What Does the Future Hold for San Francisco? 

“I doubt low-wage workers will commute 45 minutes each way to work in the city” This is already the situation in New York, which is why there are comparisons of San Francisco being the next Manhattan

It's honestly my dream to see your old san francisco theory play out. To see all the tech companies leave and have San Francisco go back to being a cultural center and working class port city would be amazing

You’re like the one guy I can trust to be knowledgeable, realistic & neutral when discussing CA. Appreciate ya!

Kudos to you. You almost never hear a rational, fact-based talk about San Francisco.

The choice doesn't have to be all or noting between 2 story flats and 50 story residential housing towers. A lot of cities (Nashville, Denver, Raleigh, etc.) are densifying their inner core areas with 6-8 story apartment buildings, sometimes with first floor retail. If the average height of buildings in an area is 2-3 stories right now, this type of construction could conceivably double the population density within a given area

I don't live in SF, but, it seems to me that the golden years were post 1945 - 75 - 80. Back when the waterfront still had a lot of shipping and there was a good deal of bay industrial jobs.

Great video! For 2023, it’s hard to nail down specific predictions for the housing market is because it’s not yet clear how quickly or how much the Federal Reserve can bring down inflation and borrowing costs without tanking buyer demand for everything from homes to cars.

My two favorite large cities, SF and Chicago. Lived in Chicago and visited SF quite often. Not as bad as everyone makes it and can be cheap for the day. Riding bikes across the Golden Gate and up Hawk Hill is a blast. If prices come down another 25% it will be real tempting.

I heard that converting office high-rise buildings into residential units often isn't so easy for architects and developers. Tall office buildings have wide floor plates and large elevator banks in the center core. Most high rise apartments or condos have windows with a view which would be different to design from existing office towers.

As a former resident, this was an excellent video with reasonable assumptions. A big issue not discussed are higher interest rates. It has created a very low inventory situation as sellers can't sell their home and finance a new one without incurring substantially higher housing costs. Buyers are also priced out of the market because of the higher interest rates and need the price of real estate to take a major haircut to offset the cost of borrowing. We've had low interest rates for so long that we're in a new era and it's going to take awhile to work itself out.

“You can’t just have upper-middle class and rich people…” *Atherton has entered the chat*

SF really surprised me. I always saw horrible things about the city, and it exceeded my expectations completely. Love San Francisco 💕

I am a native, but I left fifteen years ago because of unaffordability. Sadly it has careened downward perilously. Until the citizens wake up and change their leaders, it will remain a sad shadow of its self. But eventually it will happen. I suspect its decline will continue for another decade at least. People are slow to address problems.

I lived in SF in the 90s and we had a 2 bd apt right up against the Presidio for 1400/mo. That was higher than most CA cities but it wasn't outrageous. The problem w the SE areas you mentioned is that they are old military bases with a lot of toxic chemicals in the landfill. Recently, Hunter's Point, which was slated for large scale development was put on indefinite hold because the city says that it is far too toxic and the Navy lied about it. The area around the old Candlestick Park is more viable but this was slated as an almost quasi-urban suburban type mixed office/housing type of development w a few high rises, but none of these plans included a lot of very dense housing. With the crash in commercial real estate occupancy, which some experts say won't come back to pre-Covid levels until 2040, building more offices is out of the question and it's almost impossible to get developers to build affordable housing. Any residential development will be very expensive. Like Los Angeles, most new condo/apt construction is very expensive. I imagine San Mateo developments would also be expensive. Where all these rich people are coming from is a mystery to me. As far as I can see, nobody is coming up with a solution for middle class and working class housing. 10 units here and 20 units there with the current affordable housing equations for new developments is not even making a dent. San Jose is building public housing for teachers and fire fighters because they can't afford to live in the city. How much longer can that go on? Housing in SF has become unsustainable. The people you need to run places can't afford to live anywhere within 50 miles of SF. How long can that go on? In the 90s, SF had decent blue collar neighborhoods. Those are gone. It's unbalanced. Large cities are successful because they house a wide range of people, with a wide range of jobs, and a place for everyone. Can a large city survive when only the wealthy can live there? Fresno is the last affordable large city in CA. The problem with Fresno is that it is mainly a low wage job center with an almost non-existent professional job market. So, really housing is a state-wide issue. Build lots and lots more housing? NIMBY's will absolutely fight every attempt to densify housing in today's cities even in middle class neighborhoods that will drag out for decades. The path of least NIMBY resistance it to sacrifice agricultural land to do it, possibly urbanizing the whole Merced to Sacramento corridor, and in S CA urbanizing the Fresno to Bakersfield corridor. The problem with that are the environmental issues but also the job market, these are all low wage areas with little to nothing that attract high paying industries. Low educational attainment. High crime and poverty rates. The puzzle is immense. There are structural problems in CA. Prop 13 means that anyone with a sweet legacy property tax deal isn't going to sell, and that is A LOT of people. They can't afford to lose that tax deal. They can't afford to buy a home in CA if they do sell. Again, only the wealthy can afford to buy real estate in CA.

