|
I wouldn't even bother with any public transportation. Just take uber pools, it's not expensive at all and costs a few bucks here and there. Honestly though I had better burritos in LA  As for food, try Tartine bakery, it's pretty tasty.
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
Orbit Room is usually pretty chill with a good view.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
caberham posted:Honestly though I had better burritos in LA where did you end up going? i'd prolly agree that a great burrito is a great burrito and you can find great burritos in almost every CA city, some a little better or minorly less great, and many much more lo-key and less hyped/less wait than the mish'
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
If you haven't been, make a reservation for Alcatraz. Do not write it off as a tourist trap; it's an astonishing experience, and creepy. The ferry ride is also very cool. If you haven't been, go to the Musée Mecanique. Ditto the Cable Car Barn and Power House which, depending on the day and time of day, you might even be able to hop a cable car to, starting in the Financial District.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:If you haven't been, make a reservation for Alcatraz. Do not write it off as a tourist trap; it's an astonishing experience, and creepy. The ferry ride is also very cool. If you haven't been, go to the Musée Mecanique. Ditto the Cable Car Barn and Power House which, depending on the day and time of day, you might even be able to hop a cable car to, starting in the Financial District. do the Alcatrraz Night Tour imo. Much much less crowded, and great views. You get a nice boat ride as the sun is setting and looking out at SF at night is great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
And don't skip the audio tour, it's very well done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
I regret not going to Alcatraz. The reservations take a while, sign up if you can. As for burritos I went to the 2 bigger ones el farolita and the other one in mission. Still tasty! Shout out to tartine. And check out eater San Francisco
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
I want to venture out to Fort Point to take some pictures. Would I have trouble getting an Uber/Lyft to take me all the way down to the building on Marine Dr.? Would I have any trouble in getting one to pick me back up?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Screw uber just run there during the mornings. But uber should be fine there I took one at lands end and no problem. San Francisco is uber capital of the world
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
drat NIGGA posted:I want to venture out to Fort Point to take some pictures. Would I have trouble getting an Uber/Lyft to take me all the way down to the building on Marine Dr.? Would I have any trouble in getting one to pick me back up? Do you just hate walking or what? If you just rush from destination to destination you're not going to see any of the actual city.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
caberham posted:I wouldn't even bother with any public transportation. Just take uber pools, it's not expensive at all and costs a few bucks here and there. Honestly though I had better burritos in LA all of this guy's opinions are stupid, do the opposite of everything in this post
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
qirex posted:Do you just hate walking or what? If you just rush from destination to destination you're not going to see any of the actual city. I just have bad knees and a back. If I push myself too much, I'm not gonna be able to do anything for a day or so after. Thankfully I've been able to plan everything in away where transpo is close or all I have to do is walk downhill. I just don't want to get stuck at F.P.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
drat NIGGA posted:I just have bad knees and a back. If I push myself too much, I'm not gonna be able to do anything for a day or so after. Thankfully I've been able to plan everything in away where transpo is close or all I have to do is walk downhill. I just don't want to get stuck at F.P. https://www.nps.gov/alca/planyourvisit/accessibility.htm quote:The distance from the dock to the prison at the top of the island is about 1/4 mile (.4 km) and the elevation change is 130 feet (40 meters). This is roughly equivalent to climbing a thirteen story building, but spread out over 1/4 mile.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:all of this guy's opinions are stupid, do the opposite of everything in this post I apologize about the burritos ok? And bouchon in Napa makes better bread. But please please do not go to castello di amorosa winery in Napa. It's a fun castle and all but it's garbage wine unless you don't drink wine or care much about wine. Then a great spot for pictures
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
i was mostly talking about your suggestion to drive everywhere, which is weak poo poo for insular suburbanites who moved here for work but then he mentioned his bad knees and i felt like an rear end
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:i was mostly talking about your suggestion to drive everywhere, which is weak poo poo for insular suburbanites who moved here for work Be more accepting man its like what we do here
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Very sensible. You may want to think carefully about Alcatraz; you have to climb a pretty steep slope to get to the prison. There's an electric tram that runs once an hour. Thanks. I think I'm gonna take my chances with the tram they have. I've wanted to visit Alcatraz since I was a kid. Seriously y'all, I know I'm just gonna be a dumb tourist, but I am so in love with SF (not to minimize the city's issues). God, why can't L.A. be as nice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
drat NIGGA posted:Seriously y'all, I know I'm just gonna be a dumb tourist, but I am so in love with SF (not to minimize the city's issues).
