[tristanm]

There is one way that it would not solve the problem to build more housing. That way would be that most renters and homebuyers are basically irrational, or systematically overvaluing the location of their residence when better options exist. I would argue that this is actually the case in the SF Bay Area.

For example, I live in Pittsburg, almost at the very end of the yellow line (it recently got extended to Antioch). I work in SF making a decent salary. My commute is pretty long, nearly an hour one way, sometimes longer. My rent? Well, for a two bedroom, two and a half bath condo with a garage, porch, and backyard, it costs me roughly $2100/month, and we don't have rent control here. My rent has been raised only twice in the 3 years I've lived here, and only by about $50 each time. The same amount of space in San Francisco, by my best estimate, would cost somewhere between $4k and $5k a month. Also, that space would probably be in a much much older building, in a denser and more dangerous place than my town.

So, one could immediately ask, if I'm able to work in SF with an SF-commensurate salary, and pay this low in rent, why is no one else doing this? As far as I can tell, people even living in SF are very lucky to have less than a 30min commute one way. So I tack on an extra hour per day of commute, or, lets say, roughly 20-25hrs per month.

People do vary in their subjective valuation of a long commute. I probably do consider it to be less of a problem than most people. But do people really consider it to be worth nearly $2k-$3k a month? For someone making near what I am that would be more than my average hourly salary for time spent on the train. Again, people do vary in their respective valuations of time spent doing something other than optimally, but I would be surprised if it was worth that much.

Also consider that housing is continuing to be built on the other side of the mountains in the east bay, and that in Pittsburg and especially in Antioch it is possible to get a lot of space for very cheap, still. Its not unreasonable to expect transportation to get better over time, either.

[anarazel]

> People do vary in their subjective valuation of a long commute. I probably do consider it to be less of a problem than most people. But do people really consider it to be worth nearly $2k-$3k a month?

Yes. Two hours of commute every day make me extremely impatient and unhappy. And grump with coworkers and just generally fellow humans. Even 30min one-way, especially on BART, would make me unhappy. 30min on a bike is OK though.

If it were on a nice train, with seating and desks (to work on a laptop), it'd be a bit different. But BART definitely isn't that.

Before I started to mostly WFH, I had a ~7 min bike ride to work, that was fairly nice.

> Its not unreasonable to expect transportation to get better over time, either.

Do you see any realistic signs that BART into the city will become meaningfully faster or more pleasant in the next ~10 years?

[burlesona]

Just FWIW I have a very similar living space in the city (admittedly older) for $3500. Personally I would consider the $1400/mo worth it to have my 20-30 minute commute over an hour commute, because to me the extra ~60 minutes a day at home is worth a lot.

I don’t think it’s morally better or anything like that, just worth it to me.

My assumption based on market rents is that there are enough people who feel it’s “worth it” for them to drive up the rent, otherwise you are right that more people would be moving out to the edges.

[esotericn]

It really depends on a number of factors.

An hour including a short country walk either side, via a big comfy train with air conditioning, leg room, quiet passengers etc can be manageable. Nice, even. Time to read a book, sit with a laptop, look out of the window, unwind after a day's work, etc.

An hour via a cramped, warm, standing-room-only tube train, with multiple changes, and walking along busy roads on either side - hellish.

The latter, for me, would be a temporary measure for any amount of money. I wouldn't consider that place a home. It's a pit stop - I'd consider myself on secondment, basically, you're saving to go and live somewhere that isn't a bolthole.

[maxxxxx]

"So, one could immediately ask, if I'm able to work in SF with an SF-commensurate salary, and pay this low in rent, why is no one else doing this? As far as I can tell, people even living in SF are very lucky to have less than a 30min commute one way. So I tack on an extra hour per day of commute, or, lets say, roughly 20-25hrs per month. "

To me this increase in commute time means going from having time for extracurricular activities during the week to losing the whole work week.

[tristanm]

Two points I forgot to add:

One, there seem to be a lot of people who commute via car / bart / caltrain from places in the south peninsula, san jose, or south-east bay (fremont area roughly). In these places, rent is lower than SF but not notably lower, especially in the peninsula. And traffic / commute times are notoriously horrible coming from there.

Two, if people are rational about real estate values, it suggests that people truly don't expect any expansion at all to happen in the greater bay area. Not only that, but they don't expect work-from-home or telecommute to become more commonplace. Either of those things would substantially lower the cost of distant living, either by increasing the (future) value of potential real estate investments made now, or by reducing the current cost via reducing lost hours. I can think of arguments why we should expect more WFH, and to a lesser degree more expansion, but that is a whole other debate.