Best and most unbiased look at the city I grew up in.❤

One of the most objective RU-vid videos I have seen since 2020. Bravo, keep up the good work.

NYMBI'ism is a truly anti-affordability movement used to secure home prices. But they also have a reason for existing, even though I dont agree with their points.

Really good video. Balanced, well thought out, with reasonable predictions for its future. I enjoy all of your vids, but this one stands out because of the amount of factors involved. I also have to say that I really enjoyed the SF community map you shared. I had to pause that part to study it. Thanks!

I am one of the “weirdos” who left San Francisco in the 90s. Affordability and homelessness were already a problem then. SF has always been a place in which alternative movements arose but, unfortunately, the tech boom basically ruined the city, pricing out many of the longer term residents who made the city what it was. I live in New Mexico now. Love it here and would NEVER move back. Money changes everything. Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty took a great fall, All the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t put Humpty together again….

great content, well presented. I would challenge one of your premises- I have read that it actually is quite expensive and impractical to re-purpose office buildings for residential, just due to the need to completely overhaul the plumbing and electric.

Two other connected issues - the risk of earthquakes and some areas of the city where - as seen in the 1989 earthquake in the 'marina' district and with the Millennium Tower mess, areas where buildings, should not be built or or where the structures necessary is cost prohibitive.

This strikes me as a different kind of video from your usual fare. Looking at the title, I was concerned you were going to go political, but you kept it really neutral. You're quite the pro, Kyle.

Always level headed information. Love this channel

This California native and resident of SF for thirty years left in 2010. I have returned numerous times to witness its steady decline. I won’t go back again, too heartbreaking. Unfettered greed is the primary reason for the tragedy, there isn’t a close second…

This was a great view into SF . Please consider doing something like this on Seattle. take care

I warned friends and family for several years that California would be a 2 tier state: rich and poor. The middle class has been lost for the most part. Moved out of California last year and it was the best move I ever made.

Excellent. Top notch content, insights, narration. I'm subscribing.

Always enjoy your videos. Thank you.

You can’t build on land fill. Which is what the SE part of the city is. They did it in the Marina District, which is extremely susceptible to earthquakes because the landfill literally liquefies and magnifies the intensity of an earthquake. Liquefaction is far more destructive than building on granite, which is what most of SF is built on .

Great video :)- I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area for over 35 years and I left in August 2011. I have been in Vegas for 12 years now and it seems that things have gotten severly worse :(- Kudos to you for your efforts to this video :)- !!!

From a Geologist.....seismicity and the high cost related to safety in a highly seismic zone are primary challenges to reasonably-priced high-rise residences. While it has not collapsed (and probably will not), the Millenium Tower is a reasonably good example.

It is not just San Francisco needs to build more high rises. It is also Daly City, Oakland, Berkeley, San Rafael and all over the CA coast.

You don’t have to imagine SF or Toronto in the future, look at Vancouver, BC-plenty of dense, high rise housing yet still high prices and high demand. Why do people think cities will become “affordable” if they become Manhattan or Vancouver?

I've lived here in San Francisco for 31 years. I've never seen a contributing member of society (employed or seeking employment) homeless. They are 100% seriously mentally ill and most are junkies as well. I suppose a big problem is the compassion of the city. The homeless get lots of monetary and social benefits, around $1100/month. Many are given supportive housing and then almost immediately kicked out for drugs, fighting. They don't want to follow any rules. Because of my city's generosity it just attracts more. SF has lawsuits against Carson City, Oklahoma City, Idaho corrections, and several others for dumping their just released mentally ill inmates off here.