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Wife and her friends like going to chachachas on the mission for tapas and sangria. I highly recommend it, every time we went I got incredibly hosed up on pitchers of sangria. And sometimes it's more fun to share a bunch of small plates rather then commit to an entree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Well I had a blast. Did Coit Tower, Fort Point, Grace Cathedral, St. Mary's Cathedral, Alcatraz. Intentionally got lost in the downtown, North Beach, and Nob Hill and Chinatown areas and explored. Everyone in the city of San Francisco that I interacted with were completely nice and welcoming. Then I went took the BART over to Bay Point to visit some friends. The trip there wasn't bad, but coming back I had to take the last train into the city. A crazy rear end lady came on and tried to mug me, asking for my belongings. I had to run between a few of the cars until I found one with a person inside. I called up the conductor and told him what was going on and two stops later BART cops came and took her. At least I have a story now. All in all things were amazing, thanks. Here's some pictures I took if anyone cares.     [timg]http://i.imgur.com/O4uhEID.jpg[[/timg]   
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Nice pictures! Sorry you had to deal with the scary lady, though. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Now I have to visit Grace Cathedral. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Is the housing bubble ever going to pop in the Bay Area? poo poo man, I just wanna buy a house for less than 1 million. :eyeroll:
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
give it 8 months
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Bar a massive financial crisis it'll never pop, the best we can reasonably hope for is that it might deflate slowly. Though I doubt it'll ever slump enough to ever buy a place for a reasonable price. Whatever external factors might cause it to lose value would also have the same effect on peoples' savings, so they'd still be in the same position. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Housing will never be affordable again in San Francisco without serious disincentives to ownership for people who don't live here. It's not like we're going to run out of rich people in the bay area who want a second home in the city, or chinese/latin american money launderers, or wannabe internet hoteliers. e: and that's never going to happen. If New York and London can't get their poo poo together enough to keep absentee ownership loving over their residents, I don't see it happening here. Cactus Ghost fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Depends on whats "reasonable price". There are a fair amount of homes in 400-700k range. Many of which are decent areas and not a horrible commute like Tracy. But they are not in the a hip SF/Oakland spot so they aren't as desirable. Like OMG said, housing in SF itself will never ever be affordable, but there's still neighboring places like Hayward/Concord/El Cerritp/etc or something that are doable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
Things people think would fix the housing crisis but won't
Things that would but will never happen:
As long as over 60% of San Francisco is covered by a 40 foot height limit there's literally no hope
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Yeah basically there is no housing bubble in the san francisco bay area. There's very high prices, but that on its own does not equal a "bubble" which can or will pop. A bubble is driven by speculation. When speculators lose faith, the bubble pops. There are speculators in Bay Area housing prices of course, but they are not the force driving higher prices. The forces driving higher prices are high salaries, high demand, and low inventory. The high demand (and again, not just by speculators) pushes prices upwards, and the high salaries allow those prices to rise because there exists a market of buyers capable of affording them. The low inventory is the supply side of the demand/supply equation that everyone exposed to basic economics should be familiar with. So what would allow prices to drop? -A dramatic drop in employment and/or salaries -A dramatic rise in inventory -Anything else that dramatically lowers demand A big earthquake might lower demand, but if it simultaneously lowered inventory (by destroying a bunch of houses), it's likely prices would remain high. A big drop in employment would lower prices if it meant the pool of buyers able to afford high prices dropped, but that means a drop in employment among likely home buyers, not just a general drop in employment or a drop which only affected people who were not likely to buy. There is one more factor, of course, which is rental units. Demand for rental units drives investors (not "speculators," who buy in the hopes of selling for a profit in the near or intermediate future, but investors, who buy in the hopes of creating a revenue stream from incomes generated by the asset) to buy and hold properties, so in theory