San Francisco’s rent prices have never returned to pre-2020 levels

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

San Francisco rents remain about 16% below their 2019 levels — roughly 30% lower in real terms — even as housing costs elsewhere in California and the U.S. have risen, prompting debate over whether this marks a structural shift or a temporary correction. Commenters point to remote work, population outflows, empty units, rent control, and widespread lease concessions as drivers of softer prices, while arguing that the city still faces a long‑term housing shortage and remains expensive relative to most regions. Comparisons with cities like New York, Seattle, and various Sun Belt and NC markets highlight how tech jobs, school quality, transit, and lifestyle tradeoffs shape where people choose to live and what they’re willing to pay.

Overall rent trends in SF and nationally

  • Commenters agree SF nominal rents are down ~16% vs 2019 and ~30% in real terms, despite broader US rent increases.
  • Several note rent declines or softening in other major cities (e.g., Seattle, NYC), though some data sources (like Redfin) show home prices still rising.
  • Some argue SF may be entering a period of high but stable prices, no longer the absolute peak market.

Data, methodology, and “asking” vs “effective” rent

  • Confusion over the reported median 1BR asking rent (~$2,190): some say it feels too low vs listings on major sites.
  • Others note those sites skew to newer, premium units; cheaper stock lives on property managers’ sites or Craigslist.
  • Distinction drawn between:
    • “Asking rent” (headline monthly price).
    • “Effective rent” (after 1–3 months free and other concessions), which many say is substantially lower.
  • Debate over how rent control and long‑tenured tenants distort medians.

Supply, demand, and landlord behavior

  • One camp: SF still has structurally low legal housing supply, so long‑term rents “shouldn’t” fall.
  • Counterpoint: population and office demand dropped; more vacancies plus remote work logically push rents down.
  • Arguments about landlords:
    • Some claim they prefer to hold empty units or offer concessions rather than cut nominal rent (to protect valuations, avoid rent‑control “low bases”).
    • Others argue that strategy can’t withstand a durable demand shift or lender covenants.

Migration and regional spillovers

  • Many accounts of people leaving SF/CA for cheaper metros (NC, TX, FL, etc.), often for family, schools, or quality of life.
  • Destination markets report sharp rent/price increases, with cash‑rich migrants and equity from high‑priced markets seen as outbidding locals.
  • Some dispute how much Californians alone can “explain” these increases.

Quality of life and neighborhoods

  • Sharp split: downtown described as “doom loop” and hollowed‑out; many neighborhoods portrayed as “dreamy,” livable, and even improving.
  • Persistent issues: homelessness, visible drug use, property crime (especially car break‑ins and bike theft).
  • Debate over whether such problems are uniquely bad in SF or typical of large US cities; some frame fear of homeless people as exaggerated, others cite direct threats/assaults.
  • Parents are divided on raising kids in SF vs suburbs; some prioritize walkability and diversity, others cite school logistics, safety perceptions, and cost.

Tech jobs, “vibe,” and location decisions

  • SF/Bay Area still seen by many as unmatched for tech jobs, compensation, AI/startup density, and founder “vibe.”
  • Others emphasize remote work, non‑Bay tech hubs, or refuse relocation despite lucrative offers, prioritizing family ties or lower‑stress cities.
  • Some reject the premise that you must be in the Bay Area to advance in tech; others note this may hold within specific mega‑corps.

Policy: rent control, taxes, and regulation

  • Ongoing arguments over rent control:
    • Critics say it freezes bad economics, discourages maintenance and new building, and magnifies shocks (e.g., COVID eviction/raise moratoria).
    • Supporters highlight high occupancy and steady returns when operated and financed conservatively.
  • Empty homes/vacant property tax in SF is mentioned; some think it might nudge landlords to accept lower rents, others say the rate is too low to matter.
  • Several note SF’s restrictive zoning and building rules as a core structural cause of high costs, even with recent rent declines.

Perceptions vs reality of SF’s decline

  • Media portrayal as a “lawless hellhole” is contrasted with residents who left and then returned, or who insist many neighborhoods are thriving.
  • Others maintain they would never move (back) given governance issues, crime perceptions, and cost, even if rents fall relative to NYC/Toronto.
  • Overall, the thread reflects both real deterioration in some areas and strong remaining pull for those focused on tech opportunity and urban life.