Born and raised in S.F., but no longer live there. There is only 1 place in the whole city where they can build new high-rise condos. That is where CandleStick park used to be. They can do like Vancouver, BC. Everywhere else is completely saturated with old houses. The city is only 7 1/4 by 7 miles and and is already overpopulated for the space.

For non-biased videos on the USA Geography King is the go-to. With all the variables/issues people are facing - his work is a massive public service.

i feel really torn on San Francisco’s development. on one hand, the urbanist in me sees plenty of potential to densify blocks and extend bart/muni subways up through the west and north sides of the city. but then the architect i am sees the beautiful victorian architecture that is so essential to sfo’s character that would be destroyed by new construction. idk, im really torn.

great nuanced breakdown of this issue! i agree with basically everything you said people who think sf is going the way of detroit are just jealous of all of the assets the city has (walkable, best transit in west coast, vibrant history, great people) and want to see it fail. i love san francisco, and i’m sure it will rebound. i think the best case scenario is that the tech bros get driven out of the city, the state government imposes more housing laws that make it easier to build housing in the city (especially around the richmond and sunset) and all around the bay area, and sf has a return to its old form as a weird, charming working class city.

A quality and professional vid! Fantastic!

It is actually very difficult to convert office buildings to residential. It's going to be interesting to see what cities decide to do with them in the future. In some cities I wouldn't be surprised if they just knock some of them down. It might make more sense to rebuild than convert.

I left the Bay Area because the quality of life and cost of living does not add up. We’re dual income no kids household and it was still impossible to find housing that didn’t cost massive amounts of money. I got tired of it and fled to Chicago. Our money goes much further out here

There’s a whole confluence of factors impeding true urban renewal in the city. It’s historical foundations, earthquake risk, NIMBYS, and more so when the conservatives talk about the city failing, I’d say we are in a better spot than lots of places in America. But still. As much as the council and city hall talks up urban revival they are just as stuck in the pocket of the companies and the legacy residents to make much sweeping change. The pandemic fucked up any short term downtown revival and I personally like people being able to work from home. I want downtown to be more than just boring offices downtown so maybe this could shake things up but it will take decades to truly settle. The bay is a tangle of contradictory ideology, incentives and economics it would take a real plan and the social pressure to do so to really get this much needed ball rolling and the people with all the power and money have many reasons to resist that.

greeting. we are from Croatia. we had a scholarship to SFN last winter and stayed in the city like Alice in Wonderland. Only now that we are better acquainted, we cannot believe what is happening to San Francisco and America in general. We are of the opinion that the problem is drug legalization in the first place.

I agree with the San Mateo upzoning suggestion. But people there like their $5M homes, and are fiercely opposed to ANYTHING that might lower their property values (like increased density).

Good analysis and metrics of the problems. Only four years ago, I would have come to SF for dinner, but not now, and the change is attributable to city government policy changes. The geography of that beautiful city means that it will rebound, once citizens change their requirements for government - and that is not a solution to expect in the near term.

Thirty five years ago I moved out of SF on a job transfer, homelessness had always been where the homelessness are now except, they are now more concentrated to certain areas because of gentrification especially south of market. Before the homeless lived on cardboards and shoping cards, and today they are in tents. There are more homelessness now than before but the percentage is consistent with the increase in the general population.

All good points. I enjoyed your rational perspective. It's refreshing to see something about SF that isn't all about negative complaints and grievances.

Small hotels with single rooms and the bath down the hall were abundant in the 1960's in San Francisco.These rooms in over a hundred small hotels offered a cheap place for those of us new to the city and just starting out.

