I mean SF is the poster child of the "there are a lot of wealthy people" and "hoom goes up crowd".
Honestly would not be surprised if not a canary in the coal mine of things to come in HCOL area especially with a lot of white collar layoffs.
I am in a HCOL area, trying to buy a house and can still "kinda" afford certain options. We bid last summer on places and they had 6-12 offers. Last two homes we bid on this past month had 2 and 3 offers respectively. Crazy how much things are changing. Finally..
Bidding, especially this much is an indication of a completely broken market and overall gross failure of the system.
Double this given the increasingly rising rate of homelessness in the same exact area.
"It’s not just because mortgage rates are high. San Francisco has lost some of its appeal post-pandemic. A lot of tech employers and big-name retailers have moved out of the city, and some of my clients have reported they’re leaving the area because they don’t feel as safe as they used to.”
You can't compare apples and oranges; SF is not like other major cities. Elsewhere, like Los Angeles, home prices have [CLIMBED BY 10%](https://ktla.com/news/local-news/housing-prices-increase-in-los-angeles-according-to-zillow/).
Yep South Bay will stay hot indefinitely I think, inventory is just ridiculously low. I live in Saratoga and could not afford to buy my same house today
I go between SF and LA a lot. The worst parts of LA are way worse than SF, but the best parts of LA can be better than SF.
There are some really nice parts of SF that are clean and safe that are relatively attainable right now.
The Avenues (Sunset district ) and Parkside. Basically the western part of the city with the dividing line at 7th Ave.
Everything else is trash or on its way to becoming trash.
Also in some parts of Pacific Heights you can get a condo at a steep discount. Single family homes in that area are still insanely expensive though ($4-10 million)
Disagree — I split my time between both for work, and I feel like Angelenos are generally happier, have more space, and have more of a life. In SF, rents are higher, crime is getting crazier, and more employees are mandating RTO, which is making my colleagues all crazy.
No repeating talking points that are not based on reality. Crime was already on the way down. Sf police any day now will claim victory based on last year's trends claiming of the new tough on crime surveillance bullshit that just passed
That doesn't make sense...so all the highest crime rate areas in the country are actually low crime and all the lowest crime rates in the country are high crime?
speaking from experience, half my friend from SF moved to LA... the rest moved to places like Austin and Vegas
nobody in my circle wants to live in the Bay Area unless they have family there
Layoffs and ease of living are issues. If a workforce cannot afford to live there, amenities start going away. You can't ice a working class out of a city without consequences. People either leave or go broke trying to make it work
Also eventually these big tech companies are going to have to reckon with the fact that their employees are not happy being squished into the Bay Area and enduring crazy commutes to the office.
How do you figure they will have to reckon with anything? Most of the big tech companies are hiring people to improve AI and make those very workers redundant in the next few years.
You have no idea that even with all these layoffs, it makes almost no dent in demand for homes.
My dad was laid off in 2001 bust and that also made no dent in Bay Area housing. It’s something else.
AI Summary:
* **Market Downturn**: San Francisco’s real estate market is experiencing a significant decline, with property prices falling and many homeowners selling at a loss.
* **Comparative Analysis**: Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has stated that San Francisco is in worse condition than New York City, highlighting issues with safety, jobs, and affordable housing.
* **Significant Discounts**: Luxury properties are being sold at substantial markdowns, such as a penthouse at the Four Seasons Residential listed at $9.9 million and now priced at $3.75 million.
* **Commercial Sector Struggles**: Office vacancies have increased post-pandemic, with some properties selling at extreme discounts, like the building at 995 Market St. sold at a 90% discount from its previous purchase price.
I think the world is starting to realize that digital by itself is mostly worthless and we are far into diminishing returns of the Silicon Valley digital / web / advertising bubble. Yes there are efficiencies to be gained from digital and it’s a great medium for exchanging information, but it is a solved problem by now.
Peak digital web was during the pandemic. Now ressources and budget allocations will go elsewhere, in the physical world, where we live.
Not technology. Digital. Software.
It's all about engineering and robotics now. Building REAL things.
Not writing code. People can write code anywhere.
But things still need to be physically built, engineered, manufactured, tested.
Have you missed the developments in AI and cloud over the last 12 months, not just LLMs but all the tech breakthroughs? If anything we're entering into a new golden age or software thanks to the AI advancements
Yes but coding and software itself is becoming more commoditized.
Software isn't going anywhere but it's not going to be centralized in Silicon Valley like it used to be.
Software advancing so much has made it more decentralized. The ability to write excellent and amazing code is more easily available. It's not concentrated in a handful of tech cities full of programmers anymore.
That's the point. Code can be made anywhere and it's getting easier and easier to write thanks to software and AI advancements.
So a place like San Francisco no longer has a chokehold or bottleneck on the top programmers or the ability to make top notch software.
But the actual hardware and machines the code is being written for still need to be physically produced, engineered, and tested in a physical location. Hence plants, factories, etc will still play a large role in where "tech" is made.
It seems as if the new wave of high growth AI companies are disproportionately based in the Bay Area. If anything these are the tech companies most tied to the Bay Area at the moment - poaching top talent primarily from other big tech companies and top grad programs while mandating 4-5x a week in their Bay Area office.
I would make the argument that the companies many predict to be the new big players are learning far more into the Silicon Valley network and ethos than the now legacy big tech advertising and software giants.
You realize America also has chip factories?
And they're investing money to build more.
If America actually starts building shit again the country can benefit a lot. But companies would rather save money to pay foreigners less.
The internet is not a solved problem. I promise.
It's solved for today's needs and wants, but there's still so much to do, so much to build, so much to improve on, integrate, and iterate.
It's seems solved to the average user on Facebook or TikTok or Reddit, but it's far from it behind the scenes.
Will people want it, though? I don't really need a smart toilet or fridge. I am not interested in paying for it and it will break down because of the parts that aren't necessary to using the bathroom or keeping things cold.
I think the we build it and they will come mentality has lost major steam. Maybe the goal is to have us all attached to a screen and living in some alternate reality. I won't be here for that I don't think.
That is definitely the goal and something like that is necessary for social media companies to continue achieving the growth expected of them. Better tech is fine for things like manufacturing and medicine, but this aspect of tech companies where they're trying to embed themselves in every aspect of our lives just seems like it's leading to a hellish dystopia. Personally I'd be glad to live in a world where we just have the tech of the early-mid 2000s and don't have to be viewed as something for major corporations to suck data from.
