in evictions.
posted by nom de poop at 8:36 PM on November 7, 2015 [16 favorites]
So the side effect is not that the author couldn't afford to move, it's that they even have the option of staying where they are in the first place.
The big side effect of rent control in SF that I have seen is that landlords want you to move the fuck out so they can flip the place. So for example, they have no incentive to fix anything. They drag their heels, they play phone tag, they leave things half fixed with giant holes in your kitchen or bathroom (not random examples) left open indefinitely. Or they do things like strategic owner move-in evictions.
posted by nom de poop at 8:36 PM on November 7, 2015 [16 favorites]
I always enjoy creative custom furniture that helps families fit in smaller spaces, and yes I'm constantly aghast at all the clutter in our home and yearn to chuck it all.
On the other hand, the solution was staring them in the face the entire time: get the hell out of San Francisco, because it has become utterly hostile to human life.
posted by xthlc at 8:37 PM on November 7, 2015 [43 favorites]
On the other hand, the solution was staring them in the face the entire time: get the hell out of San Francisco, because it has become utterly hostile to human life.
posted by xthlc at 8:37 PM on November 7, 2015 [43 favorites]
I think he blamed rent control for making any new apartments that might have suited them more expensive than they would have been without rent control. His reasoning was that when you restrict rent hikes for current tenants, landlords need to make their money by raising the rent much higher when an apartment becomes vacant. Similar arguments are made here. I have no idea how good or bad rent control is, but he's not the only one who thinks it's counterproductive.
posted by maudlin at 8:38 PM on November 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by maudlin at 8:38 PM on November 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
His reasoning was that when you restrict rent hikes for current tenants, landlords need to make their money by raising the rent much higher when an apartment becomes vacant.
This really isn't true though, especially in cities where there aren't a lot of new rent controlled apartments, if any. I live in a rent controlled apartment in New York, and there are three apartments left in my building that are not market rate. In a high rise. Nobody's rent is going up because of us.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:41 PM on November 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
This really isn't true though, especially in cities where there aren't a lot of new rent controlled apartments, if any. I live in a rent controlled apartment in New York, and there are three apartments left in my building that are not market rate. In a high rise. Nobody's rent is going up because of us.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:41 PM on November 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've been working in a town with few rentals (because it's small, not because of housing pressure like in SF) and the result of renting in such a constrained market is having a place that is both larger than I need and terribly laid out. The wasted space pains me greatly; with some slight attention to design you could lose half the square footage while making it feel roomier and more pleasant. In fact, looking around, I think I could cut two thirds of the space while improving it, which is typical of many of the cheaply built places I have lived in.
So the side effect is not that the author couldn't afford to move, it's that they even have the option of staying where they are in the first place.
That was my reading of it as well, contradictory to his analysis. He keeps criticizing rent control, but without it he would have had no studio and no affordable two bedroom -- with rent control, at least he had the studio.
On the other hand, the solution was staring them in the face the entire time: get the hell out of San Francisco, because it has become utterly hostile to human life.
It's worth noting that their studio worked for them until the kids started growing up. One toddler and a baby was just barely livable, but the older kid getting bigger and the baby turning into a toddler made the studio no longer viable, and their solution was indeed to move to another city.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:43 PM on November 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
So the side effect is not that the author couldn't afford to move, it's that they even have the option of staying where they are in the first place.
That was my reading of it as well, contradictory to his analysis. He keeps criticizing rent control, but without it he would have had no studio and no affordable two bedroom -- with rent control, at least he had the studio.
On the other hand, the solution was staring them in the face the entire time: get the hell out of San Francisco, because it has become utterly hostile to human life.
It's worth noting that their studio worked for them until the kids started growing up. One toddler and a baby was just barely livable, but the older kid getting bigger and the baby turning into a toddler made the studio no longer viable, and their solution was indeed to move to another city.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:43 PM on November 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
He figured out that you can buy and sell on craigslist and often times come out even (or better)? Don't most musicians already know this? (there is a guitar on the wall)
Yet, he still hasn't figured out why everyone moved to the 'burbs.
I suppose he's not a terrible writer for a young guy, but the piece seemed to be mixing up a lot of things: rent control, microdesign, demographics of newlyweds/new parents, and hipster "don't buy 'things'" guruism.
posted by readyfreddy at 8:44 PM on November 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yet, he still hasn't figured out why everyone moved to the 'burbs.
I suppose he's not a terrible writer for a young guy, but the piece seemed to be mixing up a lot of things: rent control, microdesign, demographics of newlyweds/new parents, and hipster "don't buy 'things'" guruism.
posted by readyfreddy at 8:44 PM on November 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
I enjoyed his attitude, his pragmatism, his deft use of space and resources, his aplomb. Privately he may be a shrieking maniac, but on paper he seems chill; while making deals in the car, in his PJs, no worries
posted by Oyéah at 8:50 PM on November 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Oyéah at 8:50 PM on November 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
His reasoning was that when you restrict rent hikes for current tenants, landlords need to make their money by raising the rent much higher when an apartment becomes vacant.
Stupid reasoning, though. Landlords will make as much money as they can make by charging what the market will bear. Causing some of their properties to make less money for them will not increase their rates on the rest; if they could charge more on them and have them occupied, they'd be charging more.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:51 PM on November 7, 2015 [19 favorites]
Stupid reasoning, though. Landlords will make as much money as they can make by charging what the market will bear. Causing some of their properties to make less money for them will not increase their rates on the rest; if they could charge more on them and have them occupied, they'd be charging more.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:51 PM on November 7, 2015 [19 favorites]
It's funny to hear people railing against the rent control in SF as something overbearing and horrible. The entire province of BC with minor implementation differences has SF style "rent control" but we just call it rent here. SF landlords actually have it better than BC landlords because IIRC they are insulated from property tax increases and they can charge through capital improvements. Yet the rental housing market hasn't imploded.
Without rent control he would either have been out of his apartment some time around the birth of their first child or his spouse would have had to return to work at that point as even then his fair market rent had increased 50%.
posted by Mitheral at 8:53 PM on November 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
Without rent control he would either have been out of his apartment some time around the birth of their first child or his spouse would have had to return to work at that point as even then his fair market rent had increased 50%.
posted by Mitheral at 8:53 PM on November 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
This really isn't true though, especially in cities where there aren't a lot of new rent controlled apartments, if any. I live in a rent controlled apartment in New York, and there are three apartments left in my building that are not market rate. In a high rise. Nobody's rent is going up because of us.
My understanding is that rent control does not apply to vacant apartments. Meaning that when someone leaves, landlords reset the space to market rates. I don't think landlords charge "extra" based on their rent controlled percentages (author is simply wrong on this point).
But there is a way in which rent control hurts him. Imagine a perverse corollary to this guy's story: an empty nester boomer couple. They have a rent-controlled three bedroom apartment, but their kids are now on their own and don't really need the space. In perfectly efficient system, this couple could trade with the article author. But since you can't carry rent control with you, and this hypothetical couple has had multiple decades of rent control advantage over market rate increases, so they may end up seeing rents increase while downsizing.
posted by pwnguin at 8:55 PM on November 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
My understanding is that rent control does not apply to vacant apartments. Meaning that when someone leaves, landlords reset the space to market rates. I don't think landlords charge "extra" based on their rent controlled percentages (author is simply wrong on this point).
But there is a way in which rent control hurts him. Imagine a perverse corollary to this guy's story: an empty nester boomer couple. They have a rent-controlled three bedroom apartment, but their kids are now on their own and don't really need the space. In perfectly efficient system, this couple could trade with the article author. But since you can't carry rent control with you, and this hypothetical couple has had multiple decades of rent control advantage over market rate increases, so they may end up seeing rents increase while downsizing.
posted by pwnguin at 8:55 PM on November 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
Without rent control he would either have been out of his apartment some time around the birth of their first child or his spouse would have had to return to work at that point as even then his fair market rent had increased 50%.
Arguably, rent control pacifies renters who would fight owner-friendly political policies, like denying newer and denser construction.
posted by pwnguin at 8:57 PM on November 7, 2015
Arguably, rent control pacifies renters who would fight owner-friendly political policies, like denying newer and denser construction.
posted by pwnguin at 8:57 PM on November 7, 2015
They have a rent-controlled three bedroom apartment, but their kids are now on their own and don't really need the space.
The hypothetical couple moved into that apartment probably in the 1960s or 1970s. You're going to throw them out of their home so that a young couple who is well off enough to have two kids on one income can have it?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:59 PM on November 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
The hypothetical couple moved into that apartment probably in the 1960s or 1970s. You're going to throw them out of their home so that a young couple who is well off enough to have two kids on one income can have it?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:59 PM on November 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
Sorry forgot my point. Basically not limiting rent increases forces the people least able to absorb the costs of moving to constantly move around for the benefit of capital holders. Reducing the former at the cost of the latter seems like an obvious win for everyone but capital holders.
Yes it's a drag on renters with space changing life events but the truth is if those people hadn't been protected and can't afford the new rents of more appropriate space they would have been forced out years before without limits on rent increases.
The "solution" is to actually control rent at the property level but that comes with a raft of other problems.
Personally I liked England's solution of large scale council housing which tends to separate housing from capital returns. Too bad they are intent on gutting it.
posted by Mitheral at 9:01 PM on November 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Yes it's a drag on renters with space changing life events but the truth is if those people hadn't been protected and can't afford the new rents of more appropriate space they would have been forced out years before without limits on rent increases.
The "solution" is to actually control rent at the property level but that comes with a raft of other problems.
Personally I liked England's solution of large scale council housing which tends to separate housing from capital returns. Too bad they are intent on gutting it.
posted by Mitheral at 9:01 PM on November 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Uber is to cars what city parks have long been to backyards.
Who are these people that think these things.
This analogy seems pretty solid to me actually, and applies equally well to "carshare program" or "cabs".
City parks provide green, open space and fresh air when you want it, without you needing to own/maintain it. They're especially important when a city's density and cost mean almost nobody can afford their own little plot of land.
Uber/carshares/cabs provide a closed private vehicle when you want it, without you needing to own/maintain it. They're especially important when a city's density and cost mean that many people don't need a car on a regular basis, and that parking/gas/insurance are more costly.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 9:05 PM on November 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
Who are these people that think these things.
This analogy seems pretty solid to me actually, and applies equally well to "carshare program" or "cabs".
City parks provide green, open space and fresh air when you want it, without you needing to own/maintain it. They're especially important when a city's density and cost mean almost nobody can afford their own little plot of land.
Uber/carshares/cabs provide a closed private vehicle when you want it, without you needing to own/maintain it. They're especially important when a city's density and cost mean that many people don't need a car on a regular basis, and that parking/gas/insurance are more costly.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 9:05 PM on November 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
It's worth noting that their studio worked for them until the kids started growing up. One toddler and a baby was just barely livable, but the older kid getting bigger and the baby turning into a toddler made the studio no longer viable, and their solution was indeed to move to another city.
One thing that having kids does is force you to think about the future. A studio was never going to work for them past a year or two. All that effort was delaying the inevitable.
I say this as someone who lives with my two kids in an apartment in a city that's in the top 10 most expensive in the US, who watches his friends become parents and one by one abandon the city for the burbs, and who is asked not infrequently when we're giving up and moving out too.
We're committed at this point, but not a day goes by where I don't question our decisions and long for luxuries like a yard and a garage and a non-impoverished school system. But we still don't live a goddamn studio, that's just insane.
posted by xthlc at 9:05 PM on November 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
One thing that having kids does is force you to think about the future. A studio was never going to work for them past a year or two. All that effort was delaying the inevitable.
I say this as someone who lives with my two kids in an apartment in a city that's in the top 10 most expensive in the US, who watches his friends become parents and one by one abandon the city for the burbs, and who is asked not infrequently when we're giving up and moving out too.
We're committed at this point, but not a day goes by where I don't question our decisions and long for luxuries like a yard and a garage and a non-impoverished school system. But we still don't live a goddamn studio, that's just insane.
posted by xthlc at 9:05 PM on November 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
The hypothetical couple moved into that apartment probably in the 1960s or 1970s. You're going to throw them out of their home so that a young couple who is well off enough to have two kids on one income can have it?
The what-if was to consider the possibility that the older couple might want to move, but be unable to for the same reasons as the article of this piece. They would be unable to afford "market-rate" rent on other apartments, because rent control does not move with you.
A disadvantage of owning is that the value of your place might drop, but an advantage is that if overall prices in the city rise, the value of your place presumably keeps pace, allowing you to sell and transfer that equity to another place if your needs change. And it drastically changes the math he goes through in the article where he compares the rents on his studio to larger market-rate places, which makes adding space crazy expensive; when you are transferring equity from one place to another, increasing square footage is often much more affordable.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:10 PM on November 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
The what-if was to consider the possibility that the older couple might want to move, but be unable to for the same reasons as the article of this piece. They would be unable to afford "market-rate" rent on other apartments, because rent control does not move with you.
A disadvantage of owning is that the value of your place might drop, but an advantage is that if overall prices in the city rise, the value of your place presumably keeps pace, allowing you to sell and transfer that equity to another place if your needs change. And it drastically changes the math he goes through in the article where he compares the rents on his studio to larger market-rate places, which makes adding space crazy expensive; when you are transferring equity from one place to another, increasing square footage is often much more affordable.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:10 PM on November 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
The only problem with rent control is that it is not transferable between tenants; if it were transferrable, it would represent, more or less, a gradual ownership stake in the unit acquired by the people living in it — people who, all told, are much more likely to meaningfully contribute to the neighborhood around the unit than any landlord is, and therefore should rightfully receive the benefit from gentrification of that neighborhood. This would also solve the problem of the empty-nesters with spare bedrooms; they could sell their stake in the three bedroom unit to the studio apartment family, and buy the studio apartment family's stake in that unit.
Moreover, if rent control could be bought and sold between tenants, the interests of landlords and tenants would be better aligned, as both sides would benefit from rising property values, rather than the landlord benefiting and the tenants suffering.
This will of course not happen, because of how the despicable practice of landlordism is predicated on the exploitation of tenants. But nevertheless it is important to keep in mind that when people complain about the hypothetical situation of rent control increasing the cost of uncontrolled units, what they are complaining about is renters acquiring some small fraction of the stability in their housing that homeowners have. The solution isn't to take away that stability. The solution is to deepen and extend it.
tl;dr: rent control is a reasonable half-measure on the way to land reform.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:20 PM on November 7, 2015 [32 favorites]
Moreover, if rent control could be bought and sold between tenants, the interests of landlords and tenants would be better aligned, as both sides would benefit from rising property values, rather than the landlord benefiting and the tenants suffering.