Here in Melbourne high rise apartments in the downtown area barely existed before the year 2000 and have now become the main solution for creating more affordable housing. Affordability to buyers/ renters, profits for builders combined with lack of planning and guidelines with design means we now have a city centre full of high rise apartments that are mostly visually unappealing making the city look and feel worse. Housing is important but so is the aesthetics of a city. Im nervous to see a city such as San Fran with so much beauty and character be overly changed and developed..

great video kyle. i love how measured and level-headed your approach is to such sensitive topics. very refreshing compared to the sensationalist mainstream media

I spent most of a day there in 1989. Mostly I walked after getting off Caltrain near the Moscone Center (and eventually walking back there). Beautiful place then although there were a few signs of future troubles. Walked under the Golden Gate Bridge, went up the Coit Tower, ate at Fisherman’s Wharf, and so on. I don’t think I’ll ever visit again.

I live in San Mateo County. There is quite a bit of housing construction going on here. But one thing you didn't point out is that most of San Mateo County consists of steep forested mountains. The area along the bay side of the county that is flat enough for urban/suburban development has already been developed. There is no room to build any more single family detached houses. The only way to add additional housing is to build apartment buildings, condos, and townhouses on parking lots, strip malls and other underutilized land in the existing urban area.

I once lived in SF, and over the years visited there frequently. There is no place in the world like it. I expect, however, that the future that the W.E.F. has for large American cities is going to be comparable to what is happening to cities in France right now. It's going to be a very bumpy ride going forward.

San Francisco needs to look to cities like Vienna Austria with 60 percent of residents living in social housing with affordable rent based off income. SB9 will eventually help add more affordable housing options in surrounding suburbs with room for lot splits, duplexes and ADUs.

Good video, thank you for sharing.

I appreciate your thoughtful analysis on the situation. I visited San Francisco for the first time a couple months ago and it aligned with what you are saying. Before I left, I heard a lot of negative talk from people about how awful the city was, and yes, there are a lot of homeless in certain parts, but it is also stunningly beautiful in many areas. Right now, if you have the money, it's a great place to live. The weather is nice, lots of cool stuff to do, etc. But for most people moving there doesn't make a lot of sense right now. It's a very unique city so I'm hoping things moderate just a little bit. I think it will.

The problem with trying to densify SF with high rises is trying to earthquake-proof them, which would be very expensive. Take a look at what happened to Hong Kong - it's an earthquake-prone city with a tone of density but has some of the highest housing costs in the world. SF could wind up in that situation.

Good, balanced overview.

I was there in June. It as so disappointing. The streets were dirty, tent city’s, empty storefronts

I've been saying this for years, Rich in hills, poor below in streets

Every neighborhood of SF needs to be upzoned. The entire west side which is capped at 3 stories needs to be risen to at least 6. Cities are ever-adapting entities which need to change as the underlying population changes. SF has made this change illegal with Exclusionary Zoning. That's why all these problems are happening.

I remember in the 1970’s when people said NYC was dying - crime, homelessness, businesses moving out, etc. And every few years, like clockwork, the NY-based media has predicted LA and/or California’s impending doom. As bad as it is at the moment it is very unlikely to suffer “permanent” decline like the rust belt cities.

Great genius analysis.

thanks for the vid kyle, really appreciate the unbiased content

San Francisco could never be the next Detriot because people will always be willing to overpay for its temperate climate and gorgeous views.

As usual great report!!!

Great insights...I grew up in San Jose moved to Asia in 2017--still love SF and the Bay Area--resided in the Bay Area from 1967 to 2026 and in California for 50 years

After 35 years in the Santa Cruz / Silicon Valley area, I was forced to move away because of housing costs. I ended up in Boise but I see the seeds of the same problems here. People say the problems of California are because of liberal policies, but I believe the problems are due to policies we have all over the USA; California is just further down the same road. There are fundamental things about housing that we do wrong in this country and we have to change them. I don't know what the answer is, but I know people keep blaming the wrong things. It's not "those people", it's stuff we all do.

In 1963 I was framing houses in Pacifica just two miles south of San Francisco. A 1,200 sq. ft. house sold for $19,995. My best friend from high school (Sequoia in Redwood City) bought an 8 bedroom mansion at 26th Ave. and Presidio in 1972 for $65,000... and he sold in three years later for the same price! I stayed in his mansion for two months. I could see the towers of the Golden Gate Bridge from my bedroom on the third floor. And, would you believe, that even back then everybody thought San Mateo and San Francisco county were ridiculously overpriced.