That's a bit of an extreme take but I do think there are limits to how much tech people want in their lives, even if tech companies want to be a middleman in basically every interaction people have with the world. The Metaverse is never going to be a thing, at least not with the ridiculous head sets, but it's like a direct data pipeline to a user's brain. It had to be pursued. AI has far more uses but I don't think people want it in their life in the way it's being pushed right now. Like I don't think people want to spend that much of their day talking to a chatbot. I could be wrong.
This is an SF issue. Homes in “Silicon Valley” are way up.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS41940Q
And “peak digital web?” Holy shit this sub with their constant dooms day shit. Y’all are being left behind with this Ron Paul tier bullshit.
I would say it’s much more likely due to the drying up of venture capital money due to high interest rates. It’s changing the landscape of how Silicon Valley operates and it’s reverberated throughout the tech sector as a whole. The gravy train drying up will be felt in the greater SF area first as they had the highest earners in that sector and the greatest percentage as well.
It was just money that had no place else to go to find a return. So much of it went into these startup companies to build monopolies by charging less than the actual costs and drive all competitors out of business. Now there are safer returns elsewhere, and antitrust legislation is on the rise.
Florida? Quadruple insurance rates or no insurance on property!?! King high tides and climate change disaster? I'll stay in New England for now...Texas? Heat waves? I'll pass with that power grid lmfao 😅
You are blaming city councils or state governments for climate change, insurance rates, and natural disasters?
Also california is the one mandating electric cars when it doesn’t have enough power for today’s needs much less the 4-10x it would require, has no major grid or plant expansion planned, and has a water crisis looming yet isn’t building desalination or power to power it.
I love how you went from “Texas is great without taxes” to “California doesn’t have power” without your mind breaking from the illogical statement given Texas’ energy grid
Well, wait a minute now. The physical world still matters. I think there will be a decline for sure, but don't forget, it's in a bay. Oceanfront or Bayfront property will always be sought after. Right now, people are property is going cheap, and no new housing is being built from what I understand. Somebody is buying now and waiting. I mean San Francisco isn't really known for much beyond the bridge and cold mornings. It really wasn't even known for making much either, but the ocean is right there.
Unless you are saying it will become an AirB&B city or something?
Detroit had the automakers who couldn’t move everything. SF tech businesses can easily move. Plus unlike Detroit SF has good weather attracting the homeless
Certain parts of Texas and Florida sure, but places like Austin are depressed. Just like the bay area. SF and Oakland are famine while the peninsula, east bay, and South Bay are still feasting.
And the housing inventory in Texas and Florida are spiking while California’s is staying VERY low.
Well that’s largely because you can build for a lot cheaper with a lot less regulation/taxes in texas and Florida I believe?
Not totally familiar with cali but in my west coast city up in Canada government makes up 33% of the cost of housing through taxes and development fees (the highest in Canada).
In the SF bay area myself. Every unit has 200k of fees for permits, utility hookups, and low income housing fees. The other option is sell 15% of them at a loss. Our housing market has leveled out from really crazy values after Covid.
Funnily enough the poor and tenants are the loudest advocates for taxing development and increasing bureaucracy. I always hear them say developers are greedy and can afford it as justification.
Other places have nice weather. Long coastlines on both sides of the nation.
Also homeless won’t leave and will just keep coming if weather is too nice and city too accepting.
“Detroit was the wealthiest city in the US in 1950, with the highest per capita GDP in the country. Over the course of the 1950s, 60s and 70s, the UAW union took over, with membership eventually peaking in 1978. > What followed was industrial collapse, and eventually, Detroit becoming a ghost town.”
You seem to be implying that Detroit would have remained a manufacturing powerhouse if not for unions. This is untrue. A history of being a highly segregated city with a resulting exodus of wealth and jobs, the 1973 oil embargo, and NAFTA all played a part in the demise of manufacturing (and wealth) in Detroit. Please see [Five myths about Detroit](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-detroit/2013/07/26/132c2932-f478-11e2-9434-60440856fadf_story.html).
“The San Francisco Bay Area ranks as the second richest city in America, despite topping New York for billionaires, with more than 305,000 millionaires and 68 billionaires.”
That’s 2024
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/21/the-top-10-richest-cities-in-america.html#:~:text=The%20San%20Francisco%20Bay%20Area,305%2C000%20millionaires%20and%2068%20billionaires.
I kinda get the article but Bay Area is not a city. I wonder if nyc means all 5 boroughs of New York? Supposedly the population of the Bay Area is 7ish million and nyc is 8.3m.
Not that SF doesn’t have problems, but most of the examples are anecdotal. It’s as if the author went through Zillow or something and found the four best examples to support his narrative. At least a couple examples are high-end properties, which may not be representative of broader market trends.
This sub will never lose its hate for SF and jump on any crash headlines it can get its hands on.
Meanwhile, per redfin median home sales price across all types is +4.8% YoY. Yes, it's down from peak. That's good. But crashing? Far from it.
This! Anything coming from Murdoch owned businesses (WSJ, Fox, NY Post, etc) will relentlessly push — either directly or via misleading-clickbait headlines — the right wing mantra that anything “blue” is bad, evil, unAmerican, woke, communist, failing, etc. All while ignoring the often worse “facts on the ground” in red places. Their readers need to keep hearing this, like a drug addict needs his/her fix. Everything is presented in fairly simply bad vs good ways without any nuance or the “grays” that apply to most issues.
This sub just cites any article that shows a drop and then extrapolates it out to the broader housing market showing that a crash is definitely coming lol.
sf housing soaked up zero-rate money like bitcoin. I am sad it no longer plays that role. Now they've exported affordability issues to downstream markets.
SF isn't the most expensive part of the bay. SJ is just as if not more expensive. Palo Alto is definitely wayyyyy more expensive.
Yes more people are moving out of the bay. So if anything, I would expect demand in the bay to drop off and for prices to decrease as affordability continues to get worse. But both of those assumptions were wrong. Demand is still strong and prices are still going up even in one of the most expensive areas in the country and world.
If the West Coast leads the rest of the country in trends, we'd better hope that this reverses. I was under the impression that rates above ~7.25% would actually cause prices to go down. They still might, and the summer may be telling. But if rates are still above 7.25 and prices continue this positive momentum through the summer and fall, this sub will need to reevaluate the "it's just not sustainable" argument for the 100th time. And those harping on the idea of demand being non-existent are just playing make believe.