This will of course not happen, because of how the despicable practice of landlordism is predicated on the exploitation of tenants. But nevertheless it is important to keep in mind that when people complain about the hypothetical situation of rent control increasing the cost of uncontrolled units, what they are complaining about is renters acquiring some small fraction of the stability in their housing that homeowners have. The solution isn't to take away that stability. The solution is to deepen and extend it.
tl;dr: rent control is a reasonable half-measure on the way to land reform.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:20 PM on November 7, 2015 [32 favorites]
I don't see the author as attacking rent control per se, merely pointing out that it is a mixed blessing for him. I know several people here who are in similar positions, i.e., they might not be very happy with their current apartment but because market-rate prices have gotten so completely out of control here, if they were to move they'd have to leave the city. It's certainly kind of a luxury problem -- at least they have an apartment, and tenants' rights in SF generally prohibit landlords from not renewing a rent-controlled tenant's lease without cause (because otherwise they could just get rid of anyone paying below-market-rate).
posted by en forme de poire at 9:24 PM on November 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 9:24 PM on November 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Here's my usual pitch for the charms of flyover country: I live in a one-bedroom apartment by myself, for less than $500 a month, and I haven't had a rent increase since 2010 despite absolutely no rules against it. (I don't even have a long-term lease. I like these "living efficiently in small spaces" things because I think if I could get things just right, I could happily spend my whole life in a place about this size. Although I'd really like a garage (because ugh clearing off a car in winter) and a little more storage for seasonal stuff like my Christmas tree. But I can do this as an option, not because I have no other choices. I certainly see virtues in downsizing, but I always find it odd that people take so long to get to realizing that sometimes moving to another city, even if it means not being able to get Thai delivered and taking a reduction in income, is going to leave them net better off. It's always the last resort.
Which I understand, for people who are lifelong residents of their cities, but if you weren't born in SF or NYC, I don't get the attachment. I don't get why he prioritized the city or this startup he was working for over... like literally every other measure of quality of life. For a guy who seems to have been really into this whole efficiency and "quantified self" thing, that seems like a pretty huge blind spot. Everybody's totally rational about this until they have to start thinking of themselves as the sort of people who live in Des Moines, or Cleveland, or Albuquerque.
posted by Sequence at 9:26 PM on November 7, 2015 [37 favorites]
Which I understand, for people who are lifelong residents of their cities, but if you weren't born in SF or NYC, I don't get the attachment. I don't get why he prioritized the city or this startup he was working for over... like literally every other measure of quality of life. For a guy who seems to have been really into this whole efficiency and "quantified self" thing, that seems like a pretty huge blind spot. Everybody's totally rational about this until they have to start thinking of themselves as the sort of people who live in Des Moines, or Cleveland, or Albuquerque.
posted by Sequence at 9:26 PM on November 7, 2015 [37 favorites]
I DID live in a studio in San Francisco with two kids. It was quite hard. All our stuff not in immediate use was in bunker trunks which served as seating, there was a huge 2 door closet the kids slept in until they got too tall to fit.then we all slept in the main room. The main room had a bay - window. The kitchen was tiny but had a regular sized stove. The fridge was half - sized. The bathroom was terrible. The tub plugged regularly. There were roaches and mice. Mentally ill homeless people regularly camped in the entrance of the neighboring abandoned theatre.
The rent there was greater than the cost of a NICE one bedroom where I live now.
Child -care was so high that I quite literally could not afford to go to work.
Once I moved to this town, I could rent more cheaply, put the kids in the Y after - school program and work nearly full time.
The Bay Area sucks way worse now than it did then.
I am glad not to live there anymore. Best thing I ever did for the kids was get the Hell out.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 9:26 PM on November 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
The rent there was greater than the cost of a NICE one bedroom where I live now.
Child -care was so high that I quite literally could not afford to go to work.
Once I moved to this town, I could rent more cheaply, put the kids in the Y after - school program and work nearly full time.
The Bay Area sucks way worse now than it did then.
I am glad not to live there anymore. Best thing I ever did for the kids was get the Hell out.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 9:26 PM on November 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
but if you weren't born in SF or NYC, I don't get the attachment. I don't get why he prioritized the city or this startup he was working for over... like literally every other measure of quality of life.
Living in SF or NYC is itself, for many people, a quality of life benefit.
I've been to SF and NYC (though I live in Los Angeles) and I'd rather live in a dumpy studio in either of those places than a mansion in Des Moines, Cleveland, or Albuquerque. Okay, I've only been to two of those but I'm willing to bet on the third as well.
posted by Justinian at 9:32 PM on November 7, 2015 [23 favorites]
Living in SF or NYC is itself, for many people, a quality of life benefit.
I've been to SF and NYC (though I live in Los Angeles) and I'd rather live in a dumpy studio in either of those places than a mansion in Des Moines, Cleveland, or Albuquerque. Okay, I've only been to two of those but I'm willing to bet on the third as well.
posted by Justinian at 9:32 PM on November 7, 2015 [23 favorites]
or moving to a neighborhood with higher crime rates.
Is this not dog whistle racism?
I find something disingenuous about this as well. There are multiple neighborhoods in the southern part of San Francisco with lower crime rates than the northeast neighborhoods and commutes to downtown/SOMA less than 40 minutes. Many of the city's remaining families with children live in these neighborhoods, and many as renters. I know from experience that landlords in these neighborhoods will rent to single income households, especially when the single income is tech startup sized. Which is not to say it's easy--in fact, I wish there was more out there by families making a good faith try to make SF work. There are so many reasons to want to raise your kids in the city and it just doesn't seem like this couple ever had any intention of staying. I don't find the "tech guy shows up in SF, leaves when he has kids" narrative to be particularly interesting or unique and I don't think the square footage changes that much.
posted by kelseyq at 9:48 PM on November 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Is this not dog whistle racism?
I find something disingenuous about this as well. There are multiple neighborhoods in the southern part of San Francisco with lower crime rates than the northeast neighborhoods and commutes to downtown/SOMA less than 40 minutes. Many of the city's remaining families with children live in these neighborhoods, and many as renters. I know from experience that landlords in these neighborhoods will rent to single income households, especially when the single income is tech startup sized. Which is not to say it's easy--in fact, I wish there was more out there by families making a good faith try to make SF work. There are so many reasons to want to raise your kids in the city and it just doesn't seem like this couple ever had any intention of staying. I don't find the "tech guy shows up in SF, leaves when he has kids" narrative to be particularly interesting or unique and I don't think the square footage changes that much.
posted by kelseyq at 9:48 PM on November 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
The hypothetical couple moved into that apartment probably in the 1960s or 1970s. You're going to throw them out of their home so that a young couple who is well off enough to have two kids on one income can have it?
They're going to trade -- the empty-nesters with more bedrooms than people is going to trade with the family with more people than bedrooms. In the process of trading, their market rates would also trade; boomer's rent would shrink, and millenial's rent would go up (but less so). Is there some reason renting in the 1960s entitles you to additional Lebensraum?
posted by pwnguin at 10:09 PM on November 7, 2015
They're going to trade -- the empty-nesters with more bedrooms than people is going to trade with the family with more people than bedrooms. In the process of trading, their market rates would also trade; boomer's rent would shrink, and millenial's rent would go up (but less so). Is there some reason renting in the 1960s entitles you to additional Lebensraum?
posted by pwnguin at 10:09 PM on November 7, 2015
Living in SF or NYC is itself, for many people, a quality of life benefit
Only if you can actually afford the cultural amenities. If you're struggling to make it, especially with small children, it doesn't matter if you live in SF or NYC or wherever, if you never have time or money to enjoy restaurants, events, the arts, etc.
posted by daisystomper at 10:10 PM on November 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
Only if you can actually afford the cultural amenities. If you're struggling to make it, especially with small children, it doesn't matter if you live in SF or NYC or wherever, if you never have time or money to enjoy restaurants, events, the arts, etc.
posted by daisystomper at 10:10 PM on November 7, 2015 [13 favorites]
You're assuming he works in something portable. I work in a field where your choices of cities is LA, Seattle, SF, and Austin, and that's pretty much it.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 10:18 PM on November 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 10:18 PM on November 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
Is this not dog whistle racism?
At first I was imagining that he was talking about Bayview/Hunter's Point, since it seems like he worked in Mission Bay and that's a very short commute. If that were the case, I don't think it would necessarily have been code for anything to bring up crime -- BVHP really does have a particularly high violent crime rate, and I certainly wouldn't blame anyone for finding it depressing and/or stressful to live in a neighborhood with that problem. IMHO, the more problematic thing would be suddenly caring about the crime rate in a historically Black neighborhood -- one that has suffered through decades of white-supremacist policy and abusive policing -- only after that neighborhood has become geographically desirable to comparatively wealthy white people.
posted by en forme de poire at 10:23 PM on November 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
At first I was imagining that he was talking about Bayview/Hunter's Point, since it seems like he worked in Mission Bay and that's a very short commute. If that were the case, I don't think it would necessarily have been code for anything to bring up crime -- BVHP really does have a particularly high violent crime rate, and I certainly wouldn't blame anyone for finding it depressing and/or stressful to live in a neighborhood with that problem. IMHO, the more problematic thing would be suddenly caring about the crime rate in a historically Black neighborhood -- one that has suffered through decades of white-supremacist policy and abusive policing -- only after that neighborhood has become geographically desirable to comparatively wealthy white people.
posted by en forme de poire at 10:23 PM on November 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
I am proud to say I’ve helped close million+ dollar software deals in my PJs sitting in a car parked in my garage. But there were definitely some days I would sit there thinking ‘what the heck am I doing right now?’.
Closing a deal that important in that sort of chaotic setup might be fun, but it isn’t exactly something to be proud of. It’s a sign that something has gone very wrong with the world that you‘ve been forced to let your work permeate your life so completely.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:52 PM on November 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
Closing a deal that important in that sort of chaotic setup might be fun, but it isn’t exactly something to be proud of. It’s a sign that something has gone very wrong with the world that you‘ve been forced to let your work permeate your life so completely.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:52 PM on November 7, 2015 [15 favorites]
Honestly, I’d like Lars von Trier or the Coen brothers to option this blog post.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:53 PM on November 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 10:53 PM on November 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
You're assuming he works in something portable. I work in a field where your choices of cities is LA, Seattle, SF, and Austin, and that's pretty much it.
We don't have to assume, though--we know he's a product manager for tech companies, which is a role that might have comparatively more openings in the Bay Area but is certainly not limited to that geographic region and definitely not constrained to the specific neighborhood he lives in. There are a lot of people in SF making hard choices that involve the broader economic & social ideas (including limited mobility) he tries to talk about at the beginning of his post; I just don't see a compelling case that he's one of them. Without that, as ThePinkSuperhero mentions, it becomes one of many, many entries in a tired "privileged dude bro tells you about how you don't need *things*, man" genre.
posted by kelseyq at 11:08 PM on November 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
We don't have to assume, though--we know he's a product manager for tech companies, which is a role that might have comparatively more openings in the Bay Area but is certainly not limited to that geographic region and definitely not constrained to the specific neighborhood he lives in. There are a lot of people in SF making hard choices that involve the broader economic & social ideas (including limited mobility) he tries to talk about at the beginning of his post; I just don't see a compelling case that he's one of them. Without that, as ThePinkSuperhero mentions, it becomes one of many, many entries in a tired "privileged dude bro tells you about how you don't need *things*, man" genre.
posted by kelseyq at 11:08 PM on November 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
Only if you can actually afford the cultural amenities. If you're struggling to make it, especially with small children, it doesn't matter if you live in SF or NYC or wherever, if you never have time or money to enjoy restaurants, events, the arts, etc.
I don't know about SF, but I found in my summer of living in NYC, that there were a ton of cultural events I could attend; the amount of free events going on in NYC is staggering and overwhelming. As far as enjoying restaurants (I was on a tight tight budget when I was there), I found that if I was willing to travel 45 minutes or so, I could find a pretty mind-blowing selection of incredibly tasty cheap food - cheaper and better food than I can find in most cities I've been in.
Certainly I can't go to expensive shows and eat at fancy eateries on a budget, but there is plenty to do and plenty of cheap food to be had (if you have time to travel to them).
I have to assume that SF is similar (although I could be wrong).
posted by el io at 11:08 PM on November 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
I don't know about SF, but I found in my summer of living in NYC, that there were a ton of cultural events I could attend; the amount of free events going on in NYC is staggering and overwhelming. As far as enjoying restaurants (I was on a tight tight budget when I was there), I found that if I was willing to travel 45 minutes or so, I could find a pretty mind-blowing selection of incredibly tasty cheap food - cheaper and better food than I can find in most cities I've been in.
Certainly I can't go to expensive shows and eat at fancy eateries on a budget, but there is plenty to do and plenty of cheap food to be had (if you have time to travel to them).
I have to assume that SF is similar (although I could be wrong).
posted by el io at 11:08 PM on November 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
At least when I was growing up in SF, there was a ton of free/low-cost cultural programming specifically aimed at children that centered communities of color, activist communities, and queer communities that was in fact unique to SF. Price per square foot isn't the only consideration in choosing where to raise your kids.
posted by kelseyq at 11:14 PM on November 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by kelseyq at 11:14 PM on November 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
To be fair, there were great cultural amenities, and yes, lots were free or low cost. The trouble is that even going to 'free' stuff, you do spend money. Little things like food.. Bus fare, sometimes you buy food to get access to a bathroom... I did get pretty good at finding cheap and free stuff we could do. I'm not saying we had no fun. We had loads of fun but it was a struggle due to excess housing costs.
The one HUGE upside of our tiny place was it was very cheap to heat. There isn't a big cooling season in San Francisco. With kids, and a low income, fancy stuff had to be saved up for.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 11:31 PM on November 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
The one HUGE upside of our tiny place was it was very cheap to heat. There isn't a big cooling season in San Francisco. With kids, and a low income, fancy stuff had to be saved up for.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 11:31 PM on November 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
I was born in Oakland but raised in mainly in San Francisco. I am native to the Bay Area.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 11:33 PM on November 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 11:33 PM on November 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Really, if your kid is under 4 the local library usually has plenty of events. Living in SF or NYC and pretending it's for your 1 year old toddler is ridiculous, unless you admit it's so they will grow up with the right kind of cultural cachet to enter a certain class.
posted by benzenedream at 12:11 AM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 12:11 AM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ghostride The Whip: You're assuming he works in something portable. I work in a field where your choices of cities is LA, Seattle, SF, and Austin, and that's pretty much it.
and then:
kelseyg: we know he's a product manager for tech companies, which is a role that might have comparatively more openings in the Bay Area but is certainly not limited to that geographic region...Without that, as ThePinkSuperhero mentions, it becomes one of many, many entries in a tired "privileged dude bro tells you about how you don't need *things*, man" genre.
The funny thing is, he bailed on SF because of the cost. From his article, "[w]e ended up moving to a less expensive city and getting a 2BR for much less than we had been considering in San Francisco." So he did what has become the new norm, making bank in SF, driving up costs, and then heading north (his Twitter account says he's now in West Seattle) to lather, rinse, and repeat.