This was the first time I heard the term "Torontify". We "Torontonians" refer to what's happening to our city as "Manhatinization". Great video.

I recall hearing that SF intentionally resists vertical growth and prefers the suburban low rise, low-efficiency land-use layout, especially near the water. Is that (still) a phenomenon that is going on? Has SF lost the momentum of the tech growth while other cities now vie for those companies to set up shop there?

I grew up in SF, in the top half of what we called a flat, at 422 Naples St. One of the houses you highlighted here is on Naples. That area is called the Excelsior District and is considered one of the last "affordable" neighborhoods in the City. Much of the housing you spoke of here is in or very near the Excelsior. I thought actually that several of the prices you showed were "suspiciously low." The house at 278 Niagara Ave is absolutely beautiful. For me, that is classic San Francisco, Excelsior District architecture. It reminds me of my childhood. Oh! As a matter of fact, my thumbnail is a picture of the neighborhood famous Azteca Market at the corner of Naples and Excelsior. Great food. You must go.

I live in San Mateo County. A lot of the land here is mandated as permanent open space. In the town I live in along the Pacific coast, it's about 50% permanent open space. For the remaining land that you supposedly can build on, building regulations are onerous and existing laws make it incredibly easy for a single individual to tie up any kind of development by filing a lawsuit or appeal. You can't build a birdhouse here without someone suing to stop it. This is actually a problem along the whole coast of California. State tax laws here are such that cities get a lot more tax dollars back for building commercial space than housing, so that's another impediment. Also, the people who own the empty skyscrapers in downtown SF say it's far too expensive to convert the empty office space to housing, due to substantial differences in building codes between office buildings and residential buildings. Only really old buildings can be converted. I do think more people need to be living downtown. Without office workers, much of downtown has become a 24/7 ghost town. I do expect SF will fully recover, but into what, who knows? The political leadership that SF has now needs to be almost totally replaced before that can happen, though.

As a Canadian, I'm not sure whether I should be impressed or disappointed seeing the rent and housing prices in SF be roughly the same as Toronto, if not lower, even factoring in currency conversion.

You pointed out a big problem with reducing homeless. A lot of these people are not functional. Its not like they hit a streak of bad luck, its a combination of mental illness and drug use that have gotten them to a point where there is no return. We need to build asylums in an isolated location and have them placed there where they can get into a rehabilitation program, become stable, then pick up a skill. But we have to come to terms also with the fact that many will never qualify to go back into society as functional members due to the potential for relapse. Thats where you use taxes plus the skills they earn, whether thats carpentry, farming or low wage jobs, they go back to the asylum campus every evening and live out the rest of their lives there. I know, it sounds like I'm sweeping them on the carpet. Well yes, technically, but what better options are there?

The tech companies are facing conflicting choices. On the one hand they want people back in the office but that means they have to pay high wages so people can live near those offices.On the other hand they want lower labor cost so could hire remotely, even overseas. Being profit seeking entities I think that they will opt for the later in the end thus SF will lose a lot of high paying jobs and go back to a more balanced income city like it used to be. The insanity of the vicious cycle of paying people a lot to live in SF only to find those high wages bidding up housing costs thus necessitating even higher wages has come to and end because the tech companies are now putting profits first since that is what Wall Street is now demanding.

The city of South San Francisco is in San Mateo county and is building dozens of apartment buildings, especially near 101. The longtime residents hate it, because we have always been a quiet suburb with neighborhoods. But the city council is continuing to build more and more.

Love this channel

Interesting to compare to Vancouver, a west coast city thats experincing super high house and rent prices and that also needs way more supply. The difference is Canada has less options when it comes to big cities to live in, and Vancouver is the only major city with mild winter weather. Needless to say there won't be any downward momentum on housing prices here anytime soon, unlike San Francisco.

San Francisco doesn't have the racism of 1950s Detroit (the overwhelming cause for its failure), and didn't put all its eggs in one basket with the car. The next Detroit is the next city in Florida that gets hit with a Cat 5. The last private insurers in the state will leave, putting the state on the line for all insurance, raising rates and/or taxes, and chasing away potential movers. It's the Cat 5 after that which bankrupts a US state.