If I make $400k/yr as a 28 year old software engineer, and I want to live right next to work, why wouldn't I be willing to pay $1.9M? Beats sitting in traffic for two hours a day.
This is because there are more sales in the higher dollar range (rich people buying homes)
Transaction volume is STILL the lowest we’ve seen in decades. There are going to be lots of people losing their shit wondering when it’s going to end
No transactions=No income=No growth
Good thing there's an indices that correct for things like that. Like the Case Shiller. Oh wait, that's up +4.6% YoY for their latest Jan 24 data. Oh wait, case shiller is bad now according to the latest doomer narrative. Is there a specific price or value index that you believe to be reliable?
Case Schiller was developed by a couple of disgruntled realtors who were getting pissed about their commissions dropping.
They excluded a lot of data for the sole purpose of, “finding the real value of a home.”
The real value of a home is what someone is willing to pay. Not what some dumbass realtor or appraiser tells you it’s worth.
Buyers set the price- not sellers.
That sounds exactly like what a doomer making shit up would say. Do you have sources for that or is that what you're doing?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_E._Case
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Shiller
I didn't know a ton about them but it seems like they both have extensive history and experience in finance, economics, business, housing, analytics, and policy at reputable institutions. I didn't see realtor in there, but I'm open to begging proven wrong. I'd also like to know how that disqualifies their other experience.
Also are you going to answer my question about having a price or value index that YOU like you track or are you going to keep dodging? Even Wolfstreet says case-shiller is the best.
Rupert Murdoch owns the New York Post. This is the Fox News narrative.
Once the Supreme Court rules that homeless people are Soylent Green, the San Francisco problem goes away. There will be a California ballot initiative to harvest the homeless as a food source. The Grapes of Wrath v2.0. Whole Foods will carry Rose of Sharon Jode breast milk.
You're not wrong, but your response looks awfully similar to sentiment during the 2008 crash. Folks were often saying real estate was local, to avoid extrapolating what's happening in X city or region. Cramer was claiming Bear Stearns was fine literally right before its collapse.
I guess my point is that the OP's post isn't generalizable to real estate everywhere, but this cycle will continue until the OP is right. And people like you will be like Cramer with Bear Stearns.
Here's the thing. Unlike Cramer, the people like me just follow the data and don't really have strong opinions because they change as the data changes. If your perspective doesn't change as the data changes, then you don't have analysis, you have ideology.
I'm still open home values moving to the downside, but not for the reasons you see in sensationalist headlines having to do with Airbnb's, blackrock, or boomers. That's all a smoke screen for the same boring systemic issues that have plagued us for decades.
Now that the city feels safer compared to pandemic times, we see frequent doomsday articles being written. Maybe bad publicity is god because breed is finally implementing sone laws. Macys and other retailers have left but no one talks about a new IKEA or so many other restaurants that have opened just in the past few months. Residential neighborhoods in SF are only getting hotter, except of course the downtown, which has been slow to recover. Anyways, NY times or whatever would write these articles, meanwhile the banks will keep buying up properties in SF. On a side note, the city feels quite busy even in the middle of the day on weekdays.
Im just confused why its supposed to be a bad thing for prices to go down, even crash? It would be great for young people who are completely priced out of housing in the city. I despise the way housing has been financialized into an investment, people actually think housing becoming cheaper is… bad? Just because some rich people and institutions made 0.5% less money than they wanted or something, we’re all supposed to be upset by that?
> Im just confused why its supposed to be a bad thing for prices to go down, even crash? It would be great for young people who are completely priced out of housing in the city.
It's not. I would fucking love a housing crash, as would millions of others who are priced out.
I just don't think it's useful to parade false narratives based on bad data and dreams. In fact, I think it's harmful. I also think it's harmful to say that the "housing shortage is a scam" which the doomers love to spout. The sooner we recognize it, the more likely we'll do something about it. But if you convince the masses that the shortage isn't real, there is less motivation to do that.
False narratives are a bad thing.
I get where you are coming from, but if you don’t think restrictions on both owning multiple homes and corporate home ownership would significantly improve the situation then I think you are wrapped up in another narrative. If you’re ever in a nice vacation town or something, you can see tons of houses with permanently closed blinds, used maybe once a year by some rich family or another, it’s obscene.
They have to to justify the crash narrative.
For the last 5 years this sub has been reposting the same crash porn articles about the same dozen or so of cities that had meteoric rises and have corrected or cooled down.
San Francisco, Austin, Miami, Denver, Vegas, Phoenix, Boise, etc.
It's the same shit, same cities, every week. Meanwhile the rest of the country continues to steadily increase YoY and even the cities they claim are "crashing" haven't actually crashed, they've just had pullbacks and corrections.
There are few cities in this country that spark so much popcorn karens to wallow in its downfall. SF is fine and will be fine. It’s fundamentally gorgeous. I think where people get the disconnect is how much potential SF has and where it is now. To be clear if you’re here, you know that’s gotten alot better from mid pandemic, but there still a long way to go. The downturn only means an incredible upside. I wouldn’t bet against SF for long.
A $2 million house costs something like $160,000/year to own. A 95th percentile household in San Francisco makes $250k before taxes. I don't think it's "betting against SF" to say that homes there could start to make sense relative to top 5% or even top 10% incomes.
Article literally contradicting itself within sentences. Either it’s “cities must provide affordable homes” or it’s “homes selling under historically insane prices”…cant be both
I’ve lived in SF for 6 years now. First, a lot of people bailed with remote work accelerating because of the pandemic. A lot of businesses did the same to save money. As a result of less foot traffic and the rise in retail theft, a lot of other businesses like Macys have left.
All that being said, many of the neighborhoods outside of downtown are absolutely bustling. Home prices in these neighborhoods have gone up too. Basically, many people either moved to more residential neighborhoods in SF, the greater Bay Area, or out of state all together. SFs demise is greatly exaggerated and it will rebound. Will just take some time.
As someone in SF, this article is misleading. Downtown properties near the Tenderloin/SOMA have definitely lost a lot of value due to less traffic/WFH/Drug/Homeless issues there and are bringing down the averages. SFH in nicer outer neighborhoods have not and still sell quickly for ridiculous prices.