if rents dropped precipitously, that would discourage investors, which in turn would lower overall demand. However, demand from renters is largely driven by the same factors as demand from buyers: that is, employment, salaries, and desirability of the area. Renters may represent a different demographic, so a dramatic fall in employment of that demographic could have a follow-on effect on pricing. So any dramatic drop in employment could affect housing prices. But, unlike with prospective buyers, renters are generally more mobile: there is enormous transactional cost to buying or selling a house, but the transactional cost to moving from one rental unit to another is far lower. This means the rental market is more fluid while the sales market is more brittle. A seller who finds himself underwater on the value of his home may be unable to sell and forced to simply hold (and occupy or rent that unit while making his fixed payments), whereas a renter is never "underwater" on a unit, but can face more rapidly rising costs which drive him to move out and seek lower rents. Anyway all of this boils down to basically that first bullet point - a dramatic drop in employment and/or salaries lowers house prices, and that's what actually happened in 2008. Yes, there was a mortgage crisis, but the reason people couldn't afford the ARMs and liar loans etc. was because of the drop in employment and incomes, and the "bubble" was due to speculation (in that case by both buyers and banks) which led to sudden sell-offs as soon as prices failed to keep rising every year. Today that bubble doesn't exist. Mortgages are far more solidly based on incomes, far fewer ARMs and liar loans exist, the banks that hold those mortgages have been forced to maintain higher reserves, and so on. So a single flat year or a modest drop in employment should not trigger another crisis. That means that absent a dramatic change in employment or demand for some reason, prices will move as they "normally" do: up or down in any given year, but not in a bubble-popping way. Some folks think an implosion of the tech market would destroy housing prices, but that's because people (reasonably) believe the overwhelming amount of press that tells us the housing prices are driven by high-tech salaries. And yet, high-tech is only about 15% of the bay area's employment. We are also have huge financial and biotech/medical employment centers. This is an interesting read. The PDF is a publication by the bureau or labor statistics describing the makeup of the bay area employment sectors and economy. The average hourly wages section highlights that wages in the bay area are higher across all sectors compared to the rest of the country, although the amount by which they are higher varies a lot. You can also see that the rate of increase in employment has ticked down compared to last year, but still substantially outpaces the rate of employment increase nationwide. Total nonfarm jobs increased from July 2015 to July 2016 by about 60,000 jobs. So there is no sign in the statistics, at least by July 2016, of a precipitous (or any) drop in employment in the bay area. But the rising number of jobs suggests ongoing growth in housing demand being driven not by speculation but by "real" demand from people who have jobs and want a place to live. That's not a bubble.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Employment's definitely a huge part, but the housing market in desireable, fashionable cities does not behave like a simple classical market because demand is essentially unlimited. You have to not just add supply, you have to add the kind of supply that is a) useful to residents and b) unsexy to rich people. This is why there are barriers to development (for better or worse), because in this sort of market, developers are only ever going to build units targeted at the super-rich. And while some of those units may draw away some small amount of demand by local super-rich people, the effect on the local economy is negligible and it takes 20+ years to take effect, so it does jack poo poo for displacement. It seems to me that in order to make any kind of short-term impact, especially on displacement, we need large amounts of small to medium-sized units, sold only to first-time homeowners and deed-restricted to be only primary residences. e: of course, to do that would mean battling through a gauntlet of political tantrum-throwing by developers, which is exactly what's been happening. That's kind of just how development works here, that's why there's such a culture of popular opposition to it. Developer makes lovely proposal A that does fuckall for anyone but them, people protest and block it. Developer climbs onto a cross while quoting Adam Smith and Ayn Rand. Later, developer climbs off cross, makes proposal that doesn't gently caress over the neighborhood, fewer people protest, it gets built. Cactus Ghost fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