Which, though it sounds like it, is not an indictment of him or his direct choices. At a micro level, we all do what is best for us and ours, if not foremost then pretty high up on the list. He presumably took a salary that was offered to him and parlayed that into an improved, large(r) space in Seattle versus intentionally staying in SF. On the macro level, though, that's what is driving a lot of the angst in both places.
posted by fireoyster at 12:44 AM on November 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
and then:
kelseyg: we know he's a product manager for tech companies, which is a role that might have comparatively more openings in the Bay Area but is certainly not limited to that geographic region...Without that, as ThePinkSuperhero mentions, it becomes one of many, many entries in a tired "privileged dude bro tells you about how you don't need *things*, man" genre.
The funny thing is, he bailed on SF because of the cost. From his article, "[w]e ended up moving to a less expensive city and getting a 2BR for much less than we had been considering in San Francisco." So he did what has become the new norm, making bank in SF, driving up costs, and then heading north (his Twitter account says he's now in West Seattle) to lather, rinse, and repeat.
Which, though it sounds like it, is not an indictment of him or his direct choices. At a micro level, we all do what is best for us and ours, if not foremost then pretty high up on the list. He presumably took a salary that was offered to him and parlayed that into an improved, large(r) space in Seattle versus intentionally staying in SF. On the macro level, though, that's what is driving a lot of the angst in both places.
posted by fireoyster at 12:44 AM on November 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
I would be a lot more interested in reading the same article from his wife's perspective - thank you Katjusa Roquette for sharing your experience in that position!
posted by fermezporte at 3:37 AM on November 8, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by fermezporte at 3:37 AM on November 8, 2015 [14 favorites]
Speaking of shared assets, we live in an age where owning books, CDs or DVDs is wasted space and money. Most media sits unused for the majority of its life. It was once the case that access to information was rare, which is why owning a library had a benefit. But now we have the Internet – round the clock access to more information and entertainment than you could ever consume. There is no need to own. Public libraries are free and there are plenty of ways to rent things when you need them.HERESY.
I have long since axed most of my CDs and DVDs, but books are not in the same category in my house. They are not fungible units of easily-replaced information. Saying "there's no need to keep books, you can get books online or at the library" is rather like saying "don't keep your great-grandmother's pearl necklace, you can buy or rent jewellery easily from numerous places now" or "it's easy to buy or rent new toys, so toss your child's beloved teddy bear." (I mean, okay, not all my books. But enough of them. The library don't have my obscure 19th-century spiritualist pamphlets! I can't just get rid of the book a beloved and now lost relative bought me because he knew I'd been looking for it for years! What else am I going to do with the book someone gave me for safegiving 15 years ago because her ex-husband had written a loving dedication in the front of it, and she couldn't bear to keep it but she couldn't quite bear to let it go either?)
I do weed ruthlessly any time we move house because otherwise I would just keep every book ever. Now we are older and more settled and move house less, gradual bookcase creep is getting to be more and more of an issue. I love reading people's accounts of how they live in really tiny minimalist houses, but only in the same way that I love reading about people building their houses from scratch or climbing mountains or living off the land - it does very little to inspire me to follow suit.
posted by Catseye at 4:03 AM on November 8, 2015 [18 favorites]
Who are these people that think these things.
Probably the same people who think public libraries are basically homeless shelters.
posted by fuse theorem at 4:14 AM on November 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
Probably the same people who think public libraries are basically homeless shelters.
posted by fuse theorem at 4:14 AM on November 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
They're going to trade -- the empty-nesters with more bedrooms than people is going to trade with the family with more people than bedrooms.
I don't think forcing someone to trade apartments is a realistic solution to anything.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:20 AM on November 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't think forcing someone to trade apartments is a realistic solution to anything.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:20 AM on November 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Stockholm syndrome.
posted by Rhomboid at 4:22 AM on November 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Rhomboid at 4:22 AM on November 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
I have super mixed feelings about this.
This describes me, and nearly all my friends in seattle. We don't have rent control here, but there's an awful lot of small landlord/family owned older buildings in various states of disrepair where rent just... doesn't go up. I know people who have been living in the same place for nearly a decade without a single rent increase, despite the building nextdoor renting for like 3x the $/sqft(or really, $/number of bedrooms in addition to that). Most of them would be straight up gone from town if they had to move. Average rent price stats for here are skewed, much like those statistics of average human lifespan from previous centuries being skewed by weighting towards the lower end from the smaller number of old buildings, whereas the bulk of on-market stock and all new construction leans more towards the absurd SF-esque standard.
That said, there's some dumbassinated stuff in here. Some of the stuff about repurposing the space and life in general with a family in that tiny apartment is cute or interesting, but the fact of the matter is these guys aren't poverty locked into that apartment or city. He could have gotten off the rollercoaster at any time and moved like he eventually did.
And in particular, the whole "harden the fuck up" thing at the end is such a techbro mindset and comment. How about no, and this isn't ok, and you're(or we're) allowed to feel that?
I don't think landlords charge "extra" based on their rent controlled percentages (author is simply wrong on this point).
Yea, exactly. This and the uber/public parks comment make me think that this guy is at least a little bit infected with techbro-itis. He's halfway into the path of indoctrination to talking about the eeeeevils of rent control and gloriousness of the free market. That "rent overcorrects" comment is a classic lolbertarian techbro line. Go read any seattle(or SF, or probably other cities) subreddit post where rent control is even a tertiary topic and look at the pushback and shitposts. These guys *gang up* on it.
The fact of the matter is that, in both cities, the problem is supply. You fix spiking rent by introducing more supply, and it's a zoning and NIMBY issue in both cities.
I also think it's fucking hilarious he moved to Seattle to "solve" the problem. Rent here is lower, but as far as i know it's rising *faster*. It's also rising a lot more uniformly when you compare outlying neighborhoods and suburbs with the city itself. And lower is relative when i know people who moved to brooklyn or LA and immediately commented on how much more space they got for their dollar, or(mostly in the case of brooklyn) that they're paying less, or about the same.
I don't know how much money this guy makes, but the situation presently in SF, and brewing and close to baked in seattle is such that one person making lets say 25-75k can't play ball with a lot of, or even most of the housing. You end up shunted in to awkward basement units, share houses, etc. It's to the point that the only people i know living alone or on one income are making more than that. Everyone else, including myself, is living on two incomes(or more, with essentially one income per bedroom +).
The correct response to this isn't to "harden the fuck up", it's to flip cars over and light them on fire. This article amounts to "here's how i crushed by the steamroller of this grim reality while acknowledging it as little as possible and rationalizing it". This guy will probably buy a condo in seattle on the cusp of not being able to afford it and never deeply reflect on how hugely the point was missed here, and how thoroughly he wrote a piece that is essentially victim blaming ammo and rhetoric.
I dunno. I just have a lot of saved up eyeroll for people who come up to seattle from the bay, rent the exact equivalent of those apartments they couldn't afford there, and do zero introspection about their place and actions as a component of the problem. Especially when they write multi page thinkpieces about it.
Also, as was said above, i wonder what his wife thinks. Specifically the part where she was left in a trashed apartment while pregnant with no bed or just... a lot of the rest of it.
posted by emptythought at 4:41 AM on November 8, 2015 [54 favorites]
This describes me, and nearly all my friends in seattle. We don't have rent control here, but there's an awful lot of small landlord/family owned older buildings in various states of disrepair where rent just... doesn't go up. I know people who have been living in the same place for nearly a decade without a single rent increase, despite the building nextdoor renting for like 3x the $/sqft(or really, $/number of bedrooms in addition to that). Most of them would be straight up gone from town if they had to move. Average rent price stats for here are skewed, much like those statistics of average human lifespan from previous centuries being skewed by weighting towards the lower end from the smaller number of old buildings, whereas the bulk of on-market stock and all new construction leans more towards the absurd SF-esque standard.
That said, there's some dumbassinated stuff in here. Some of the stuff about repurposing the space and life in general with a family in that tiny apartment is cute or interesting, but the fact of the matter is these guys aren't poverty locked into that apartment or city. He could have gotten off the rollercoaster at any time and moved like he eventually did.
And in particular, the whole "harden the fuck up" thing at the end is such a techbro mindset and comment. How about no, and this isn't ok, and you're(or we're) allowed to feel that?
I don't think landlords charge "extra" based on their rent controlled percentages (author is simply wrong on this point).
Yea, exactly. This and the uber/public parks comment make me think that this guy is at least a little bit infected with techbro-itis. He's halfway into the path of indoctrination to talking about the eeeeevils of rent control and gloriousness of the free market. That "rent overcorrects" comment is a classic lolbertarian techbro line. Go read any seattle(or SF, or probably other cities) subreddit post where rent control is even a tertiary topic and look at the pushback and shitposts. These guys *gang up* on it.
The fact of the matter is that, in both cities, the problem is supply. You fix spiking rent by introducing more supply, and it's a zoning and NIMBY issue in both cities.
I also think it's fucking hilarious he moved to Seattle to "solve" the problem. Rent here is lower, but as far as i know it's rising *faster*. It's also rising a lot more uniformly when you compare outlying neighborhoods and suburbs with the city itself. And lower is relative when i know people who moved to brooklyn or LA and immediately commented on how much more space they got for their dollar, or(mostly in the case of brooklyn) that they're paying less, or about the same.
I don't know how much money this guy makes, but the situation presently in SF, and brewing and close to baked in seattle is such that one person making lets say 25-75k can't play ball with a lot of, or even most of the housing. You end up shunted in to awkward basement units, share houses, etc. It's to the point that the only people i know living alone or on one income are making more than that. Everyone else, including myself, is living on two incomes(or more, with essentially one income per bedroom +).
The correct response to this isn't to "harden the fuck up", it's to flip cars over and light them on fire. This article amounts to "here's how i crushed by the steamroller of this grim reality while acknowledging it as little as possible and rationalizing it". This guy will probably buy a condo in seattle on the cusp of not being able to afford it and never deeply reflect on how hugely the point was missed here, and how thoroughly he wrote a piece that is essentially victim blaming ammo and rhetoric.
I dunno. I just have a lot of saved up eyeroll for people who come up to seattle from the bay, rent the exact equivalent of those apartments they couldn't afford there, and do zero introspection about their place and actions as a component of the problem. Especially when they write multi page thinkpieces about it.
Also, as was said above, i wonder what his wife thinks. Specifically the part where she was left in a trashed apartment while pregnant with no bed or just... a lot of the rest of it.
posted by emptythought at 4:41 AM on November 8, 2015 [54 favorites]
Everybody's totally rational about this until they have to start thinking of themselves as the sort of people who live in Des Moines, or Cleveland, or Albuquerque
K, so when I get laid off from my job in advertising (or tech, or PR, or fashion) in Des Moines I can find a new job in literally two or three days? No? Crazy rent in NYC it is, then.
posted by windbox at 5:29 AM on November 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
K, so when I get laid off from my job in advertising (or tech, or PR, or fashion) in Des Moines I can find a new job in literally two or three days? No? Crazy rent in NYC it is, then.
posted by windbox at 5:29 AM on November 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
From the perspective from flyover country even his rent controlled rent sounds insane. That's pretty much our mortgage on a whole house in the middle of the city.
posted by octothorpe at 5:29 AM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by octothorpe at 5:29 AM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's the engineering approach to life. It made sense to me when I was his age (and an engineer) but now I see it as more useful as an idea for a character in a novel.
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:31 AM on November 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:31 AM on November 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Consider that you are paying rent for your stuff.
That was really hitting home when I was paying rent for a 3-bedroom apartment where living space was reduced to literally the place where I slept and the place where I shit.
I've since corrected that (took a few life adjustments which were seemingly only tangentially related to this discussion) but I've learned the importance of not paying for square footage to store shit I don't use.
I won't give up CDs, which take minimal space, but I am having culture shock with giving up books in favor of a Kindle. But that's a separate post ...
posted by oheso at 5:39 AM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
That was really hitting home when I was paying rent for a 3-bedroom apartment where living space was reduced to literally the place where I slept and the place where I shit.
I've since corrected that (took a few life adjustments which were seemingly only tangentially related to this discussion) but I've learned the importance of not paying for square footage to store shit I don't use.
I won't give up CDs, which take minimal space, but I am having culture shock with giving up books in favor of a Kindle. But that's a separate post ...
posted by oheso at 5:39 AM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't think forcing someone to trade apartments is a realistic solution to anything.
Sidenote, NYC is trying to do that now with public housing (encourage/force people to free up large apartments if they're living alone). I haven't read any recent updates, but it doesn't sound like it's going all that well.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:57 AM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sidenote, NYC is trying to do that now with public housing (encourage/force people to free up large apartments if they're living alone). I haven't read any recent updates, but it doesn't sound like it's going all that well.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:57 AM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The correct response to this isn't to "harden the fuck up", it's to flip cars over and light them on fire. This article amounts to "here's how i crushed by the steamroller of this grim reality while acknowledging it as little as possible and rationalizing it".
I feel like I should be saving copies of articles like this for an eventual collection of the ephemeral literature of the middle class' adjustment to its own destruction. Someday all this tiny house / Kondo minimalism / apartment therapy stuff is going to make primo dissertation fodder.
Assuming, of course, that anyone is still writing dissertations. I'm in the process of moving into another too-small apartment with my family of four in a berserk housing market, and have yet to flip over a single car, so ...
posted by ryanshepard at 6:01 AM on November 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
I feel like I should be saving copies of articles like this for an eventual collection of the ephemeral literature of the middle class' adjustment to its own destruction. Someday all this tiny house / Kondo minimalism / apartment therapy stuff is going to make primo dissertation fodder.
Assuming, of course, that anyone is still writing dissertations. I'm in the process of moving into another too-small apartment with my family of four in a berserk housing market, and have yet to flip over a single car, so ...
posted by ryanshepard at 6:01 AM on November 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
This reminds me of when my kids fight over wanting to sit on the same couch cushion. There's a whole country to spread out in, people.
posted by that's how you get ants at 6:07 AM on November 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by that's how you get ants at 6:07 AM on November 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm in the process of moving into another too-small apartment with my family of four in a berserk housing market, and have yet to flip over a single car, so ...
That's because you're just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. (Me too, FWIW.)
posted by LastOfHisKind at 6:23 AM on November 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
That's because you're just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. (Me too, FWIW.)
posted by LastOfHisKind at 6:23 AM on November 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Maybe it's because I work in low incone housing, maybe a part of it has to do with living in Chicago, and maybe some of it has to do with us willing to move into areas some of my white friends wouldn't even concider.
But I happily have a 2.5 bed 1000sq ft apartment w/ washer and drier for 750 a month. Stays warm in the winter.
Nice landlord, quiet building. I mean I know my friends are paying double for less.
I just can't fathom that there really aren't places to live under market rate.
posted by AlexiaSky at 6:38 AM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
But I happily have a 2.5 bed 1000sq ft apartment w/ washer and drier for 750 a month. Stays warm in the winter.
Nice landlord, quiet building. I mean I know my friends are paying double for less.
I just can't fathom that there really aren't places to live under market rate.
posted by AlexiaSky at 6:38 AM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
My understanding is that rent control does not apply to vacant apartments. Meaning that when someone leaves, landlords reset the space to market rates.