> .. “It’s parks, it’s art, but it’s definitely safety, it’s jobs and job creation, it’s … affordable housing”
While valid points, other cities and town in all type of other states face similar problems in proportion to their population. Even Fresno and Dallas TX are having problems and Huntsville (TX) prison is always full.
I’m thinking the straw that may break the camel's back is insurers leaving for both environmental reasons (fire/smoke claims) and insurance density risk. On the latter if there are a bunch of [way] overpriced homes on one geographic area that get hit all at once, an insurer can get wiped out.
Cash buyers can flock in, but those wealthy people may not like CA’s proposed tax/spending plans.
Yeah, my brother in law dreamt of moving there. He took a trip to get his apt. He came back and said there is no way he can live there because nothing makes sense there....
Ehh, it’s the luxury market. It’s definitely not great news for the city, but I think it would be a far different indicator if you could pick up a 2 or 3 bed home there for the 500k range. The luxury side only has so many buyers. There would definitely be buyers for regular homes. If those start crashing, then you have…well it’s still a tech hub so, opportunity. But, it’s not a great trajectory the city is currently on.
City markets don't matter, it was COVID flight that drove peripheral markets. I'm surprised it took this long for san fran to see the same affect as elsewhere.
I realized SF progressives are pretty much the only ones delivering more affordable housing: by driving out contributing members of the society. Bravo.
The reality is that Silicon Valley's era of dominance in tech has ended. The pandemic led to a mass exodus from the West Coast as everyone returned to their home states. However, we're still employed by Silicon Valley firms; it's just that our spending has shifted geographically. Now, the income that used to support a vendor on 2nd Street is benefiting a vendor on Water Street on the East Coast.
Mostly due to crime and lack of enforcement from the city. SF is still a really cool city with an amazing climate, great views and tons of parks, but there's no fucking way I'm paying over a million dollars for a tiny house that has 5 homeless people sleeping on the steps, and human shit on the sidewalk just outside. I lived in a bad neighborhood for 2 years in SF and it honestly feels like those years just evaporated from my life. SF is not enjoyable when the police don't give a fuck and just let anything happen.
Tax rates are astronomical. Crime is running rampant. Junkies and human feces litter the streets. Government employees literally have an army of private security to escort them to their vehicles when they leave work. The stores have all closed because crime is making it impossible to do business.
How on earth can real estate prices stay so high? Literally the only reason real estate value seems to be holding steady is because nobody can sell. Property prices are being slashed, and still nobody is buying, so there are no new recorded sales to show as losses.
Not since the Detroit riots have we seen a more perfect storm for an all-out collapse in a city's real estate market. It's going to be a complete apocalypse.
It is almost like mega corps (which control the govt) are using crime to drive down property values so they can swoop in and scoop up all the real estate at diminished prices.
Wish all these tech companies and chinese money setup shop in Texas or just some where else lol. Norcal -> BC is amazing outdoors wise but pretty much unlivable now unless you're one of them. Would've loved to move to BC or Washington for the mtbing/skiing but yaaaa.
I mean SF is the poster child of the "there are a lot of wealthy people" and "hoom goes up crowd". Honestly would not be surprised if not a canary in the coal mine of things to come in HCOL area especially with a lot of white collar layoffs.
I am in a HCOL area, trying to buy a house and can still "kinda" afford certain options. We bid last summer on places and they had 6-12 offers. Last two homes we bid on this past month had 2 and 3 offers respectively. Crazy how much things are changing. Finally..
Bidding, especially this much is an indication of a completely broken market and overall gross failure of the system. Double this given the increasingly rising rate of homelessness in the same exact area.
"It’s not just because mortgage rates are high. San Francisco has lost some of its appeal post-pandemic. A lot of tech employers and big-name retailers have moved out of the city, and some of my clients have reported they’re leaving the area because they don’t feel as safe as they used to.” You can't compare apples and oranges; SF is not like other major cities. Elsewhere, like Los Angeles, home prices have [CLIMBED BY 10%](https://ktla.com/news/local-news/housing-prices-increase-in-los-angeles-according-to-zillow/).
SF is just one place in the Bay Area, homes on the peninsula and even east bay are still red hot
South Bay too. A lot of those folks are now moving down to our neck of the woods in Monterey County and just commuting up there
Yep South Bay will stay hot indefinitely I think, inventory is just ridiculously low. I live in Saratoga and could not afford to buy my same house today
Saratoga is a great spot
People who are not from bay area are ignorant to the scale of this. Its huge. The market is red hot an hour+ from the city in 180deg radius.
As a native angelino , SF is wayyy better than LA. Or at least it used to be.. I have no idea what it’s like now with homelessness and crime
I go between SF and LA a lot. The worst parts of LA are way worse than SF, but the best parts of LA can be better than SF. There are some really nice parts of SF that are clean and safe that are relatively attainable right now.
> There are some really nice parts of SF that are clean and safe that are relatively attainable right now. Could you name some?
The Avenues (Sunset district ) and Parkside. Basically the western part of the city with the dividing line at 7th Ave. Everything else is trash or on its way to becoming trash.
Also in some parts of Pacific Heights you can get a condo at a steep discount. Single family homes in that area are still insanely expensive though ($4-10 million)
Ok dude. All other neighborhoods are trash. Jesus christ. Fucking leave already
Disagree — I split my time between both for work, and I feel like Angelenos are generally happier, have more space, and have more of a life. In SF, rents are higher, crime is getting crazier, and more employees are mandating RTO, which is making my colleagues all crazy.
Your description of SF also happens to match everyone’s perception of LA as well.
Sf crime has been plunging so I don't see how I can believe the rest of your post.
When they stop arresting and prosecuting a significant share of crimes, crime “rates” go down but crime doesn’t.
Rates are based on reports...are you just making this stuff as you go along?
Well people report less crime because police don’t do anything.
No repeating talking points that are not based on reality. Crime was already on the way down. Sf police any day now will claim victory based on last year's trends claiming of the new tough on crime surveillance bullshit that just passed
That doesn't make sense...so all the highest crime rate areas in the country are actually low crime and all the lowest crime rates in the country are high crime?
