> Wow, I didn't realize there was a 1979 cutoff.

Frankly, it seems that that most folks who speak in public forums (landlords and developers included) don't understand this. It drives me batshit. (No offence intended. :) )

> Glad to know there's a perk to this oven/icebox victorian.

From what I've seen and heard about those things, I bet it's just about the only perk, eh? :(

About %70-%80 of the buildings in SF were made before 1979 also. So it's not a very useful metric. Go see whats for sale, most of it was built before 1979. Then go see stories about people trying to build a SFH on a empty lot and being block by neighborhood bullshit for over a decade.

> ...go see stories about people trying to build a SFH on a empty lot and being block by neighborhood bullshit...

True. AIUI, it has been incredibly difficult to get anything new built in the city for a wide variety of reasons for a very long time.

However, I bring up the limits of rent stabilization because I often see people saying:

"More people would build in San Francisco if it wasn't for that damned Rent Control in the city."

or

"Rent Control is why noone builds in San Francisco."

It turns out that -not infrequently-, many of these folks don't understand that rent stabilization doesn't cover new construction. [0]

I hope that once one discovers that rent stabilization doesn't prevent a developer from building a new building full of 1000sf (or smaller!) units that -currently- rent for ~3k/month, and can be adjusted to "market rate" at any time the lease between the landlord and tenant permits, one starts digging around to discover more about the especially fucked up process of getting new construction approved in this town.

[0] Except when specially negotiated, as mentioned in my previous comment.

Other perks include plunger-assisted-plumbing and laser-guided-kitties.

One of those two perks sounds immensely adorable! =)