Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also, to Grapico's point: yeah, the North Bay is a whole different beast - by far, the least urban part and accessible part of the Bay Area.
You can find some (relative) deals on the Penninsula along the CalTrain line in places like San Mateo or Redwood City, but they are few and far between, and those places are not very exciting (although, there are some pretty cool downtowns in the Penninsula).
South Bay is way overpriced as well and far from SF.
I honestly think East Bay is your best but even that's going to be pricey. Also, Berkeley and even the nicer parts of Oakland will be a little cheaper than the Sunset and other outlying SF neighborhoods.
I don't think these two cities know anything other than quality. I've lived in one and have been to the other more times than I can count. You're talking about two of the top 5 (undisputed) cities in all of America. Beyond that point, this is just splitting hairs. If you could find an apartment that fits your budget 1-2 miles from the shoreline in either place, I can promise you that to your friends, you'll be living one enviable life. In terms of stock, I've fund the hard wood, granite counter-top, lots of windows with a view aspects of both to be on par.
Chicago will be more affordable though, I think that's widely known however.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,133,609 times
Reputation: 3145
I believe Chicago has nicer, newer apartments within ranges that the largest number of people can afford. Both cities have dream-like residential available to the very wealthy and nightmarish places for the very poor.
In the middle, SF is ultra-competitive, perhaps more so than any city in the country. Plus, a merely average place in SF costs as much as a much higher-end place in Chicago. An average 1 BR (650-800 sq. feet without parking) in a good neighborhood in SF is now going for over $3000/mo and will have lots of competition to lease. Even moderate neighborhoods command more than $2300-$2400 per month for a 1BR. There's no other way to characterize this than "insane". With all the competition and the rent control laws, there is little incentive to update them either. The landlords churn 'em and turn'em as much as possible.
$3k can get you an average 2BR or a deluxe 1BR in Chicago and you would have your choice. Thus, I think, with all things being equal, Chicago has much better apartments for the vast majority of lessees. That said, though SF charges more for lower quality places, it ultimately is worth it to me.
dc is more expensive than philly how can u be happy living there? philly rapes dc in urbanity. rmr dc was a swamp when philly was the nations capital
Thanks for the rep, anonymous.
I choose to live in Washington because I like it, I'd gladly pay an arm and a leg to live here for the lifestyle it offers me. On top of that, a clean, sophisticated, highly educated, affluent, and diverse city with some of America's best architecture and cultural amenities. Plus a great place for career building with some of the best non-stop service to other countries in the world.
That's why I choose to live happily in Washington.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,133,609 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by valentro
Thanks for the rep, anonymous.
I choose to live in Washington because I like it, I'd gladly pay an arm and a leg to live here for the lifestyle it offers me. On top of that, a clean, sophisticated, highly educated, affluent, and diverse city with some of America's best architecture and cultural amenities. Plus a great place for career building with some of the best non-stop service to other countries in the world.
That's why I choose to live happily in Washington.
Ha ha, I got one, too...
how can u be happy with the col in sf? rmr philly has evrything sf has in better qualty for half the price.. rmr philly rapes sf's urbanity. sf is a nice resort town tho but its not phillys level imo
$3k can get you an average 2BR or a deluxe 1BR in Chicago and you would have your choice. Thus, I think, with all things being equal, Chicago has much better apartments for the vast majority of lessees. That said, though SF charges more for lower quality places, it ultimately is worth it to me.
You are greatly overestimating rental prices in Chicago. An "average" 2BR can be had for roughly half that. 3K will get you a very high-end 2BR or could even get you into a fully detached house.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,133,609 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
You are greatly overestimating rental prices in Chicago. An "average" 2BR can be had for roughly half that. 3K will get you a very high-end 2BR or could even get you into a fully detached house.
Sorry, I meant more of an average 2BR in a prime neighborhood, which was the apple I was comparing.
Sorry, I meant more of an average 2BR in a prime neighborhood, which was the apple I was comparing.
You're still way overestimating rental prices here. You can easily get a nice 2BR in a prime neighborhood for 2K or less.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