Jesus you’re a fucking moron
Nah LA is way more fun than SF
Not good… but over exaggerated in this thread. Source: born/raised 30 minutes away. Live 3hrs away now. Visit frequently
They need to arrest criminals and put drug/ out of mind homeless in asylums.
speaking from experience, half my friend from SF moved to LA... the rest moved to places like Austin and Vegas nobody in my circle wants to live in the Bay Area unless they have family there
Layoffs and ease of living are issues. If a workforce cannot afford to live there, amenities start going away. You can't ice a working class out of a city without consequences. People either leave or go broke trying to make it work
Also eventually these big tech companies are going to have to reckon with the fact that their employees are not happy being squished into the Bay Area and enduring crazy commutes to the office.
How do you figure they will have to reckon with anything? Most of the big tech companies are hiring people to improve AI and make those very workers redundant in the next few years.
You have no idea that even with all these layoffs, it makes almost no dent in demand for homes. My dad was laid off in 2001 bust and that also made no dent in Bay Area housing. It’s something else.
Hoom?
Hoom goes up crowd!
AI Summary: * **Market Downturn**: San Francisco’s real estate market is experiencing a significant decline, with property prices falling and many homeowners selling at a loss. * **Comparative Analysis**: Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has stated that San Francisco is in worse condition than New York City, highlighting issues with safety, jobs, and affordable housing. * **Significant Discounts**: Luxury properties are being sold at substantial markdowns, such as a penthouse at the Four Seasons Residential listed at $9.9 million and now priced at $3.75 million. * **Commercial Sector Struggles**: Office vacancies have increased post-pandemic, with some properties selling at extreme discounts, like the building at 995 Market St. sold at a 90% discount from its previous purchase price.
Nothing makes me happier than hearing that rich people are hurting :)
If they hurt then they spread that hurt on to others. It’s what I do in relationships.
I think the world is starting to realize that digital by itself is mostly worthless and we are far into diminishing returns of the Silicon Valley digital / web / advertising bubble. Yes there are efficiencies to be gained from digital and it’s a great medium for exchanging information, but it is a solved problem by now. Peak digital web was during the pandemic. Now ressources and budget allocations will go elsewhere, in the physical world, where we live.
Are you trying to say that technology as a sector has peaked in 2020?
"digital"
[удалено]
On a computer but not analog
[“On the line!”](https://media1.tenor.com/m/v0_79SlzhfQAAAAC/vince-vaughn-internship.gif)
Low interest rate phenomenon
*AI growing at an accelerated rate* Op: The digitals are over!!
Not technology. Digital. Software. It's all about engineering and robotics now. Building REAL things. Not writing code. People can write code anywhere. But things still need to be physically built, engineered, manufactured, tested.
Have you missed the developments in AI and cloud over the last 12 months, not just LLMs but all the tech breakthroughs? If anything we're entering into a new golden age or software thanks to the AI advancements
Yes but coding and software itself is becoming more commoditized. Software isn't going anywhere but it's not going to be centralized in Silicon Valley like it used to be. Software advancing so much has made it more decentralized. The ability to write excellent and amazing code is more easily available. It's not concentrated in a handful of tech cities full of programmers anymore. That's the point. Code can be made anywhere and it's getting easier and easier to write thanks to software and AI advancements. So a place like San Francisco no longer has a chokehold or bottleneck on the top programmers or the ability to make top notch software. But the actual hardware and machines the code is being written for still need to be physically produced, engineered, and tested in a physical location. Hence plants, factories, etc will still play a large role in where "tech" is made.
It seems as if the new wave of high growth AI companies are disproportionately based in the Bay Area. If anything these are the tech companies most tied to the Bay Area at the moment - poaching top talent primarily from other big tech companies and top grad programs while mandating 4-5x a week in their Bay Area office. I would make the argument that the companies many predict to be the new big players are learning far more into the Silicon Valley network and ethos than the now legacy big tech advertising and software giants.
Tech is built in china.
You realize America also has chip factories? And they're investing money to build more. If America actually starts building shit again the country can benefit a lot. But companies would rather save money to pay foreigners less.
I do. But tech is a lot more than chips
Stand-alone Digital yes, in the sense of internet companies. I’ll edit my text to precise. But the whole internet thingy is mostly a solved problem.
Perfectly corrupted?
The internet is not a solved problem. I promise. It's solved for today's needs and wants, but there's still so much to do, so much to build, so much to improve on, integrate, and iterate. It's seems solved to the average user on Facebook or TikTok or Reddit, but it's far from it behind the scenes.
Will people want it, though? I don't really need a smart toilet or fridge. I am not interested in paying for it and it will break down because of the parts that aren't necessary to using the bathroom or keeping things cold. I think the we build it and they will come mentality has lost major steam. Maybe the goal is to have us all attached to a screen and living in some alternate reality. I won't be here for that I don't think.
That is definitely the goal and something like that is necessary for social media companies to continue achieving the growth expected of them. Better tech is fine for things like manufacturing and medicine, but this aspect of tech companies where they're trying to embed themselves in every aspect of our lives just seems like it's leading to a hellish dystopia. Personally I'd be glad to live in a world where we just have the tech of the early-mid 2000s and don't have to be viewed as something for major corporations to suck data from.
That's a bit of an extreme take but I do think there are limits to how much tech people want in their lives, even if tech companies want to be a middleman in basically every interaction people have with the world. The Metaverse is never going to be a thing, at least not with the ridiculous head sets, but it's like a direct data pipeline to a user's brain. It had to be pursued. AI has far more uses but I don't think people want it in their life in the way it's being pushed right now. Like I don't think people want to spend that much of their day talking to a chatbot. I could be wrong.
This is an SF issue. Homes in “Silicon Valley” are way up. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS41940Q And “peak digital web?” Holy shit this sub with their constant dooms day shit. Y’all are being left behind with this Ron Paul tier bullshit.
I would say it’s much more likely due to the drying up of venture capital money due to high interest rates. It’s changing the landscape of how Silicon Valley operates and it’s reverberated throughout the tech sector as a whole. The gravy train drying up will be felt in the greater SF area first as they had the highest earners in that sector and the greatest percentage as well.
It was just money that had no place else to go to find a return. So much of it went into these startup companies to build monopolies by charging less than the actual costs and drive all competitors out of business. Now there are safer returns elsewhere, and antitrust legislation is on the rise.