This may vary city to city depending on regulations, but it's not how it works in NYC. Here, the landlord is only allowed to raise the rent a certain percentage on a renewal lease of a regulated apartment. He is also required to offer a renewal lease of not less than two years, and it must be on the same terms and conditions (except for the rent rate) as the original lease. If a regulated apartment is vacated, the landlord is allowed to raise the rent rate a higher percentage for the next tenant. But that percentage is also fixed. The landlord is also allowed to raise the rent rate on a vacant regulated apartment a certain amount above the statutory percentage based on the cost of any renovations done. So what many landlords are doing nowadays is gut renovating any rent regulated apartments that become vacant, and carefully spending enough money on the renovation so that the legal rate exceeds the threshold to take the apartment out of regulation.
posted by slkinsey at 6:39 AM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
This may vary city to city depending on regulations, but it's not how it works in NYC. Here, the landlord is only allowed to raise the rent a certain percentage on a renewal lease of a regulated apartment. He is also required to offer a renewal lease of not less than two years, and it must be on the same terms and conditions (except for the rent rate) as the original lease. If a regulated apartment is vacated, the landlord is allowed to raise the rent rate a higher percentage for the next tenant. But that percentage is also fixed. The landlord is also allowed to raise the rent rate on a vacant regulated apartment a certain amount above the statutory percentage based on the cost of any renovations done. So what many landlords are doing nowadays is gut renovating any rent regulated apartments that become vacant, and carefully spending enough money on the renovation so that the legal rate exceeds the threshold to take the apartment out of regulation.
posted by slkinsey at 6:39 AM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't think forcing someone to trade apartments is a realistic solution to anything.
Sure, but the original comment didn't even mention "forcing" anything, that's purely on you.
Imagine a perverse corollary to this guy's story: an empty nester boomer couple. They have a rent-controlled three bedroom apartment, but their kids are now on their own and don't really need the space. In perfectly efficient system, this couple could trade with the article author. But since you can't carry rent control with you, and this hypothetical couple has had multiple decades of rent control advantage over market rate increases, so they may end up seeing rents increase while downsizing.
They could or could not, but the point stands that even if they wanted to downsize, they probably wouldn't be able to (unless they're part of the the NYC link ThePinkSuperhero mentioned).
posted by dogwalker at 6:41 AM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sure, but the original comment didn't even mention "forcing" anything, that's purely on you.
Imagine a perverse corollary to this guy's story: an empty nester boomer couple. They have a rent-controlled three bedroom apartment, but their kids are now on their own and don't really need the space. In perfectly efficient system, this couple could trade with the article author. But since you can't carry rent control with you, and this hypothetical couple has had multiple decades of rent control advantage over market rate increases, so they may end up seeing rents increase while downsizing.
They could or could not, but the point stands that even if they wanted to downsize, they probably wouldn't be able to (unless they're part of the the NYC link ThePinkSuperhero mentioned).
posted by dogwalker at 6:41 AM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
That's pretty much our mortgage on a whole house in the middle of the city.
That's fine, but my crazy rent allows me to not have a car, to see Broadway shows on a weekly basis, and to have access to the best food in the world.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:41 AM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
That's fine, but my crazy rent allows me to not have a car, to see Broadway shows on a weekly basis, and to have access to the best food in the world.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:41 AM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I can't imagine "allowing room in the budget to see Broadway shows on a weekly basis" is what the creators of rent control had in mind. There was an article in the NYTimes Real Estate section several weeks ago, I wish I could find it, that featured a couple who each kept a rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartment after they got married, and used their savings to buy a house outside city limits. Comments on the piece were brutal, and part of me agrees. Rent control is not about keeping a small group of lucky people living in luxury, and if by chance it happens to, you might want to keep that to yourself.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:50 AM on November 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:50 AM on November 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
I can't imagine "allowing room in the budget to see Broadway shows on a weekly basis" is what the creators of rent control had in mind.
Full disclosure, my husband works in theatre press, so we don't pay for seats.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:53 AM on November 8, 2015
Full disclosure, my husband works in theatre press, so we don't pay for seats.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:53 AM on November 8, 2015
This may vary city to city depending on regulations, but it's not how it works in NYC.
It is how it works in SF, which is where the article is about, due to state law.
posted by kelseyq at 7:06 AM on November 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
It is how it works in SF, which is where the article is about, due to state law.
posted by kelseyq at 7:06 AM on November 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
roomthreeseventeen: "That's pretty much our mortgage on a whole house in the middle of the city.
That's fine, but my crazy rent allows me to not have a car, to see Broadway shows on a weekly basis, and to have access to the best food in the world."
I'm not really into Broadway shows but my $200K house is a twenty minute walk from our theater district where I've seen scores of plays, concerts and dance performances. We're walking down there this afternoon to see a documentary film about Nina Simone and hear a talk from the director at the Three River's Film Festival.
Our food scene can't rival San Francisco but it's starting to get some national attention.
posted by octothorpe at 7:35 AM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
That's fine, but my crazy rent allows me to not have a car, to see Broadway shows on a weekly basis, and to have access to the best food in the world."
I'm not really into Broadway shows but my $200K house is a twenty minute walk from our theater district where I've seen scores of plays, concerts and dance performances. We're walking down there this afternoon to see a documentary film about Nina Simone and hear a talk from the director at the Three River's Film Festival.
Our food scene can't rival San Francisco but it's starting to get some national attention.
posted by octothorpe at 7:35 AM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ugh, this article makes me so glad we're out of our last apartment. 800-square feet in a house built in 1780 which had been chopped up into apartments. It was the largest place we could afford in our area and, despite the bizarrely low ceilings (I'm 5'3" and could touch them without tippy toes) and lack of windows in the living room, worked pretty well for us when there were just two of us, even though we both worked from home and had a fair number of books.
Once our daughter was born, the whole house of cards came crashing down. And she's co-slept since birth so it's not like we needed a "nursery." Baby cries, so that means dad, in his office, can't take work calls. We didn't have a garage so that was out. Walls were thin so if Dad wanted to play a video game on vent on one of his off days, it meant the baby woke up. And despite not buying that many myself, there were so. Many. Toys, from well meaning grandparents. I remember at one point my mother in law gave us a walker and I cried because there was no place to put it. It was so much work playing endless belonging tetris, and it felt so precarious, and childproofing was a nightmare because there was just no place to put anything. We couldn't have guests without literally hearing their snoring in the next room, and that next room was a tiny dark cave full of toys and books--who would really want to stay in that, anyway? And, god, my daughter liked her toys, and I like my books, and I hate articles like this that treat having any enjoyment in things or pride in ownership as some kind of massive personal failing.
We are really lucky and so fucking privileged that my mother in law could help us get a house (there was no way we were going to be able to, with my student loan debt and our irregular freelance income). Now we're in a four bedroom, 2300 square foot house. It's not super fancy or anything--bog standard 70s split entryway ranch with a finished basement. But now my husband can do his work without constant interruptions, I can do skype visits with readers or make work phone calls, and I can be grateful for the gifts my daughter receives instead of exploding into tears because I have no idea where I'll put them. I can have author copies of my own books on a shelf in my office instead of in a mildewy box in our leaky vestibule (or the trunk of my car). We're taking our time, finding the right place for things, and we can do that because we have a garage, we have space. It's luxurious. I'll never take space for granted again.
I don't think being a baby and a young toddler in a teeny apartment helped my daughter, frankly. It didn't teach her to clean or learn good protestant industriousness or whatever. Instead, I'm pretty positive it hindered her. She learned to walk late, at 15 months, the same week we moved into our house. She literally didn't have the space to cruise in the old place.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:41 AM on November 8, 2015 [19 favorites]
Once our daughter was born, the whole house of cards came crashing down. And she's co-slept since birth so it's not like we needed a "nursery." Baby cries, so that means dad, in his office, can't take work calls. We didn't have a garage so that was out. Walls were thin so if Dad wanted to play a video game on vent on one of his off days, it meant the baby woke up. And despite not buying that many myself, there were so. Many. Toys, from well meaning grandparents. I remember at one point my mother in law gave us a walker and I cried because there was no place to put it. It was so much work playing endless belonging tetris, and it felt so precarious, and childproofing was a nightmare because there was just no place to put anything. We couldn't have guests without literally hearing their snoring in the next room, and that next room was a tiny dark cave full of toys and books--who would really want to stay in that, anyway? And, god, my daughter liked her toys, and I like my books, and I hate articles like this that treat having any enjoyment in things or pride in ownership as some kind of massive personal failing.
We are really lucky and so fucking privileged that my mother in law could help us get a house (there was no way we were going to be able to, with my student loan debt and our irregular freelance income). Now we're in a four bedroom, 2300 square foot house. It's not super fancy or anything--bog standard 70s split entryway ranch with a finished basement. But now my husband can do his work without constant interruptions, I can do skype visits with readers or make work phone calls, and I can be grateful for the gifts my daughter receives instead of exploding into tears because I have no idea where I'll put them. I can have author copies of my own books on a shelf in my office instead of in a mildewy box in our leaky vestibule (or the trunk of my car). We're taking our time, finding the right place for things, and we can do that because we have a garage, we have space. It's luxurious. I'll never take space for granted again.
I don't think being a baby and a young toddler in a teeny apartment helped my daughter, frankly. It didn't teach her to clean or learn good protestant industriousness or whatever. Instead, I'm pretty positive it hindered her. She learned to walk late, at 15 months, the same week we moved into our house. She literally didn't have the space to cruise in the old place.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:41 AM on November 8, 2015 [19 favorites]
I mean, that cute little shoe rack he has pictured? I bet that's familiar to anyone in a small space. You know what a toddler does with an open shoe rack? Pulls down all the shoes and sucks on dirty shoelaces. Ask me how I know.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:49 AM on November 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:49 AM on November 8, 2015 [9 favorites]
It seems objectively true that crime rates differ by region. No need to accuse the guy of racism.
posted by alpheus at 8:00 AM on November 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by alpheus at 8:00 AM on November 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I just can't fathom that there really aren't places to live under market rate.
Such places exist everywhere, but they might not be available or findable at the exact moment you need them. I've got a place that's now below-market myself, and I haven't been able to find anything else comparably cheap in spite of regular searching. Housing's often as much a matter of luck and connections as the employment that allows you to pay for it.
posted by asperity at 8:08 AM on November 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Such places exist everywhere, but they might not be available or findable at the exact moment you need them. I've got a place that's now below-market myself, and I haven't been able to find anything else comparably cheap in spite of regular searching. Housing's often as much a matter of luck and connections as the employment that allows you to pay for it.
posted by asperity at 8:08 AM on November 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
I'm a mother of two young children. And from my perspective the way this man is waxing poetic about his spartan micro living space, I can guaran-fucking-tee you that was a father whose wife never once left him with those kids in that one tiny room and went away for the weekend. (For good reason, she may never have come back!) His family were the ones to suffer and pay the price for his principles while he got to get out every day and work in space and not have to suffer the day to day reality of raising kids in a shoebox.
posted by Jubey at 8:09 AM on November 8, 2015 [27 favorites]
posted by Jubey at 8:09 AM on November 8, 2015 [27 favorites]
Jubey, one of the things I thought reading this was: well, you surely can't put four people (two of them kids too small to help out) in a space that small without someone whose all-day every-day duty it is to keep the place in order and keep the kids occupied somewhere that is not home. I would be in serious need of a real break--not a sitting in a public park with one eye on the kids--after just a few months. Several years? Fuck no.
Shit, there's four surfboards but I can't imagine what the mom does in her time off which she likely does not have. If dad is working 40+ all week and surfing on the weekends, and everything has to be tetris'd into place constantly and two small children have to be kept occupied with space to be children, when is she not on duty?
posted by crush-onastick at 8:46 AM on November 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
Shit, there's four surfboards but I can't imagine what the mom does in her time off which she likely does not have. If dad is working 40+ all week and surfing on the weekends, and everything has to be tetris'd into place constantly and two small children have to be kept occupied with space to be children, when is she not on duty?
posted by crush-onastick at 8:46 AM on November 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
> The fact of the matter is that, in both cities, the problem is supply. You fix spiking rent by introducing more supply, and it's a zoning and NIMBY issue in both cities.
I know that this is a frame that urbanist liberals have been very good at promoting, but I'm not sure this is necessarily true. Not that NIMBYism, historic district zoning that restricts all development, and broader zoning problems (most notably parking minimums on new construction, which can greatly drive up the cost of each new unit) aren't a problem. It's just that the implicit idea that the market would provide adequate housing for most people if it weren't for zoning restrictions and NIMBYist obstructionism is, I think, wrong. On the whole the best way for developers and landlords to maximize returns on real estate investments in cities with high land values is to work together to tightly limit supply for most people (thus driving up the price of substandard housing), while devoting as much land and development money as possible to luxury developments for the upper crust, since the few of them can muster more effective demand than the many of us.
This is why I'm so dogmatic about insisting that both NIMBYism and market-oriented development ideology are flawed. Housing in use-intense urban environments is like health care, in that it's something that the market left to its own devices cannot adequately supply. This is why we need to, insofar as possible, get the market out of housing. Increased public development (ideally funded through steep taxes on both new and pre-existing luxury developments) is a good first step toward that goal.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:50 AM on November 8, 2015 [12 favorites]
I know that this is a frame that urbanist liberals have been very good at promoting, but I'm not sure this is necessarily true. Not that NIMBYism, historic district zoning that restricts all development, and broader zoning problems (most notably parking minimums on new construction, which can greatly drive up the cost of each new unit) aren't a problem. It's just that the implicit idea that the market would provide adequate housing for most people if it weren't for zoning restrictions and NIMBYist obstructionism is, I think, wrong. On the whole the best way for developers and landlords to maximize returns on real estate investments in cities with high land values is to work together to tightly limit supply for most people (thus driving up the price of substandard housing), while devoting as much land and development money as possible to luxury developments for the upper crust, since the few of them can muster more effective demand than the many of us.
This is why I'm so dogmatic about insisting that both NIMBYism and market-oriented development ideology are flawed. Housing in use-intense urban environments is like health care, in that it's something that the market left to its own devices cannot adequately supply. This is why we need to, insofar as possible, get the market out of housing. Increased public development (ideally funded through steep taxes on both new and pre-existing luxury developments) is a good first step toward that goal.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:50 AM on November 8, 2015 [12 favorites]
Sequence: "Here's my usual pitch for the charms of flyover country: I live in a one-bedroom apartment by myself, for less than $500 a month, and I haven't had a rent increase since 2010 despite absolutely no rules against it. "
I pay $486 a month in mortgage for a 3 bedroom, 2.5 bathroom HOUSE with yard. (Plus around $300 a month in property taxes, highest rates in the entire state, but whatevs.) And the Thai place delivers.
Peoria, bitches!