What's supposed to happen is you develop lots of nice new places to live, which the rich people buy, and the rich people leave behind their older but still spacious and nice homes, which the middle class people buy, and they leave behind their shabby run-down places that are seriously showing their age, which is where the poor people live. This model only works if you build enough housing for the rich people to satisfy their demand. What has happened is since the 1960s/70s we have failed to keep up with demand, and especially since the 1990s. Failed across every sector of housing. So there's this enormous pent-up demand. So you build new rich-people housing and that does not result in medium-tier stuff trickling down, because there was never enough even for rich people for thirty to fifty years. Nevertheless I don't think attempting to legislate housing for poor people works very well. I think what we really need is just a ridiculous amount of development of any kind. Build enough to satisfy demand completely at the top sector and then another fifty thousand units or more. We need development in every community in the bay area, which means a lot of infill and converting tracts of SFHs with big yards into tracts of two to four story multi-family homes sitting shoulder-to-shoulder, plus infilled with business and commercial properties to make livable walkable neighborhoods. We need to do a ridiculous amount of that, and there simply is not the political will much less the regional planning to make it happen across the board. I don't see the kind of regulated housing projects you're suggesting happening at a rate high enough to have a measurable impact at all. Maybe a few projects happen here and there, after five to ten years of process and complaining and public commentary and etc. etc. and then in the end you added 100 units and it's a drop in the bucket. We will have very high prices for the forseeable future. They may level out as they hit some kind of ceiling on incomes that local employers can possibly pay, but they're not going to drop much even in bad economy years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Build enough to satisfy demand completely at the top sector and then another fifty thousand units or more. This is impossible. That was my point. Demand for high-end luxury housing in sexy destination cities that rich people around the world want a second home in will never, ever, decrease to any significant degree, not with any amount of units. The city could be a barren arcology of 10%-occupied condo buildings from the bay to Ocean Beach and there would still be people paying cash up front. To have any impact on the local cost of living, you have to build units that either A) non residents don't want or B) non residents are barred from owning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:... develop two to four story multi-family homes sitting shoulder-to-shoulder... How about we bulldoze the sunset or dogpatch and build a bunch of 30 story buildings instead as well as bolstering the pretty much non-existent public transportation outside the central business district.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Okay fine, I'll get a job in finance and then move to Hayward.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
SB35 posted:How about we bulldoze the sunset or dogpatch and build a bunch of 30 story buildings instead the obvious solution: build high rises on sand
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Yeah the trouble with the sunset in particular is that it's entirely holocene sand dunes, e.g., the ground cannot support higher buildings without ridiculous amounts of money. All that sand liquefies in an earthquake, though, which actually means fully attached row housing is better than semi- or fully-detached. Maybe. Also I am not talking about the city of San Francisco specifically, I'm talking about the entire bay area. Uneven and spotty development from one city to the next is part of why we are where we are now. The situation is not going to substantially improve as long as we don't have a strong regional development authority that can tell specific FYGM cities "gently caress you, you're part of the whole metro area, you have to build some loving housing." OMGVBFLOL posted:This is impossible. That was my point. Demand for high-end luxury housing in sexy destination cities that rich people around the world want a second home in will never, ever, decrease to any significant degree, not with any amount of units. The city could be a barren arcology of 10%-occupied condo buildings from the bay to Ocean Beach and there would still be people paying cash up front. That may be true of the city of San Francisco specifically but I do not believe it's true of, say, Hayward or Richmond or south San Jose. The problem with telling a developer "OK you can build here, but you have to build units that are safe and clean and good, and do all the environmental impact reports and feasibility studies, and then endure years of bickering and probably some lawsuits from the locals, and then in the end you have to sell the units for way below what the market values them at, but still for a modest profit" is that that developer isn't making a choice between "do this modestly profitable project or do nothing." They're making a choice between "endure the process in SF or the bay area, or spend the same money on a project in some other region of the country where the burden isn't so big and the profit is not being capped and it'll be done in three years instead of eight." I'm not saying "oh the poor developers" either, I'm just pointing out that if you want an actually good successful developer to bother, you need to give them at least as much incentive to build as any other place they could spend their time and effort. So the alternative to that problem is of course government housing projects. Maybe those can be done well but the legacy of public housing projects of the past 50 years is loving grim. Maybe we should just do all of it. A bunch of unlimited-profit super high-end projects for rich people, a bunch of "follow all our thousands of rules and take forever" private developments with whichever brave and/or foolhardy developers are willing to play that game, and then a bunch of lets-try-this-poo poo-again government-built housing. I mean whatever we do, the only thing that is definitely, definitely not loving working is not building enough housing. We've been trying that for decades now and that's how we got to where we're at.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
What happened in the collapses I remember (Housing bubble, .com crash, another in the 2000s) was that "desirable" areas didn't crash as hard, because enormous pent-up demand buoyed purchases. All of a sudden the medium-rich people who had given up on ever owning jumped into the softer market. If you'd hopped into an undesirable area because you couldn't afford anything else, you were screwed. So when this one pops, highest-end prices will crash, medium-high will dip a little, low-end will lose their equity. Lather, rinse, repeat. The only thing that will permanently tank values is if software/hardware becomes the new aerospace. Speaking of unified housing policy, people are really, really pissed at Brisbane's decision to develop 684 acres of open space. quote:Conventional wisdom is that the council will approve the “community alternative” plan, which calls for over 8 million square feet of commercial-industrial construction and not a single unit of housing. Arsenic Lupin fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Oct 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The situation is not going to substantially improve as long as we don't have a strong regional development authority that can tell specific FYGM cities "gently caress you, you're part of the whole metro area, you have to build some loving housing." This I definitely agree with. The closest I think we've had to any substantial regional authority is BART, but Santa Clara county drags their feet about everything Bart-related and San Mateo just straight up left the Bart board decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
We need an authority like Portland Metro that establishes minimum density requirements for all municipalities in the region, but funnily enough Portland is still falling into the same trap as SF of failing to take the necessary measures to curb increases in housing prices, and for the same reasons as SF in that those measures would destroy the "charm" or "character" of the city.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
Papercut posted:We need an authority like Portland Metro that establishes minimum density requirements for all municipalities in the region, but funnily enough Portland is still falling into the same trap as SF of failing to take the necessary measures to curb increases in housing prices, and for the same reasons as SF in that those measures would destroy the "charm" or "character" of the city. Keep Portland Weird! Pretty much every major sexy coastal city from Bay Area/NYC/Boston/Seattle/Portland/LA(proper) has so much pent up demand as huge amounts of people under the age of 40 wants to move to these places, often being unable to because of affordability or going into some lovely living condition. lovely rural/track house cul-de-sac cities far far outside any major metropolitan areas or in the midwest/south or something are drying up and have serious brain/youth drain. Demand in any of these hip cities is never really going to go down since that's where society is moving to. Jobs, easy to find hookups, transit, food, more sustainable, whatever. These cities need to realize theres millions of young people coming in and gotta get building at least half million units in each place in the next several decades, until then prices are just going to keep exploding and 3+ people to a single bedroom type conditions. And at most in the reverse direction, you get some old near-retiree's who want to cash out on their house they bought before these places got hip+expensive, and retire to some track or semi-rural house in Idaho to live off the rest of SS or something creating some openings, but that's not a huge amount compared to incoming demand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 23:09
|
|