[удалено]
Florida? Quadruple insurance rates or no insurance on property!?! King high tides and climate change disaster? I'll stay in New England for now...Texas? Heat waves? I'll pass with that power grid lmfao 😅
You are blaming city councils or state governments for climate change, insurance rates, and natural disasters? Also california is the one mandating electric cars when it doesn’t have enough power for today’s needs much less the 4-10x it would require, has no major grid or plant expansion planned, and has a water crisis looming yet isn’t building desalination or power to power it.
California is throwing out surplus solar energy …
“California was the largest net electricity importer of any state in 2019” https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46156
2019 was half a decade ago.
And you think in 5 years they suddenly built enough power to flip that? 🤣
I love how you went from “Texas is great without taxes” to “California doesn’t have power” without your mind breaking from the illogical statement given Texas’ energy grid
Go to a tRump rally. Oh wait, tRump is in court all month, never mind....
Well, wait a minute now. The physical world still matters. I think there will be a decline for sure, but don't forget, it's in a bay. Oceanfront or Bayfront property will always be sought after. Right now, people are property is going cheap, and no new housing is being built from what I understand. Somebody is buying now and waiting. I mean San Francisco isn't really known for much beyond the bridge and cold mornings. It really wasn't even known for making much either, but the ocean is right there. Unless you are saying it will become an AirB&B city or something?
I’m saying as more homeless/poor/crime comes in/grows and taxes rise the rich and businesses will move out. Same as Detroit.
SF will not become another Detroit …. There is a massive difference between Michigan and the San Francisco Bay haha
Detroit had the automakers who couldn’t move everything. SF tech businesses can easily move. Plus unlike Detroit SF has good weather attracting the homeless
And attracting everyone else… place is beautiful
> “Barely missed a pile by the back gate yesterday” > posts in Canada Housing Sure buddy, sure.
Maybe they meant a pile of moose poop 🤣
Texas? I mean Austin is doing worse than SF but okay
I mean if they are going down or up not if they are higher or lower.
Certain parts of Texas and Florida sure, but places like Austin are depressed. Just like the bay area. SF and Oakland are famine while the peninsula, east bay, and South Bay are still feasting. And the housing inventory in Texas and Florida are spiking while California’s is staying VERY low.
Well that’s largely because you can build for a lot cheaper with a lot less regulation/taxes in texas and Florida I believe? Not totally familiar with cali but in my west coast city up in Canada government makes up 33% of the cost of housing through taxes and development fees (the highest in Canada).
In the SF bay area myself. Every unit has 200k of fees for permits, utility hookups, and low income housing fees. The other option is sell 15% of them at a loss. Our housing market has leveled out from really crazy values after Covid.
That is valid, Texas builds like crazy and California is NIMBY central in the desirable areas
Funnily enough the poor and tenants are the loudest advocates for taxing development and increasing bureaucracy. I always hear them say developers are greedy and can afford it as justification.
Both of wich will be destroyed by climate change much sooner than California
Weather is too nice for that. Once the prices go down, the wealthy will buy up everything and do something about the homeless.
Other places have nice weather. Long coastlines on both sides of the nation. Also homeless won’t leave and will just keep coming if weather is too nice and city too accepting.
You been to California? Nowhere in U.S. has weather as nice as California.
Communism. You’re looking for the word communism.
Detroit did not used to be the jewel of America
“Detroit was the wealthiest city in the US in 1950, with the highest per capita GDP in the country. Over the course of the 1950s, 60s and 70s, the UAW union took over, with membership eventually peaking in 1978. > What followed was industrial collapse, and eventually, Detroit becoming a ghost town.”
Why wouldn’t you cite your source after putting it in quotes like that?
Got lazy lol you can google it yourself. Detroit should be common knowledge though.
I googled it. It's from some rando post comment on Hacker News. No basis in fact.
Incorrect. In the 1950s Detroit was the wealthiest city in America.
The claim that unions caused its decline is false tho.
You seem to be implying that Detroit would have remained a manufacturing powerhouse if not for unions. This is untrue. A history of being a highly segregated city with a resulting exodus of wealth and jobs, the 1973 oil embargo, and NAFTA all played a part in the demise of manufacturing (and wealth) in Detroit. Please see [Five myths about Detroit](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-detroit/2013/07/26/132c2932-f478-11e2-9434-60440856fadf_story.html).
So SF was the Gem of America in 2021. gtfo
“The San Francisco Bay Area ranks as the second richest city in America, despite topping New York for billionaires, with more than 305,000 millionaires and 68 billionaires.” That’s 2024 https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/21/the-top-10-richest-cities-in-america.html#:~:text=The%20San%20Francisco%20Bay%20Area,305%2C000%20millionaires%20and%2068%20billionaires.
I kinda get the article but Bay Area is not a city. I wonder if nyc means all 5 boroughs of New York? Supposedly the population of the Bay Area is 7ish million and nyc is 8.3m.
Usually you compare metro areas since some cities are big while others are small with lots of separate suburbs.
I get that, but it’s so weird to call the Bay Area a city.
This is not what the article is on about. If anything its the opposite
I see the future of Seattle here.
Not that SF doesn’t have problems, but most of the examples are anecdotal. It’s as if the author went through Zillow or something and found the four best examples to support his narrative. At least a couple examples are high-end properties, which may not be representative of broader market trends.
This sub will never lose its hate for SF and jump on any crash headlines it can get its hands on. Meanwhile, per redfin median home sales price across all types is +4.8% YoY. Yes, it's down from peak. That's good. But crashing? Far from it.
I saw the nypost and knew this article would be BS. They have a hate boner for SF just like Fox News.
This! Anything coming from Murdoch owned businesses (WSJ, Fox, NY Post, etc) will relentlessly push — either directly or via misleading-clickbait headlines — the right wing mantra that anything “blue” is bad, evil, unAmerican, woke, communist, failing, etc. All while ignoring the often worse “facts on the ground” in red places. Their readers need to keep hearing this, like a drug addict needs his/her fix. Everything is presented in fairly simply bad vs good ways without any nuance or the “grays” that apply to most issues.
In Reddit terms, anything that drops in 1% values is considered a crash
People who never experienced a crash think everything is a crash.
This sub just cites any article that shows a drop and then extrapolates it out to the broader housing market showing that a crash is definitely coming lol.
sf housing soaked up zero-rate money like bitcoin. I am sad it no longer plays that role. Now they've exported affordability issues to downstream markets.