We have been looking at houses (okay I just realized we've been doing this for almost five years now, clearly we are not particularly committed to moving and fear change) and we keep seeing these ADORABLE historic houses in "high crime" neighborhoods that we just love, but the thing about the "high crime neighborhoods" with little kids is not so much the crime itself, which you are relatively unlikely to become a victim of around here unless you are buying drugs or selling sex, but that the high-crime neighborhoods tend to have been stripped of all amenities. Schools have closed, so you have to go farther to get the kids to school. Sidewalks and roads go unrepaired, and the city is slow to deal with necessary street signs or pavement markings, so walking to school may not be safe. Public parks have been allowed to decay; virtually none of them have playground equipment. They take down the basketball hoops in the winter (only in poor neighborhoods) for reasons that surpass my understanding. Library branches have moved to where they have "more customers." A combination of parents with multiple jobs to meet ends meet, fear of gang involvement, and lack of local amenities for children means there are hardly any kids playing outside in the afternoons -- they're all at daycare or kept in the house to keep out of trouble. (This is a significant health problem w/r/t obesity, and a statistically significant difference between neighborhoods, that parents in poor neighborhoods keep their children indoors for safety, and it is a totally rational decision to make.) There aren't many stores, and they tend towards auto repair and liquor-and-smokes.
So, having to drive out of your neighborhood every time you want to go to a grocery store is a bit of a hassle, but not really the end of the world when you're an adult with a car. But ... what would your kids DO? There's no place to ride bikes (sidewalks are too cut up, roads are too dangerous), there are no parks to walk to (or drive to, unless you leave the neighborhood), there are no Walgreens-type drug stores where you can go buy some candy with your allowance, there are no libraries, there are no other kids playing outside, you have to get in the car to go anywhere ... it's basically all the worst aspects of badly-planned suburbia, but with lead paint and no yards and no other kids.
We keep looking at these houses and going, "Okay, that's the one we'll buy after the kids leave home."
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:50 AM on November 8, 2015 [16 favorites]
I pay $486 a month in mortgage for a 3 bedroom, 2.5 bathroom HOUSE with yard. (Plus around $300 a month in property taxes, highest rates in the entire state, but whatevs.) And the Thai place delivers.
Peoria, bitches!
We have been looking at houses (okay I just realized we've been doing this for almost five years now, clearly we are not particularly committed to moving and fear change) and we keep seeing these ADORABLE historic houses in "high crime" neighborhoods that we just love, but the thing about the "high crime neighborhoods" with little kids is not so much the crime itself, which you are relatively unlikely to become a victim of around here unless you are buying drugs or selling sex, but that the high-crime neighborhoods tend to have been stripped of all amenities. Schools have closed, so you have to go farther to get the kids to school. Sidewalks and roads go unrepaired, and the city is slow to deal with necessary street signs or pavement markings, so walking to school may not be safe. Public parks have been allowed to decay; virtually none of them have playground equipment. They take down the basketball hoops in the winter (only in poor neighborhoods) for reasons that surpass my understanding. Library branches have moved to where they have "more customers." A combination of parents with multiple jobs to meet ends meet, fear of gang involvement, and lack of local amenities for children means there are hardly any kids playing outside in the afternoons -- they're all at daycare or kept in the house to keep out of trouble. (This is a significant health problem w/r/t obesity, and a statistically significant difference between neighborhoods, that parents in poor neighborhoods keep their children indoors for safety, and it is a totally rational decision to make.) There aren't many stores, and they tend towards auto repair and liquor-and-smokes.
So, having to drive out of your neighborhood every time you want to go to a grocery store is a bit of a hassle, but not really the end of the world when you're an adult with a car. But ... what would your kids DO? There's no place to ride bikes (sidewalks are too cut up, roads are too dangerous), there are no parks to walk to (or drive to, unless you leave the neighborhood), there are no Walgreens-type drug stores where you can go buy some candy with your allowance, there are no libraries, there are no other kids playing outside, you have to get in the car to go anywhere ... it's basically all the worst aspects of badly-planned suburbia, but with lead paint and no yards and no other kids.
We keep looking at these houses and going, "Okay, that's the one we'll buy after the kids leave home."
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:50 AM on November 8, 2015 [16 favorites]
>The funny thing is, he bailed on SF because of the cost. From his article, "[w]e ended up moving to a less expensive city and getting a 2BR for much less than we had been considering in San Francisco." So he did what has become the new norm, making bank in SF, driving up costs, and then heading north (his Twitter account says he's now in West Seattle) to lather, rinse, and repeat.
Not to drop a whole nother thing in here, and not that I want this guy on my side of the bay anyway, but, um, I think this might be something for the You Might Be A White Supremacist list. Because it turns out there's a really great city with rents that are pretty much comparable to Seattle's, and it's only ten minutes by train away from San Francisco.
Gosh, I wonder why he didn't move over here instead of a thousand miles away.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:59 AM on November 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Not to drop a whole nother thing in here, and not that I want this guy on my side of the bay anyway, but, um, I think this might be something for the You Might Be A White Supremacist list. Because it turns out there's a really great city with rents that are pretty much comparable to Seattle's, and it's only ten minutes by train away from San Francisco.
Gosh, I wonder why he didn't move over here instead of a thousand miles away.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:59 AM on November 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Is Oakland really that affordable still? My impression was that Seattle is significantly less expensive these days.
posted by en forme de poire at 9:01 AM on November 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 9:01 AM on November 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oakland is not that affordable, but Seattle isn't either. If he could afford a move to West Seattle in 2015 (a somewhat remote, suburban part of Seattle — it's kind of their answer to the Sunset District), he probably couldn't afford to live in like Temescal or Rockridge, but West Oakland, Chinatown, and the Fruitvale were most likely well in his price range.
Oakland on the whole was a little bit more expensive than Seattle for a little while last year, but, just going from what I've heard from apartment-hunting friends up there, Seattle rents have caught back up with Oakland rents. And, of course, Seattle doesn't have rent control, so unless you find a very friendly landlord, you can't expect to be able to stay anywhere for very long unless you have enough money to buy instead of rent.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:04 AM on November 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oakland on the whole was a little bit more expensive than Seattle for a little while last year, but, just going from what I've heard from apartment-hunting friends up there, Seattle rents have caught back up with Oakland rents. And, of course, Seattle doesn't have rent control, so unless you find a very friendly landlord, you can't expect to be able to stay anywhere for very long unless you have enough money to buy instead of rent.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:04 AM on November 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I just can't fathom that there really aren't places to live under market rate.
Sure there are, but by definition those places are not the average, and there aren't enough of them for everyone. (If they were more plentiful, that lower price would be the market rate.) And in my experience, there is often a reason they are cheaper -- bad location, bad neighbors, illegal and not-to-code buildings, a sketchy landlord who wants to paid in cash, things like that -- which as Eyebrows notes just above, can be a real problem for people with children.
I can't imagine "allowing room in the budget to see Broadway shows on a weekly basis" is what the creators of rent control had in mind.
Rent control was never just about the poor, but was also explicitly aimed at protecting middle class households and keeping them in the city -- including exactly the kind of people who budget their money to see shows, plays, and other cultural productions that rely on the attendance of the middle class.
but the thing about the "high crime neighborhoods" with little kids is not so much the crime itself, which you are relatively unlikely to become a victim of around here unless you are buying drugs or selling sex, but that the high-crime neighborhoods tend to have been stripped of all amenities.
This also hinges on picking the correct point (for your individual situation) in the gentrification cycle. Getting in early means low prices but also low amenities; later in the cycle you miss the low prices but you get the advantage of a neighborhood with amenities. Some places (rare but not nonexistent in the US) will still have a lot of physical amenities thanks to community organizing and local governments taking advantage of federal subsidies, but they will never have the kinds of social and structural amenities common to well-off neighborhoods for exactly the reasons you note.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:10 AM on November 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Sure there are, but by definition those places are not the average, and there aren't enough of them for everyone. (If they were more plentiful, that lower price would be the market rate.) And in my experience, there is often a reason they are cheaper -- bad location, bad neighbors, illegal and not-to-code buildings, a sketchy landlord who wants to paid in cash, things like that -- which as Eyebrows notes just above, can be a real problem for people with children.
I can't imagine "allowing room in the budget to see Broadway shows on a weekly basis" is what the creators of rent control had in mind.
Rent control was never just about the poor, but was also explicitly aimed at protecting middle class households and keeping them in the city -- including exactly the kind of people who budget their money to see shows, plays, and other cultural productions that rely on the attendance of the middle class.
but the thing about the "high crime neighborhoods" with little kids is not so much the crime itself, which you are relatively unlikely to become a victim of around here unless you are buying drugs or selling sex, but that the high-crime neighborhoods tend to have been stripped of all amenities.
This also hinges on picking the correct point (for your individual situation) in the gentrification cycle. Getting in early means low prices but also low amenities; later in the cycle you miss the low prices but you get the advantage of a neighborhood with amenities. Some places (rare but not nonexistent in the US) will still have a lot of physical amenities thanks to community organizing and local governments taking advantage of federal subsidies, but they will never have the kinds of social and structural amenities common to well-off neighborhoods for exactly the reasons you note.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:10 AM on November 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Usual complaints aside, one thing that does resonate with me about this is having more room than you really need. We bought a 4 bedroom, 1.5 bath house eight months ago and I still feel super guilty about having all this room when we don't really need it. I mean, there are never going to be kids (only cats) and I am trying not to see the extra room as a vacuum that needs stuff to fill it up. (We are not sure if we are going to be in this city in five years so I really don't want to haul unnecessary stuff to another probably smaller residence.)
posted by Kitteh at 9:11 AM on November 8, 2015
posted by Kitteh at 9:11 AM on November 8, 2015
I'm always simultaneously fascinated and irritated by the small space movement and by articles like this. Fascinated because I love design and how people manage to customize small spaces, irritated because of the ways that issues are addressed, and the issues that don't get addressed.
Living in a space like this means you have no hobbies that take up more than very minimal space or you also have some kind of studio space. There's no discussion of what gets kept at the office, in the garage, in the trunk of the car, whether the wife has any possessions or interests other than cooking and baby-care, whether you have to have space for a specialized wardrobe - clothes for different seasons, work vs non-work clothes.
It means you have to be able to get in and out of a loft bed, which is not possible for a lot of people with mobility issues. It means you have the budget to at least potentially replace things you don't hang onto, which is not possible for a lot of people living in small spaces.
I was also a little surprised that there is no mention of what the maximum legal occupancy is - does San Francisco not have any laws about how many people can live in an apartment that small? Most of the cities I've lived in it would not be legal to have four people in an apartment that size.
posted by bile and syntax at 9:17 AM on November 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
Living in a space like this means you have no hobbies that take up more than very minimal space or you also have some kind of studio space. There's no discussion of what gets kept at the office, in the garage, in the trunk of the car, whether the wife has any possessions or interests other than cooking and baby-care, whether you have to have space for a specialized wardrobe - clothes for different seasons, work vs non-work clothes.
It means you have to be able to get in and out of a loft bed, which is not possible for a lot of people with mobility issues. It means you have the budget to at least potentially replace things you don't hang onto, which is not possible for a lot of people living in small spaces.
I was also a little surprised that there is no mention of what the maximum legal occupancy is - does San Francisco not have any laws about how many people can live in an apartment that small? Most of the cities I've lived in it would not be legal to have four people in an apartment that size.
posted by bile and syntax at 9:17 AM on November 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
Most of the cities I've lived in it would not be legal to have four people in an apartment that size.
These laws are almost entirely unenforced.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:18 AM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
These laws are almost entirely unenforced.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:18 AM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
The fact of the matter is that, in both cities, the problem is supply. You fix spiking rent by introducing more supply, and it's a zoning and NIMBY issue in both cities.
I'm seeing a LOT of supply introduced in the cities where I spend the most time, but it's not intended to be cheaper than what already exists.
In most cases, the housing is (1) expensive (2) new construction (3) great locations (4) selling itself on hipster amenities like on-site dog parks or bicycle storage. They do their obligatory 3% affordable units or whatever, so somebody wins the "$1000/mo 1BR brand-new-luxury-apt in a great location" lotto, but it doesn't solve the problem for everyone else who can afford $1000 but doesn't win the housing lottery.
posted by theorique at 9:21 AM on November 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
I'm seeing a LOT of supply introduced in the cities where I spend the most time, but it's not intended to be cheaper than what already exists.
In most cases, the housing is (1) expensive (2) new construction (3) great locations (4) selling itself on hipster amenities like on-site dog parks or bicycle storage. They do their obligatory 3% affordable units or whatever, so somebody wins the "$1000/mo 1BR brand-new-luxury-apt in a great location" lotto, but it doesn't solve the problem for everyone else who can afford $1000 but doesn't win the housing lottery.
posted by theorique at 9:21 AM on November 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
Not to drop a whole nother thing in here, and not that I want this guy on my side of the bay anyway, but, um, I think this might be something for the You Might Be A White Supremacist list. Because it turns out there's a really great city with rents that are pretty much comparable to Seattle's, and it's only ten minutes by train away from San Francisco.
Before we go straight to calling him a racist, I'd consider that there are a lot of other totally benign possibilities, such as his company offering him a promotion contingent on moving to their Seattle office, say. His article is entirely about living in the studio, not why they moved to Seattle, and it is unfair to invent uncharitable explanations for things outside of what the piece covers.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:23 AM on November 8, 2015 [11 favorites]
Before we go straight to calling him a racist, I'd consider that there are a lot of other totally benign possibilities, such as his company offering him a promotion contingent on moving to their Seattle office, say. His article is entirely about living in the studio, not why they moved to Seattle, and it is unfair to invent uncharitable explanations for things outside of what the piece covers.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:23 AM on November 8, 2015 [11 favorites]
I remember in the early 90's there was a seething resentment in Seattle towards the recent SF/California immigrants that were driving up property prices in the city (people would sell their 500k house in CA and move to Seattle amazed how much that would get them there).
I can only imagine how much that resentment has ratcheted up now.
posted by el io at 9:28 AM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I can only imagine how much that resentment has ratcheted up now.
posted by el io at 9:28 AM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
>I'm seeing a LOT of supply introduced in the cities where I spend the most time, but it's not intended to be cheaper than what already exists.
Also, the presence of housing for wealthy people in a neighborhood attracts amenities for wealthy people, which attracts more wealthy people, which results in the costs of the surrounding units being driven up. Although people who stopped taking economics after their freshman year introductory course are confused by how introducing a small amount of additional supply can result in rents rising rather than falling, in practice typically new luxury does in fact increase, rather than decrease, the rents around it.
basically urbanists who read Jane Jacobs (and don't get me wrong, I love Jane Jacobs) but who lack an analysis of how class power manifests through control of land, or who are tactically pretending that they don't know the class dynamics at play, end up advocating for a lot of awful things.
>In most cases, the housing is (1) expensive (2) new construction (3) great locations (4) selling itself on hipster amenities like on-site dog parks or bicycle storage.
