this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
20 points (100.0% liked)
Bay Area
1424 readers
1 users here now
Discussion for all things Bay Area.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Government mandated consumerism is back on the menu!
It's actually not a minor issue if you're the city. I was reading an article, a couple of years ago, about how COVID-19 made commercial real estate values crash in San Francisco. If you think about what the city "is" -- it's basically an institution surrounding a piece of land and how to use it. Like, San Francisco is that high-density set of office buildings and suchlike. If that falls apart, then San Francisco the city takes a walloping.
American cities tend to look something like a core of high-density office buildings surrounded by a large, low-density network of residences, often outside city limits, with people commuting between the two mostly via car. If people suddenly decide that they don't need to commute into that high-density core -- which is kind of a lot of what the city provides -- that kind of clobbers the city's business model.
Amazon and similar have already kinda done a number on the department store, which was another reason you'd want to go into a city:
I'm not sure that this is a good way to deal with it, but you'd expect the city to be concerned about the prospect of how businesses work shifting away from that high-density model, since San Francisco is kind of invested in the model. Like, if there's no reason to go to high-density brick-and-mortar retail stores and no reason to go into office buildings in the city, a lot of San Francisco's value, that high-density infrastructure, also goes away.
https://sfstandard.com/2023/02/20/san-francisco-is-losing-billions-a-year-in-local-spending-to-remote-working/
Building owners could charge companies a lot of money for office space. But if there's a glut of office space that companies don't want, that goes away, as does the city's tax base.
All of that is a thing to be addressed by making people want to go downtown, not forcing them to at their personal expense.
If downtown commercial retail space becomes worth less, then it might become more attractive to incorporate residential spaces intermixed with the businesses. That would reduce the need for commuting, which is the primary problem with centralized business districts.
It's a chicken-and-egg problem though: No visitors without interesting places to spend money, but no interesting places without visitors.
The mayor is doing what he can within his power, i.e. control over city employees, but it'll be a wait-and-see to find out whether it works, or at least how much it works.
You're right that commercial retail space should be worth a lot less in both capital value and rent than it used to.
But we're in a weird situation where there's little incentive, or there are even counter-incentives, for commercial building owners to lower retail rents.
For example, part of a commercial building's valuation is how much they can charge for rent. If they list a space at say $100/sq ft, the building is valued at such. If they actually rent it out at $50/sq ft, the building's value goes down by about half. This de-incentivizes lowering rents in down markets because that would lower the value of the asset.
Another is Prop 13, which limits the rise of property tax on commercial buildings to 1 percent of assessed value per year, which is much lower than inflation. Under Prop 13, commercial buildings are re-assessed when ownership is transferred. Commercial buildings are increasingly owned by corporate entities, because it is better to buy the ownership entity in order not to trigger the property tax re-assessment. This de-incentivizes lowering rents because the ownership entity is not under financial pressure to rent the space out because the property taxes are so low in relation to its actual value.
That's my un-educated understanding of the situation anyway.
The value is just moving and instead of being centralized it's now decentralized, which is an improvement since it means people have access to services closer to their house and those services are available at times outside of office hours.
Office buildings need to be converted to housing, that's it. Being dependent on people commuting is not sustainable.