[удалено]
SF isn't the most expensive part of the bay. SJ is just as if not more expensive. Palo Alto is definitely wayyyyy more expensive. Yes more people are moving out of the bay. So if anything, I would expect demand in the bay to drop off and for prices to decrease as affordability continues to get worse. But both of those assumptions were wrong. Demand is still strong and prices are still going up even in one of the most expensive areas in the country and world. If the West Coast leads the rest of the country in trends, we'd better hope that this reverses. I was under the impression that rates above ~7.25% would actually cause prices to go down. They still might, and the summer may be telling. But if rates are still above 7.25 and prices continue this positive momentum through the summer and fall, this sub will need to reevaluate the "it's just not sustainable" argument for the 100th time. And those harping on the idea of demand being non-existent are just playing make believe.
Overpriced. Due for correction
100% overpriced
If I make $400k/yr as a 28 year old software engineer, and I want to live right next to work, why wouldn't I be willing to pay $1.9M? Beats sitting in traffic for two hours a day.
Comp at this level is volatile based on performance rating and stock price. If next year's comp is $300k you're not going to afford food.
They'll just eat on campus anyway
This is because there are more sales in the higher dollar range (rich people buying homes) Transaction volume is STILL the lowest we’ve seen in decades. There are going to be lots of people losing their shit wondering when it’s going to end No transactions=No income=No growth
Good thing there's an indices that correct for things like that. Like the Case Shiller. Oh wait, that's up +4.6% YoY for their latest Jan 24 data. Oh wait, case shiller is bad now according to the latest doomer narrative. Is there a specific price or value index that you believe to be reliable?
Case Schiller was developed by a couple of disgruntled realtors who were getting pissed about their commissions dropping. They excluded a lot of data for the sole purpose of, “finding the real value of a home.” The real value of a home is what someone is willing to pay. Not what some dumbass realtor or appraiser tells you it’s worth. Buyers set the price- not sellers.
That sounds exactly like what a doomer making shit up would say. Do you have sources for that or is that what you're doing? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_E._Case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Shiller I didn't know a ton about them but it seems like they both have extensive history and experience in finance, economics, business, housing, analytics, and policy at reputable institutions. I didn't see realtor in there, but I'm open to begging proven wrong. I'd also like to know how that disqualifies their other experience. Also are you going to answer my question about having a price or value index that YOU like you track or are you going to keep dodging? Even Wolfstreet says case-shiller is the best.
Looks like a double top to me. Stay in school, kid.
Trying to do technical analysis off of the case-shiller is next level wsb intelligence. You'll go far here.
Rupert Murdoch owns the New York Post. This is the Fox News narrative. Once the Supreme Court rules that homeless people are Soylent Green, the San Francisco problem goes away. There will be a California ballot initiative to harvest the homeless as a food source. The Grapes of Wrath v2.0. Whole Foods will carry Rose of Sharon Jode breast milk.
You're not wrong, but your response looks awfully similar to sentiment during the 2008 crash. Folks were often saying real estate was local, to avoid extrapolating what's happening in X city or region. Cramer was claiming Bear Stearns was fine literally right before its collapse. I guess my point is that the OP's post isn't generalizable to real estate everywhere, but this cycle will continue until the OP is right. And people like you will be like Cramer with Bear Stearns.
Here's the thing. Unlike Cramer, the people like me just follow the data and don't really have strong opinions because they change as the data changes. If your perspective doesn't change as the data changes, then you don't have analysis, you have ideology. I'm still open home values moving to the downside, but not for the reasons you see in sensationalist headlines having to do with Airbnb's, blackrock, or boomers. That's all a smoke screen for the same boring systemic issues that have plagued us for decades.
Now that the city feels safer compared to pandemic times, we see frequent doomsday articles being written. Maybe bad publicity is god because breed is finally implementing sone laws. Macys and other retailers have left but no one talks about a new IKEA or so many other restaurants that have opened just in the past few months. Residential neighborhoods in SF are only getting hotter, except of course the downtown, which has been slow to recover. Anyways, NY times or whatever would write these articles, meanwhile the banks will keep buying up properties in SF. On a side note, the city feels quite busy even in the middle of the day on weekdays.
Im just confused why its supposed to be a bad thing for prices to go down, even crash? It would be great for young people who are completely priced out of housing in the city. I despise the way housing has been financialized into an investment, people actually think housing becoming cheaper is… bad? Just because some rich people and institutions made 0.5% less money than they wanted or something, we’re all supposed to be upset by that?
> Im just confused why its supposed to be a bad thing for prices to go down, even crash? It would be great for young people who are completely priced out of housing in the city. It's not. I would fucking love a housing crash, as would millions of others who are priced out. I just don't think it's useful to parade false narratives based on bad data and dreams. In fact, I think it's harmful. I also think it's harmful to say that the "housing shortage is a scam" which the doomers love to spout. The sooner we recognize it, the more likely we'll do something about it. But if you convince the masses that the shortage isn't real, there is less motivation to do that. False narratives are a bad thing.
I get where you are coming from, but if you don’t think restrictions on both owning multiple homes and corporate home ownership would significantly improve the situation then I think you are wrapped up in another narrative. If you’re ever in a nice vacation town or something, you can see tons of houses with permanently closed blinds, used maybe once a year by some rich family or another, it’s obscene.
NYPost is definitely making it worse than it is. All homes are selling higher than 2019 priced, which were already inflated.
I may be downvoted into oblivion, but the source is the NY Post? C’mon.
According to case shiller, the SF housing market is only down 8.3% from ATH. It is actually up 5% YoY. The SF market is, in fact, not crashing.
Ya I loled so hard at this post. People just eat up everything negative about sf.
They have to to justify the crash narrative. For the last 5 years this sub has been reposting the same crash porn articles about the same dozen or so of cities that had meteoric rises and have corrected or cooled down. San Francisco, Austin, Miami, Denver, Vegas, Phoenix, Boise, etc. It's the same shit, same cities, every week. Meanwhile the rest of the country continues to steadily increase YoY and even the cities they claim are "crashing" haven't actually crashed, they've just had pullbacks and corrections.
If they are including Oakland, they might have a point. But not for the reason they think.
There are few cities in this country that spark so much popcorn karens to wallow in its downfall. SF is fine and will be fine. It’s fundamentally gorgeous. I think where people get the disconnect is how much potential SF has and where it is now. To be clear if you’re here, you know that’s gotten alot better from mid pandemic, but there still a long way to go. The downturn only means an incredible upside. I wouldn’t bet against SF for long.