One additional factor is that these luxury developments are space hogs — there's been cases in Seattle where 3 to 4 story early 20th century apartment buildings with units originally built for the working class have been torn down and replaced with 6 to 8 story new luxury buildings, and where this replacement has resulted in a net loss of units. This is because of the much larger floorplans you find in luxury apartments, and because so much space in new developments is required to include expensive and space-wasteful parking garages.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:30 AM on November 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
Also, the presence of housing for wealthy people in a neighborhood attracts amenities for wealthy people, which attracts more wealthy people, which results in the costs of the surrounding units being driven up. Although people who stopped taking economics after their freshman year introductory course are confused by how introducing a small amount of additional supply can result in rents rising rather than falling, in practice typically new luxury does in fact increase, rather than decrease, the rents around it.
basically urbanists who read Jane Jacobs (and don't get me wrong, I love Jane Jacobs) but who lack an analysis of how class power manifests through control of land, or who are tactically pretending that they don't know the class dynamics at play, end up advocating for a lot of awful things.
>In most cases, the housing is (1) expensive (2) new construction (3) great locations (4) selling itself on hipster amenities like on-site dog parks or bicycle storage.
One additional factor is that these luxury developments are space hogs — there's been cases in Seattle where 3 to 4 story early 20th century apartment buildings with units originally built for the working class have been torn down and replaced with 6 to 8 story new luxury buildings, and where this replacement has resulted in a net loss of units. This is because of the much larger floorplans you find in luxury apartments, and because so much space in new developments is required to include expensive and space-wasteful parking garages.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:30 AM on November 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
This also hinges on picking the correct point (for your individual situation) in the gentrification cycle. Getting in early means low prices but also low amenities; later in the cycle you miss the low prices but you get the advantage of a neighborhood with amenities.
This tends to be why people are so focused on picking "the next hot neighborhood" in proximity to the place that has already gentrified. Suppose A, B, C, and D are neighborhoods in a line:
posted by theorique at 9:40 AM on November 8, 2015
This tends to be why people are so focused on picking "the next hot neighborhood" in proximity to the place that has already gentrified. Suppose A, B, C, and D are neighborhoods in a line:
- A is old-school expensive with great amenities (you can't afford it)
- B is gentrified with good amenities (you can sort of afford it)
- C is "about to gentrify" with low amenities but close to B (more affordable)
- D is not likely to gentrify any time soon (cheapest)
posted by theorique at 9:40 AM on November 8, 2015
Mod note: One comment deleted. Getting into whether it's always racist for people to move cities is pretty far afield from anything specific about this actual link, and seems likely to pull people who have moved into a weird proxy fight over their own choices, maybe better to skip that super broad kind of generalization?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:56 AM on November 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:56 AM on November 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
I'm fascinated by the Tiny Living trend, mostly for design reasons, but I just watched a show where a couple paid $500k to buy a 500 sq foot house in East Austin, and realized that I'm never going to be able to move home again.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 10:13 AM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 10:13 AM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I would also like to read this from his wife's perspective. I wouldn't automatically assume she hated the set-up - there might have been location tradeoffs that made it worthwhile for her? (I mean, I wouldn't have made them in that situation no matter how great the location was, but when I was at home with a small baby I was so, so grateful that I was living in a city location that was easy walking distance from pretty much everything I wanted to get to, and not out in the suburbs.) But I would really like to hear about what day-to-day life was actually like in that space, and what changes to the setup she decided on rather than him, from the perspective of being a SAHP of two young children.
I think what interests me most about this kind of "here's our life in a small space" account is not the Philosophy Of Stuff And Minimalism that accompanies it, but the actual logistical challenges. How did you choose and arrange your furniture? What do the floor plans look like? What kind of problems do you run into with the space and how do you deal with those? Layout can make a massive, massive amount of difference.
We were living in a ~850 square feet house before our kid was born, and moved to our current house around 18 months later. It is not actually that much bigger in terms of floor space - it's around 900 square feet. But it just feels like we have so much more space, and much of that is due to layout (and the rest is not having to work around the landlord's furniture rather than buying our own). Our current house (1960s suburbia) has much less character than the last one (1860s servant's cottage), but it feels like we're actually living in it rather than living around it - barricading off all the more precarious furniture, using the top of the microwave as a food preparation surface, setting up elaborate baby gate systems to block off access to the spiral stone staircase of doom. (We actually had a bigger kitchen in the last place but it was designed by someone who never actually cooked anything ever and regularly drove me to madness).
So I want to hear about far more of the boring practical stuff, especially the boring practical stuff that is most of your day-to-day life when at home with very young children. Where are the toys? Where are the towels? Where do you keep the laundry so it's out of the way? How do you make food in the kitchen without your toddler trashing something on those low-down shelves elsewhere? What was your threshold for "I don't care if it's cold/dark/raining and nobody has clean clothes, we are leaving the house RIGHT NOW because I can't stand looking at the mess any more"?
posted by Catseye at 10:24 AM on November 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think what interests me most about this kind of "here's our life in a small space" account is not the Philosophy Of Stuff And Minimalism that accompanies it, but the actual logistical challenges. How did you choose and arrange your furniture? What do the floor plans look like? What kind of problems do you run into with the space and how do you deal with those? Layout can make a massive, massive amount of difference.
We were living in a ~850 square feet house before our kid was born, and moved to our current house around 18 months later. It is not actually that much bigger in terms of floor space - it's around 900 square feet. But it just feels like we have so much more space, and much of that is due to layout (and the rest is not having to work around the landlord's furniture rather than buying our own). Our current house (1960s suburbia) has much less character than the last one (1860s servant's cottage), but it feels like we're actually living in it rather than living around it - barricading off all the more precarious furniture, using the top of the microwave as a food preparation surface, setting up elaborate baby gate systems to block off access to the spiral stone staircase of doom. (We actually had a bigger kitchen in the last place but it was designed by someone who never actually cooked anything ever and regularly drove me to madness).
So I want to hear about far more of the boring practical stuff, especially the boring practical stuff that is most of your day-to-day life when at home with very young children. Where are the toys? Where are the towels? Where do you keep the laundry so it's out of the way? How do you make food in the kitchen without your toddler trashing something on those low-down shelves elsewhere? What was your threshold for "I don't care if it's cold/dark/raining and nobody has clean clothes, we are leaving the house RIGHT NOW because I can't stand looking at the mess any more"?
posted by Catseye at 10:24 AM on November 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
The loft bed and the surfboards stacked over/next to the bassinet just make me really nervous, from an earthquake-proofing standpoint. (Though maybe those things are safer than I think?)
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:33 AM on November 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:33 AM on November 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
The bookshelf/ladder thing made me nervous- it didn't look strong or sturdy enough for official use as a ladder.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:29 AM on November 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:29 AM on November 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Looks to me as if the surfboards are tied to the wall next to the bassinet LobsterMitten.
posted by pharm at 11:34 AM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by pharm at 11:34 AM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Public parks are not like Uber. Public money is put into the purchase, planning and maintenance of city parks for free public use. Uber is not this.
posted by bonobothegreat at 11:34 AM on November 8, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by bonobothegreat at 11:34 AM on November 8, 2015 [14 favorites]
In most cases, the housing is (1) expensive (2) new construction (3) great locations (4) selling itself on hipster amenities like on-site dog parks or bicycle storage. They do their obligatory 3% affordable units or whatever, so somebody wins the "$1000/mo 1BR brand-new-luxury-apt in a great location" lotto, but it doesn't solve the problem for everyone else who can afford $1000 but doesn't win the housing lottery.
My argument here is if you remove a three story building for a taller one with more units, even one that matches all four of your gentrifying criteria, everyone can be better off. Hackers / Hipsters can move out of whatever fixie-bike-repairshop-less community they're renting in, and their landlord has a vacancy to fill with the next most profitable renter. If that renter is in SF and leaves another vacancy further down market, the construction in a manner does reduce rents down market, potentially leaving more vacancies than there were apartments taken off the market to build.
Can be is the operative phrase though. The challenge is that new construction in SF likely doesn't match the inflow of mid-market participants. Those vacancies never trickle down, because people like me accept a job in tech, move in from out of state and rely on landlords to provide me with living space. A student will take my cheap university-town apartment, having moved in from potentially out of country, thus ending any trickle-down in SF.
posted by pwnguin at 11:50 AM on November 8, 2015
My argument here is if you remove a three story building for a taller one with more units, even one that matches all four of your gentrifying criteria, everyone can be better off. Hackers / Hipsters can move out of whatever fixie-bike-repairshop-less community they're renting in, and their landlord has a vacancy to fill with the next most profitable renter. If that renter is in SF and leaves another vacancy further down market, the construction in a manner does reduce rents down market, potentially leaving more vacancies than there were apartments taken off the market to build.
Can be is the operative phrase though. The challenge is that new construction in SF likely doesn't match the inflow of mid-market participants. Those vacancies never trickle down, because people like me accept a job in tech, move in from out of state and rely on landlords to provide me with living space. A student will take my cheap university-town apartment, having moved in from potentially out of country, thus ending any trickle-down in SF.
posted by pwnguin at 11:50 AM on November 8, 2015
I remember at one point my mother in law gave us a walker and I cried because there was no place to put it.
PBWK, this made me laugh because we were living in a 600sf apartment in Brooklyn when our first child was born (almost 20 years ago) and my MIL gave us an exersaucer. A damn exersaucer, when we were stuffing blankets around our baby to keep him upright in an umbrella stroller because there was no space to keep a stroller actually designed for a newborn. (Also I never understood people who lug those carriages up and down subway steps anyway.)
I hated that exersaucer and for months resented the space it took up. I continued to hate it on principle even after we later moved to a place where we had room to store it.
Yeah, I too would love to hear the perspective of the SAHP in the linked story. Also whether the family was paying for a storage locker for seasonal stuff (though maybe this isn't so much an issue in SF?). The story makes it sound like they pared down to a point that they were keeping ALL their worldly possessions in that studio, which seems hard to believe, at least given the complete absence of clutter in the photos.
posted by torticat at 12:04 PM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
PBWK, this made me laugh because we were living in a 600sf apartment in Brooklyn when our first child was born (almost 20 years ago) and my MIL gave us an exersaucer. A damn exersaucer, when we were stuffing blankets around our baby to keep him upright in an umbrella stroller because there was no space to keep a stroller actually designed for a newborn. (Also I never understood people who lug those carriages up and down subway steps anyway.)
I hated that exersaucer and for months resented the space it took up. I continued to hate it on principle even after we later moved to a place where we had room to store it.
Yeah, I too would love to hear the perspective of the SAHP in the linked story. Also whether the family was paying for a storage locker for seasonal stuff (though maybe this isn't so much an issue in SF?). The story makes it sound like they pared down to a point that they were keeping ALL their worldly possessions in that studio, which seems hard to believe, at least given the complete absence of clutter in the photos.
posted by torticat at 12:04 PM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
As a lifelong renter by choice, I feel the way to approach articles like this is to swallow the nutrition (how to use space effectively) and spit out the philosophical part. Losing consumption and storage habits is a winner, and the resulting savings part is solid advice.
That said, I never imagined that housing shortages (and the concommitant soaring of rents) would ever reach the point that people would be willing to pay $750-1200+ to live in obscenely overpriced 200 square foot 'microapartments'. Move aside dingy garret, here's shipping-container-in-a-box.
There's no sign of any relief for the situation. The still-solid buildings built a century ago have paid for themselves a dozen times over, whereas the plywood and glue crap being stamped out today will be worthless when today's young adults reach retirement. Cities are becoming untenable for 9-5 workers, let alone the disappearing artist communities ... while they completely fail to address the situation they face as a huge baby-boom retirement surge draws ever closer. Sanders may talk about replacing infrastructure, but people who can't afford cars don't need roads and bridges: they need homes. Cottage-style housing ... 20-30K, 700sq.ft. shells that people can OWN and fix up as time permits ... is sorely needed.
This period of feudal predation and mass impoverishment will inevitably fall on its face, and those who have focused on survivable strategies will be the beneficiaries. Good luck ... and, given present leadership, we'll need it.
posted by Twang at 12:14 PM on November 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
That said, I never imagined that housing shortages (and the concommitant soaring of rents) would ever reach the point that people would be willing to pay $750-1200+ to live in obscenely overpriced 200 square foot 'microapartments'. Move aside dingy garret, here's shipping-container-in-a-box.
There's no sign of any relief for the situation. The still-solid buildings built a century ago have paid for themselves a dozen times over, whereas the plywood and glue crap being stamped out today will be worthless when today's young adults reach retirement. Cities are becoming untenable for 9-5 workers, let alone the disappearing artist communities ... while they completely fail to address the situation they face as a huge baby-boom retirement surge draws ever closer. Sanders may talk about replacing infrastructure, but people who can't afford cars don't need roads and bridges: they need homes. Cottage-style housing ... 20-30K, 700sq.ft. shells that people can OWN and fix up as time permits ... is sorely needed.
This period of feudal predation and mass impoverishment will inevitably fall on its face, and those who have focused on survivable strategies will be the beneficiaries. Good luck ... and, given present leadership, we'll need it.
posted by Twang at 12:14 PM on November 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'll just say this: Being young and healthy is an oft-overlooked blessing. Even two partners living with no kids in an 800-square-foot, two-bedroom apartment with a sunroom can get pretty stuffy when one person is seriously ill, the other works from home, and there's only one bathroom. The only reason this couple could pull off living in a studio apartment with two kids, I'm guessing, is that neither partner got majorly sick.
Of course, you could say that about a lot of things in life: Get sick, and the whole game goes out the door. That's also the kind of thing that changes your perspective on life.
posted by limeonaire at 1:55 PM on November 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
Of course, you could say that about a lot of things in life: Get sick, and the whole game goes out the door. That's also the kind of thing that changes your perspective on life.
posted by limeonaire at 1:55 PM on November 8, 2015 [10 favorites]
(I mean, I wouldn't have made them in that situation no matter how great the location was, but when I was at home with a small baby I was so, so grateful that I was living in a city location that was easy walking distance from pretty much everything I wanted to get to, and not out in the suburbs.)
I think this is a great point and is something I hadn't considered. I also wonder how much their social networks played into their decision to stay for as long as they did. I'm not a parent, but it seems like being a new parent, especially one who's just transitioned to staying at home, would have the potential to be really isolating and psychologically tough. Even if you see close friends really infrequently and for short periods, that seems like it could still be an important outlet to take some of the edge off that isolation.
posted by en forme de poire at 1:55 PM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think this is a great point and is something I hadn't considered. I also wonder how much their social networks played into their decision to stay for as long as they did. I'm not a parent, but it seems like being a new parent, especially one who's just transitioned to staying at home, would have the potential to be really isolating and psychologically tough. Even if you see close friends really infrequently and for short periods, that seems like it could still be an important outlet to take some of the edge off that isolation.
posted by en forme de poire at 1:55 PM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Arguably, rent control pacifies renters who would fight owner-friendly political policies, like denying newer and denser construction.
Arguably, yes. But in practice I haven't seen this happen. Renters will fight new construction for the same reason they support rent control: neighborhood preservation and protection of their current lifestyle.