I appreciate your California content very much

I used to live in financial distinct, and pay $6600 for a 2b2b in 2021. Housing was so expensive, and I almost bought an apartment there. Glad that I didn't. Now everything is cheap, and I used those money to pick up the half priced tech stocks.. Will wait some hikes of interest rate to buy back the apartment again. The HOA in SF is just insane.

Well done video with great insight. You should be a city planner.

Urban blight is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The worse it gets, the more people stay away. I live in the East Bay, and my neighbors no longer go to the City just to hang out like we used to. We'll go for a specific event like a concert or museum, pay extra to park in a guarded lot, then high tail it home. But the opposite could also happen in the future if a few issues like car break-ins and public sanitation can improve. San Francisco has great potential.

There is a ton of space on the west side of town. Tear down some of those doelger houses and you could fit a tower in there easy. It's just that nimbys fight that stuff by tooth and claw.

This is just like Seattle. It's difficult as a dual income household making decent money to afford to rent anything in the city. It's just become unrealistic to keep living here.

Very interesting video. One big typo error-in the map of Bay Area counties, the county on the north side of the Golden Gate Bridge is labeled as Mann County. That’s actually Marin County.

I love it here in Ypsilanti MI!

I’m looking forward to a day when San Francisco gets an iron-fisted government, and makes “The Final Sweep” through areas like the Tenderloin and improves on it. There was a day when I was empathetic to the homeless and the troubled downtrodden. But those days have long since sailed. San Francisco deserves better, even if it means being strategically tough and merciless. Enough is enough!!

Good job! Can you do a similar type of analysis for Chicago?

Excellent analysis !!!! My thoughts are, solve the crime issues, and/or homelessness first. An unsafe city, real or imagined will continue to drive business and people away. Spot on with the SE corner of San Francisco....that's the only place available to develop more housing.

There has been some wonderful mid rise construction in Los Angeles. The new University Village near USC is a great example of the type of human scaled, dense, mixed-use development that I hope catches on. SF is absolutely not "completely built out" -there is certainly infill and upzoning opportunities, and buildings will naturally be updated and rebuilt over time. SF has fairly old housing stock for the type of construction used. Luckily, people are catching on that density is essential for the health of the city, long term. You can move people around more efficiently and be overall more productive when people are close to work. The amount of people that have to travel into the city for work is crazy, and the time they spend commuting is wasted for everyone.

Houston gets criticism for not having zoning, but it allows for redevelopment of former industrial and commercial areas into housing or other land uses. Homelessness has been significantly reduced in recent years while others cities increased. Much of the housing for the homeless has been in reimagined light industrial areas.

You raise some great points

I remember watching “The Streets of San Francisco” growing up. Even though the location on the map is the same, it’s a totally differed place, and not in a good way. 📺 Where I worked they had a main office downtown, and satellite offices out where a lot of employees lived.

There are so many haters out there and I'm sick of it. Thanks, GK, for a balanced take as always. You know what the animal on the San Francisco city flag is? A phoenix rising from the ashes. Ok the flag is atrocious- but the point is the city is continuously reinventing itself. The weather is gorgeous here today. People are out and about and having a great time. And only about a century until they build Starfleet Academy...

My second favorite US city!!

Saying San Francisco will NEVER be like Detroit is completely closed minded You'd be surprised what can happen in 20 years.

As a very long time home owner in San Francisco I hope the cost of housing remains high because I'm banking on it for my retirement, that said the only reason why the cost of housing is so high isn't lack of availability it's because what has been crowned a "fundamental right" is still allowed to be used as an investment opportunity. And I don't mean by people like myself who see high rents as a very comfortable future, I'm talking the bigger players, the players who have never lived in the city, the investment firms, the hedge fund managers, the overseas investors, basically entities with much deeper pockets that most any individual that can outbid on property to turn around and turn it into rentals. Now I don't know what the solution is for something like this, maybe something as simple as any real estate listing MUST sell the property for what they list it as and not allow bidding? But yeah something needs to be done at the government level and it does not involve selling city owned land to developers hoping that a small percentage of units are sold at below market value.

Perhaps a new generation will move in to revitalize. No one is going to move back. Reason being there will never be what was...our moments here. There may be that for those who come, but not for those who left. I live in the TL. It's horrible here.