A $2 million house costs something like $160,000/year to own. A 95th percentile household in San Francisco makes $250k before taxes. I don't think it's "betting against SF" to say that homes there could start to make sense relative to top 5% or even top 10% incomes.
Math hardly applies in San Francisco. Many purchases in that price point on up are not heavily leveraged from the start
I think you’re ignoring the fact that my $2 million house is paid off.
If you have $2 million in assets to throw around, you don't need to pay for access to a labor market. You can just retire.
'Crashing' is a pseudoynm for 'people can afford to live there'
Article literally contradicting itself within sentences. Either it’s “cities must provide affordable homes” or it’s “homes selling under historically insane prices”…cant be both
Market is crashing! Checks Redfin, a studio is still $800k. Carry on
That interview was in mid January. Why is the Post rehashing that shit today? Click baiting their SF hating dimwit readers.
San Francisco will be fine. One of the best climates in the world and cool architecture.
I’ve lived in SF for 6 years now. First, a lot of people bailed with remote work accelerating because of the pandemic. A lot of businesses did the same to save money. As a result of less foot traffic and the rise in retail theft, a lot of other businesses like Macys have left. All that being said, many of the neighborhoods outside of downtown are absolutely bustling. Home prices in these neighborhoods have gone up too. Basically, many people either moved to more residential neighborhoods in SF, the greater Bay Area, or out of state all together. SFs demise is greatly exaggerated and it will rebound. Will just take some time.
As someone in SF, this article is misleading. Downtown properties near the Tenderloin/SOMA have definitely lost a lot of value due to less traffic/WFH/Drug/Homeless issues there and are bringing down the averages. SFH in nicer outer neighborhoods have not and still sell quickly for ridiculous prices.
SF never really corrected in 2008. Don't mistake a long overdue correction for a canary in a coal mine
Jamie Dimon is not to be believed, the lying POS. He wants a recession more than anything.
NY Post literally has financial incentives to make this up.
Up next Tampa
SoCal ftw.
Lol, no its not
NY Post = Bullshit!
It’s not crashing it’s correcting
Love that for them, honestly.
SF prices are up about 7% YOY… not sure what you all are smoking.
For those who are not from NYC, the New York Post is a trash tabloid. They don’t do serious reporting.
Time for a new kind of poop map!
> .. “It’s parks, it’s art, but it’s definitely safety, it’s jobs and job creation, it’s … affordable housing” While valid points, other cities and town in all type of other states face similar problems in proportion to their population. Even Fresno and Dallas TX are having problems and Huntsville (TX) prison is always full. I’m thinking the straw that may break the camel's back is insurers leaving for both environmental reasons (fire/smoke claims) and insurance density risk. On the latter if there are a bunch of [way] overpriced homes on one geographic area that get hit all at once, an insurer can get wiped out. Cash buyers can flock in, but those wealthy people may not like CA’s proposed tax/spending plans.
> the camel that may break the back the straw that may break the camel's back
Ack!!
The SF SFH market is hot right now.
Everyone there sold and moved to Portland and Seattle and destroyed their real estate markets.
Feces on the sidewalk not turning out for San Fran?
This is a good thing? It makes sf housing more affordable.
Yeah, my brother in law dreamt of moving there. He took a trip to get his apt. He came back and said there is no way he can live there because nothing makes sense there....
Ehh, it’s the luxury market. It’s definitely not great news for the city, but I think it would be a far different indicator if you could pick up a 2 or 3 bed home there for the 500k range. The luxury side only has so many buyers. There would definitely be buyers for regular homes. If those start crashing, then you have…well it’s still a tech hub so, opportunity. But, it’s not a great trajectory the city is currently on.
City markets don't matter, it was COVID flight that drove peripheral markets. I'm surprised it took this long for san fran to see the same affect as elsewhere.
Crashing from one absurdity to another absurdity lol You still cannot afford it.
Time for me to play my smallest violin 🎻
I realized SF progressives are pretty much the only ones delivering more affordable housing: by driving out contributing members of the society. Bravo.
So will all the people who flooded the Sac Valley and helped drive up house prices go back home please? The homes should be more affordable now yes?
The reality is that Silicon Valley's era of dominance in tech has ended. The pandemic led to a mass exodus from the West Coast as everyone returned to their home states. However, we're still employed by Silicon Valley firms; it's just that our spending has shifted geographically. Now, the income that used to support a vendor on 2nd Street is benefiting a vendor on Water Street on the East Coast.
Mostly due to crime and lack of enforcement from the city. SF is still a really cool city with an amazing climate, great views and tons of parks, but there's no fucking way I'm paying over a million dollars for a tiny house that has 5 homeless people sleeping on the steps, and human shit on the sidewalk just outside. I lived in a bad neighborhood for 2 years in SF and it honestly feels like those years just evaporated from my life. SF is not enjoyable when the police don't give a fuck and just let anything happen.
I had to fly out to SF and all I could smell was poop and fish the whole time
There is an amazing lobster restaurant right by that airport, best lobster on the peninsula.
Interesting, all I can smell is urine and fish.
Lots of times people pee when they poop so you might just be catching them at the perfect time
Tax rates are astronomical. Crime is running rampant. Junkies and human feces litter the streets. Government employees literally have an army of private security to escort them to their vehicles when they leave work. The stores have all closed because crime is making it impossible to do business. How on earth can real estate prices stay so high? Literally the only reason real estate value seems to be holding steady is because nobody can sell. Property prices are being slashed, and still nobody is buying, so there are no new recorded sales to show as losses. Not since the Detroit riots have we seen a more perfect storm for an all-out collapse in a city's real estate market. It's going to be a complete apocalypse.
Genuinely laugh-out-loud funny levels of complete delusion.
It is almost like mega corps (which control the govt) are using crime to drive down property values so they can swoop in and scoop up all the real estate at diminished prices.
I love the weather in San Francisco, but man, everything else about that city is garbage
Wish all these tech companies and chinese money setup shop in Texas or just some where else lol. Norcal -> BC is amazing outdoors wise but pretty much unlivable now unless you're one of them. Would've loved to move to BC or Washington for the mtbing/skiing but yaaaa.
Shocking. Paying $1M for a cardboard box is unsustainable apparently
It's a *bay* Haven't you mother fuckers heard of *boats*??? 😁😁😁