Residents-- both owners and renters -- have the same incentive for their neighborhood: static population with low turnover of residents to be replaced by newcomers of similar demographics to themselves or the younger version of themselves. That precludes support for new construction.
As far as a neighborhood with "higher crime rates," this is almost a non-issue if you don't have a car because the biggest crime risk in those neighborhoods are car break-ins. Judicious use of car-sharing services will reduce any risks to personal safety, particularly in low-crime cities like SF.
posted by deanc at 2:49 PM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Arguably, yes. But in practice I haven't seen this happen. Renters will fight new construction for the same reason they support rent control: neighborhood preservation and protection of their current lifestyle.
Residents-- both owners and renters -- have the same incentive for their neighborhood: static population with low turnover of residents to be replaced by newcomers of similar demographics to themselves or the younger version of themselves. That precludes support for new construction.
As far as a neighborhood with "higher crime rates," this is almost a non-issue if you don't have a car because the biggest crime risk in those neighborhoods are car break-ins. Judicious use of car-sharing services will reduce any risks to personal safety, particularly in low-crime cities like SF.
posted by deanc at 2:49 PM on November 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
emptythought's comment 100% describes my living situation. I moved into my house six years ago and at the time it was relatively affordable. Now, with the rent having never been raised, it's insanely below market rate. I do everything around the house myself, because I fear that if I get on the phone with my landlord for any reason, she'll raise the rent to something I can't afford (I haven't actually spoken to my landlord in over two years). I do work part-time from home, around Mr. Weeyin's schedule, and work full-time raising three kids. I love living in the city; the one time I owned a house in the suburbs, my depression spiked. I can't handle that culture of isolation. And we do take advantage of many, many free and low-cost family and arts activities, in addition to appreciating a school district with lots of variety, wonderful parks, decent public transportation, and relative physical closeness to extended family. I think a lot about where we would go if our rent was raised out of our budget, because we'd have to leave the city. I think a lot about how badly this city needs affordable family housing. Like the article says, landlords would rather rent to roommates with high, separate incomes. It's rare that new housing in Seattle has a family focus with 3 or 4 bedroom units. It's that problematic scenario where having children in a city becomes reserved for the wealthy.
posted by weeyin at 2:56 PM on November 8, 2015
posted by weeyin at 2:56 PM on November 8, 2015
Accommodating the needs of long term renters will require rethinking housing policy on a massive scale. Right now, housing policies are almost entirely geared towards the idea that renting is a temporary stop-over on your way to buying, with some low-income subsidies and housing complexes thrown in for the poor and indigent.
To retain a long term middle class of renters, SF would have to basically embark on a New-Deal-style construction of family housing for the middle class, building massive communities "out of character" with the rest of San Francisco. Size of the units would have to scale with family size (when children move out, the parents would have to move into a smaller unit to make room for another, younger, larger middle class family).
It's not that it's impossible, it's that our political imagination cannot even conceive of a project on the scale necessary. The result is a political process that depends on protecting the ever-shrinking population of the poor and middle class in SF while hoping that people stop moving to the Bay Area sooner or later so that things can go back to "the way things were."
posted by deanc at 3:18 PM on November 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
To retain a long term middle class of renters, SF would have to basically embark on a New-Deal-style construction of family housing for the middle class, building massive communities "out of character" with the rest of San Francisco. Size of the units would have to scale with family size (when children move out, the parents would have to move into a smaller unit to make room for another, younger, larger middle class family).
It's not that it's impossible, it's that our political imagination cannot even conceive of a project on the scale necessary. The result is a political process that depends on protecting the ever-shrinking population of the poor and middle class in SF while hoping that people stop moving to the Bay Area sooner or later so that things can go back to "the way things were."
posted by deanc at 3:18 PM on November 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
"Here's my usual pitch for the charms of flyover country: I live in a one-bedroom apartment by myself, for less than $500 a month, and I haven't had a rent increase since 2010 despite absolutely no rules against it. "
Yeah, but then there's living in flyover country. I get enough of people talking about how Steve Besher is the best thing ever, or that Kim Davis has a valid point, on the internet.
posted by happyroach at 4:40 PM on November 8, 2015
Yeah, but then there's living in flyover country. I get enough of people talking about how Steve Besher is the best thing ever, or that Kim Davis has a valid point, on the internet.
posted by happyroach at 4:40 PM on November 8, 2015
Catseye: "I think what interests me most about this kind of "here's our life in a small space" account is not the Philosophy Of Stuff And Minimalism that accompanies it, but the actual logistical challenges. How did you choose and arrange your furniture? What do the floor plans look like? What kind of problems do you run into with the space and how do you deal with those? Layout can make a massive, massive amount of difference."
I read an unreasonable number of tiny home-related blogs, and I have a Pinterest board where I've pinned houses where people are actually living in the houses and have stuff in them, or that have particularly interesting storage solutions or layouts or whatever. It's nothing like comprehensive, but you can see pictures of some tiny houses that are actually being lived in by people, rather than by interior designers. (They are about evenly split between "interesting Air B&B properties with nothing in them" and "places where real people live who have solved actual small-space problems.") When you click through to the ones where people actually live, a lot of them have blog posts about what it's actually like to live in a small space and how they make those decisions.
Like you I'm not so interested in THEORETICAL small spaces but in how people ACTUALLY live in small spaces, so hopefully some of those are interesting to you. The blog Shoebox Dwelling covers small-space furniture and decor and scratches a similar itch for me. They cover stuff ranging from Target to ridiculously expensive $2800 plywood desks.
limeonaire: "The only reason this couple could pull off living in a studio apartment with two kids, I'm guessing, is that neither partner got majorly sick. "
NextDoor is a very cool company in Minneapolis that makes tiny house trailers that are ADA accessible, with the idea that if your elderly parent falls and breaks a hip, either you can move into their backyard or they can move into your backyard during their recovery, and live in separate, independent spaces rather than having to move in to each others' houses. They're working with Minneapolis health care organizations to subsidize it in preference to, say, putting an elderly person in a nursing home for six weeks while they recover, if they can have a Next Door tiny house dropped in their child's backyard and recover in an ADA-accessible independent dwelling with the help of their child. There are definitely people doing cool work in these areas; it's not all just hipsters!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:06 PM on November 8, 2015 [16 favorites]
I read an unreasonable number of tiny home-related blogs, and I have a Pinterest board where I've pinned houses where people are actually living in the houses and have stuff in them, or that have particularly interesting storage solutions or layouts or whatever. It's nothing like comprehensive, but you can see pictures of some tiny houses that are actually being lived in by people, rather than by interior designers. (They are about evenly split between "interesting Air B&B properties with nothing in them" and "places where real people live who have solved actual small-space problems.") When you click through to the ones where people actually live, a lot of them have blog posts about what it's actually like to live in a small space and how they make those decisions.
Like you I'm not so interested in THEORETICAL small spaces but in how people ACTUALLY live in small spaces, so hopefully some of those are interesting to you. The blog Shoebox Dwelling covers small-space furniture and decor and scratches a similar itch for me. They cover stuff ranging from Target to ridiculously expensive $2800 plywood desks.
limeonaire: "The only reason this couple could pull off living in a studio apartment with two kids, I'm guessing, is that neither partner got majorly sick. "
NextDoor is a very cool company in Minneapolis that makes tiny house trailers that are ADA accessible, with the idea that if your elderly parent falls and breaks a hip, either you can move into their backyard or they can move into your backyard during their recovery, and live in separate, independent spaces rather than having to move in to each others' houses. They're working with Minneapolis health care organizations to subsidize it in preference to, say, putting an elderly person in a nursing home for six weeks while they recover, if they can have a Next Door tiny house dropped in their child's backyard and recover in an ADA-accessible independent dwelling with the help of their child. There are definitely people doing cool work in these areas; it's not all just hipsters!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:06 PM on November 8, 2015 [16 favorites]
happyroach: " I get enough of people talking about how Steve Besher is the best thing ever, or that Kim Davis has a valid point, on the internet."
I had to google Steve Besher and I know no one who thinks Kim Davis has a valid point. We have good state universities here in flyover country. I just had a 40-comment facebook discussion about Plato's Apology of Socrates apropos of local school board elections.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:08 PM on November 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
I had to google Steve Besher and I know no one who thinks Kim Davis has a valid point. We have good state universities here in flyover country. I just had a 40-comment facebook discussion about Plato's Apology of Socrates apropos of local school board elections.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:08 PM on November 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
And, god, my daughter liked her toys, and I like my books, and I hate articles like this that treat having any enjoyment in things or pride in ownership as some kind of massive personal failing.
This sort of ties into what i was talking about with the whole techbro thing though. There's this whole push, both from the hipster side with stuff like kinfolk and from the tech side with... well the aesthetic of basically any hardware or software company.
Minimal is king! Super spare spaces are the new cool! Get rid of all your stuff and buy finely crafted stylish things! Don't collect anything unless it's like, quirky books to stack in your nonfunctional fireplace!
Having stuff is seen as like bourgeois in the non cool way or something. I don't get it. I'm kind of guilty of it myself, but at what point did it become unrealistic or bad to want to have things in your house? Why is that some ridiculous expectation now?
It bugs me because it seems like a weird extension of how a lot of techbro types(and to be fair, lots of other people, but this is an unexamined near universal belief in that set, of which i am part of functionally) thing that poor people shouldn't have smartphones or anything nice because it's evidence of them badly spending their money, being wasteful in general(or trying to perform class in a way they aren't and don't deserve at it's root), or having unrealistic expectations.
But when it rolled down the line to THEM, the ostensible middle class, it had to become a conscious stylistic choice. Look at that beautiful handcrafted ~artisanal~ loft bed with it's deeply stained glowing wood his pregnant wife had to struggle in and out of(and deal with the construction process of). Creative choice! Not unreasonable! Look at the clever design omg reblog.
I just can't fathom that there really aren't places to live under market rate.
The problem with this, and why it's not a solution is that the competition for those spaces is fierce. Before i even start, a think to keep in mind is how long the low income/lower income housing wait lists are in cities like SF, NYC, and Seattle. It's Months to YEARS.
First, you've got all the people who can only and can BARELY afford that much and can't wait on a list. Way more than doubly so at the places where they aren't strict on income requirements and they've heard from friends or acquaintances that they have a shot.
Second, you have people who COULD afford a much more expensive place, but would like to pay less to put that extra money in to saving for a house/hobbies/traveling/etc, and since the place isn't income restricted and just below market rate... They're a shoe in.
Third, you have landlords which are a wildcard. Some intentionally want to rent to people who would otherwise have trouble paying for a place at current ridiculous market rates. Others would, as previously mentioned, much rather rent to a "sure thing" even if for the person renting $1500 for that one bedroom is easy a pie and they could go apply and get approved at a $3k one bedroom no problem.
Fourth, is that a lot of these places have been driven fully underground. Why would the landlord EVER make a craigslist listing if all the people who live in the building tell their friends when there's a vacancy and it's rented within a day? My landlord doesn't even put out a sign anymore. When people see someone moving out or an empty unit getting repairs, they all pester onsite manager or maintenance person for details then text all their friends. Then the manager gets 40 calls, and someone has signed by the end of the day. I've lived in two buildings i saw fall completely off the grid like this. Unless a unit was badly damaged by a previous tenant or some kind of crazy thing like a water pipe breaking happened and it needed serious repairs, they'd be cleaned out and repainted and rented faster than seamen hot rack on a nuclear submarine.
This is doubly bad if you need more than one bedroom, by the way. Almost every floor plan of a building i've seen, even HUGE buildings, had very few >1 bedroom units. My parents used to manage a 48 unit building. It had 8 two bedrooms. 2 of those were perpetually moldy and damp(no matter what was tried to resolve this) below-grade cave like depressing basement units. My friends rent a "two bedroom" with a den and use that as another bedroom. They applied with three people, and three incomes. Other people, including i'm sure families applied and the landlord instantly picked them because... duh?
I have no idea how to fix this, but i remember once my parents old building got bought from its owners and converted to condos(HAH) we had an EXTREMELY hard time finding a new place that we could get into as a single income three person family. And that was ten years ago. Rent here was fucking dirty cheap then compared to now and it was STILL hard.
The multi-income renters have massively driven up the price of a two bedroom(or larger) as well. You're basically paying for a one bedroom + a cheap studio now. Proper three bedroom units, which are rare, go for WAY more than the square footage would suggest. The $1/sqft stops making logical sense after one bedroom.
posted by emptythought at 6:17 PM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
This sort of ties into what i was talking about with the whole techbro thing though. There's this whole push, both from the hipster side with stuff like kinfolk and from the tech side with... well the aesthetic of basically any hardware or software company.
Minimal is king! Super spare spaces are the new cool! Get rid of all your stuff and buy finely crafted stylish things! Don't collect anything unless it's like, quirky books to stack in your nonfunctional fireplace!
Having stuff is seen as like bourgeois in the non cool way or something. I don't get it. I'm kind of guilty of it myself, but at what point did it become unrealistic or bad to want to have things in your house? Why is that some ridiculous expectation now?
It bugs me because it seems like a weird extension of how a lot of techbro types(and to be fair, lots of other people, but this is an unexamined near universal belief in that set, of which i am part of functionally) thing that poor people shouldn't have smartphones or anything nice because it's evidence of them badly spending their money, being wasteful in general(or trying to perform class in a way they aren't and don't deserve at it's root), or having unrealistic expectations.
But when it rolled down the line to THEM, the ostensible middle class, it had to become a conscious stylistic choice. Look at that beautiful handcrafted ~artisanal~ loft bed with it's deeply stained glowing wood his pregnant wife had to struggle in and out of(and deal with the construction process of). Creative choice! Not unreasonable! Look at the clever design omg reblog.
I just can't fathom that there really aren't places to live under market rate.
The problem with this, and why it's not a solution is that the competition for those spaces is fierce. Before i even start, a think to keep in mind is how long the low income/lower income housing wait lists are in cities like SF, NYC, and Seattle. It's Months to YEARS.
First, you've got all the people who can only and can BARELY afford that much and can't wait on a list. Way more than doubly so at the places where they aren't strict on income requirements and they've heard from friends or acquaintances that they have a shot.
Second, you have people who COULD afford a much more expensive place, but would like to pay less to put that extra money in to saving for a house/hobbies/traveling/etc, and since the place isn't income restricted and just below market rate... They're a shoe in.
Third, you have landlords which are a wildcard. Some intentionally want to rent to people who would otherwise have trouble paying for a place at current ridiculous market rates. Others would, as previously mentioned, much rather rent to a "sure thing" even if for the person renting $1500 for that one bedroom is easy a pie and they could go apply and get approved at a $3k one bedroom no problem.
Fourth, is that a lot of these places have been driven fully underground. Why would the landlord EVER make a craigslist listing if all the people who live in the building tell their friends when there's a vacancy and it's rented within a day? My landlord doesn't even put out a sign anymore. When people see someone moving out or an empty unit getting repairs, they all pester onsite manager or maintenance person for details then text all their friends. Then the manager gets 40 calls, and someone has signed by the end of the day. I've lived in two buildings i saw fall completely off the grid like this. Unless a unit was badly damaged by a previous tenant or some kind of crazy thing like a water pipe breaking happened and it needed serious repairs, they'd be cleaned out and repainted and rented faster than seamen hot rack on a nuclear submarine.
This is doubly bad if you need more than one bedroom, by the way. Almost every floor plan of a building i've seen, even HUGE buildings, had very few >1 bedroom units. My parents used to manage a 48 unit building. It had 8 two bedrooms. 2 of those were perpetually moldy and damp(no matter what was tried to resolve this) below-grade cave like depressing basement units. My friends rent a "two bedroom" with a den and use that as another bedroom. They applied with three people, and three incomes. Other people, including i'm sure families applied and the landlord instantly picked them because... duh?
I have no idea how to fix this, but i remember once my parents old building got bought from its owners and converted to condos(HAH) we had an EXTREMELY hard time finding a new place that we could get into as a single income three person family. And that was ten years ago. Rent here was fucking dirty cheap then compared to now and it was STILL hard.
The multi-income renters have massively driven up the price of a two bedroom(or larger) as well. You're basically paying for a one bedroom + a cheap studio now. Proper three bedroom units, which are rare, go for WAY more than the square footage would suggest. The $1/sqft stops making logical sense after one bedroom.
posted by emptythought at 6:17 PM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I can't believe that he left his wife at home without a bed because he incorrectly estimated how long it would take to build a loft bed while she was pregnant and dealing with a toddler. I can't believe she stayed with him after that. I had a boyfriend like this guy and it was a real nightmare. That woman is a saint.
posted by sockermom at 7:26 PM on November 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by sockermom at 7:26 PM on November 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
but at what point did it become unrealistic or bad to want to have things in your house?
The concept of detachment from material things is very old indeed. But we can also quote our Lord and Savior Chuck Palahniuk:
The concept of detachment from material things is very old indeed. But we can also quote our Lord and Savior Chuck Palahniuk:
“The things you own end up owning you. It's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything.”posted by pwnguin at 8:47 PM on November 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
If dad is working 40+ all week and surfing on the weekends
Oh, this dude is not merely surfing on weekends. Look through his blog and you'll see that he spent a year training for, and then competing in, an Ironman-level triathlon. And this year, he summited Mt. Whitney. So Mister Minimalist had a lot of time-intensive hobbies that let him leave his two small children in the care of his wife. Lucky her, having the city as her playground, right?
I can't believe that he left his wife at home without a bed because he incorrectly estimated how long it would take to build a loft bed while she was pregnant and dealing with a toddler.
I can't believe he didn't make her reservations at a hotel for the duration. The way he writes about it is all, "Well, she sucked it up and I learned a valuable lesson about empathy, so we all win!" and ... no. Maybe pregnant women wrangling toddlers don't need to adopt the "harden the fuck up" mentality. Maybe they deserve a suite and room service on your dime. Consider it financial incentive to finish the damned loft tout de suite.
posted by sobell at 9:01 PM on November 8, 2015 [16 favorites]
Oh, this dude is not merely surfing on weekends. Look through his blog and you'll see that he spent a year training for, and then competing in, an Ironman-level triathlon. And this year, he summited Mt. Whitney. So Mister Minimalist had a lot of time-intensive hobbies that let him leave his two small children in the care of his wife. Lucky her, having the city as her playground, right?
I can't believe that he left his wife at home without a bed because he incorrectly estimated how long it would take to build a loft bed while she was pregnant and dealing with a toddler.
I can't believe he didn't make her reservations at a hotel for the duration. The way he writes about it is all, "Well, she sucked it up and I learned a valuable lesson about empathy, so we all win!" and ... no. Maybe pregnant women wrangling toddlers don't need to adopt the "harden the fuck up" mentality. Maybe they deserve a suite and room service on your dime. Consider it financial incentive to finish the damned loft tout de suite.
posted by sobell at 9:01 PM on November 8, 2015 [16 favorites]
He could have gotten off the rollercoaster at any time and moved like he eventually did.
Yes. I have recently talked to two different people in the greater SF area who are living with seven people (for one, including three under-12 children) in one-bedroom apartments and it had nothing to do with rent control and everything to do with not having enough income to split up the family units into different apartments or to find a bigger apartment for the family unit. Not in the "It would make financial sense for us to wait" sense but in the "We have seven people and the only income we have is one person's SSI $880/mo income" sense.
posted by jaguar at 9:11 PM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yes. I have recently talked to two different people in the greater SF area who are living with seven people (for one, including three under-12 children) in one-bedroom apartments and it had nothing to do with rent control and everything to do with not having enough income to split up the family units into different apartments or to find a bigger apartment for the family unit. Not in the "It would make financial sense for us to wait" sense but in the "We have seven people and the only income we have is one person's SSI $880/mo income" sense.
posted by jaguar at 9:11 PM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Here you can see the bookshelf that doubled as stairs.
THOSE AREN'T STAIRS. THOSE AREN'T EVEN STAIR-LIKE OBJECTS. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK.
posted by disconnect at 6:27 AM on November 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
THOSE AREN'T STAIRS. THOSE AREN'T EVEN STAIR-LIKE OBJECTS. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK.
posted by disconnect at 6:27 AM on November 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I have recently talked to two different people in the greater SF area who are living with seven people (for one, including three under-12 children) in one-bedroom apartments and it had nothing to do with rent control and everything to do with not having enough income to split up the family units into different apartments or to find a bigger apartment for the family unit.
When we were looking for a duplex in the East Bay (I'm in a multigenerational household situation), one of the first places shown to us had a garden-level flat and a first-floor flat. The garden-level flat was occupied during our walk-through: One hospital bed in a corner for a very old woman on an oxygen tank, one bedroom for a married couple, one bedroom for their older (grown) child, another grown child who was sleeping on the couch.
The price was right and it would have been a perfect living situation for my family and my parents -- them downstairs, us upstairs. But I literally could not stomach the idea of evicting a group of adults who wouldn't have the means to keep living close to their jobs.
Throughout the SF Bay Area, I suspect the number of multi-adult, multigenerational households crammed into studios, one- or two-bedroom apartments is both large and largely untalked-about.
posted by sobell at 11:30 AM on November 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
When we were looking for a duplex in the East Bay (I'm in a multigenerational household situation), one of the first places shown to us had a garden-level flat and a first-floor flat. The garden-level flat was occupied during our walk-through: One hospital bed in a corner for a very old woman on an oxygen tank, one bedroom for a married couple, one bedroom for their older (grown) child, another grown child who was sleeping on the couch.
The price was right and it would have been a perfect living situation for my family and my parents -- them downstairs, us upstairs. But I literally could not stomach the idea of evicting a group of adults who wouldn't have the means to keep living close to their jobs.
Throughout the SF Bay Area, I suspect the number of multi-adult, multigenerational households crammed into studios, one- or two-bedroom apartments is both large and largely untalked-about.
posted by sobell at 11:30 AM on November 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Peoria, bitches!
You can buy for substantially less than I rent for, where I am, but you have to have credit, which I don't. But this business of Thai delivery--this intrigued me enough to mention it to someone I know, who brought it to my attention that while it's fairly limited, the Thai place up the road from my office does do delivery there (but not where I live) after five. So, okay. Some places in flyover country even have delivery Thai.
And concerts. And free events at the library. And no, maybe they're not quite the same ones you'd get in SF, but the inexpensive outdoor Shakespeare at Stan Hywet Hall in Akron every summer is incredibly charming even though I've been going for years. Nervous Dog roasts their own beans. I live in a neighborhood with a population that is not "diverse" as in "code for largely black" but diverse as in "I think that billboard is in Burmese". But I don't think this is something that makes Akron the best city of all possible cities. Akron, Peoria, Pittsburgh, Omaha, they all have problems but also advantages, and a lot of the problems could be alleviated if otherwise intelligent people weren't so stuck on the idea that they can't be cool and do cool things anywhere but major coastal cities with serious housing issues.
Some people absolutely need to be where they are. I'm not faulting anybody who needs to live where they are. Who grew up there, who can't get a job somewhere else in a specialized field, etc. But this guy and a lot of others are people who really CAN do their job from other cities, and inexplicably decide to live in closets for years before realizing that Seattle isn't in the middle of nowhere. If all those people went back to Indianapolis or wherever, it would substantially ease the housing pressure on people who do need to be in SF and NYC.
posted by Sequence at 3:32 PM on November 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
You can buy for substantially less than I rent for, where I am, but you have to have credit, which I don't. But this business of Thai delivery--this intrigued me enough to mention it to someone I know, who brought it to my attention that while it's fairly limited, the Thai place up the road from my office does do delivery there (but not where I live) after five. So, okay. Some places in flyover country even have delivery Thai.
And concerts. And free events at the library. And no, maybe they're not quite the same ones you'd get in SF, but the inexpensive outdoor Shakespeare at Stan Hywet Hall in Akron every summer is incredibly charming even though I've been going for years. Nervous Dog roasts their own beans. I live in a neighborhood with a population that is not "diverse" as in "code for largely black" but diverse as in "I think that billboard is in Burmese". But I don't think this is something that makes Akron the best city of all possible cities. Akron, Peoria, Pittsburgh, Omaha, they all have problems but also advantages, and a lot of the problems could be alleviated if otherwise intelligent people weren't so stuck on the idea that they can't be cool and do cool things anywhere but major coastal cities with serious housing issues.
Some people absolutely need to be where they are. I'm not faulting anybody who needs to live where they are. Who grew up there, who can't get a job somewhere else in a specialized field, etc. But this guy and a lot of others are people who really CAN do their job from other cities, and inexplicably decide to live in closets for years before realizing that Seattle isn't in the middle of nowhere. If all those people went back to Indianapolis or wherever, it would substantially ease the housing pressure on people who do need to be in SF and NYC.
posted by Sequence at 3:32 PM on November 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Sequence: "Some people absolutely need to be where they are. I'm not faulting anybody who needs to live where they are. Who grew up there, who can't get a job somewhere else in a specialized field, etc. "
Yeah, and the other thing you really have to account for is what form your costs are in -- small-city housing prices (and car-insurance prices, and food prices, and movie ticket prices, and so on) come with small-city salaries. Most of the time you come out ahead because housing is just SO MUCH cheaper in small cities than in coastal megopoli, but if some of your biggest bills are fixed regardless of where you live, a small city is not necessarily a great idea. Like, my student loans did not get the memo when we moved from DC to the Midwest, that bill is still the same. Or perhaps you're supporting a parent in a nursing home with a fixed monthly bill.
I also totally get that smaller cities are a lot harder to date in, especially if they have just one or two large employers. A small city lifestyle is a lot more appealing if you're just looking to socialize; it's a lot harder if you're looking to DATE.
But you can definitely be strategic about employment ... a lot of big employers around here pay the same salaries to their Chicago and downstate management-level employees, once you get to a certain level. The idea is that they have to pay more to lure high-quality employees to less-desirable parts of the state. Even the ones who do a cost-of-living adjustment for Chicago usually don't nearly make up for the cost differential.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:13 PM on November 9, 2015
Yeah, and the other thing you really have to account for is what form your costs are in -- small-city housing prices (and car-insurance prices, and food prices, and movie ticket prices, and so on) come with small-city salaries. Most of the time you come out ahead because housing is just SO MUCH cheaper in small cities than in coastal megopoli, but if some of your biggest bills are fixed regardless of where you live, a small city is not necessarily a great idea. Like, my student loans did not get the memo when we moved from DC to the Midwest, that bill is still the same. Or perhaps you're supporting a parent in a nursing home with a fixed monthly bill.
I also totally get that smaller cities are a lot harder to date in, especially if they have just one or two large employers. A small city lifestyle is a lot more appealing if you're just looking to socialize; it's a lot harder if you're looking to DATE.
But you can definitely be strategic about employment ... a lot of big employers around here pay the same salaries to their Chicago and downstate management-level employees, once you get to a certain level. The idea is that they have to pay more to lure high-quality employees to less-desirable parts of the state. Even the ones who do a cost-of-living adjustment for Chicago usually don't nearly make up for the cost differential.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:13 PM on November 9, 2015
I also totally get that smaller cities are a lot harder to date in, especially if they have just one or two large employers
Which, I can't help myself from adding, gets compounded heavily if you're not straight. Even here in SF, my maximum dating pool starts at around 3-4% of the total, and that percentage is actually considerably lower in most of the country -- in Pittsburgh, for example, it's less than half of the SF Bay Area's. Accounting for both the drop in total numbers and the drop in the LGBT-identified fraction, that adds up to a huge decrease. The Bay Area has (or, at least, until recently had) multiple functioning gayborhoods with different demographics; that's not something that applies to most of the USA.
posted by en forme de poire at 7:47 PM on November 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Which, I can't help myself from adding, gets compounded heavily if you're not straight. Even here in SF, my maximum dating pool starts at around 3-4% of the total, and that percentage is actually considerably lower in most of the country -- in Pittsburgh, for example, it's less than half of the SF Bay Area's. Accounting for both the drop in total numbers and the drop in the LGBT-identified fraction, that adds up to a huge decrease. The Bay Area has (or, at least, until recently had) multiple functioning gayborhoods with different demographics; that's not something that applies to most of the USA.
posted by en forme de poire at 7:47 PM on November 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
9,100 housing units next to Google:
The council indicated its preference for a range of 6,700 to 9,100 units, which was the densest option in a slate of four development scenarios presented by city staff.posted by pwnguin at 11:39 PM on November 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
...
Pro-housing advocates say that adding thousands of units will create a walkable community with life beyond the 9-to-5 workday, rather than what's now a soulless office park. (Currently, the only housing in North Bayshore is the Santiago Villa mobile home park, which has more than 350 households.)
> Also whether the family was paying for a storage locker for seasonal stuff (though maybe this isn't so much an issue in SF?)
He says not. So I guess the kids don't have trikes and nobody has a bike, unless those are part of the Craigslist rental dealy.
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:38 AM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
He says not. So I guess the kids don't have trikes and nobody has a bike, unless those are part of the Craigslist rental dealy.
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:38 AM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
I saw in the comments that he admits, re his wife having to be home more, that "it was more intense for her." I guess she hardened the fuck up even more than he did. Rar.
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:41 AM on November 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:41 AM on November 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Charming.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:30 AM on November 20, 2015
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:30 AM on November 20, 2015
Related: The Bold Italic (it's back!) on why the arts are dying in SF.
posted by psoas at 3:41 PM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by psoas at 3:41 PM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Every artist dreams about what it would’ve been like to be born with a trust fund, though deep down I’m also relieved that the New Yorker has never referred to my work as “the cinema of unexamined privilege.”
ahahahaha burn
posted by en forme de poire at 9:54 PM on December 2, 2015
ahahahaha burn
posted by en forme de poire at 9:54 PM on December 2, 2015
« Older "I couldn’t have followed that lead even if I had... | Wildlife of Los Santos Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:07 PM on November 7, 2015 [21 favorites]