San Francisco rents vs. South bay rents (San Jose, Palo Alto: apartments, rental)

[leafetarian]

It seems that SF rents are substantially higher than San Jose / South bay. What explains the difference? What makes people pay such high rents when they can get a peaceful place with a yard and garage in south bay and don't have to worry about parking, SF driving complexity, etc.

Jobs are mostly scattered between south bay and SF but I think still mostly concentrated around south bay. And many SF people have to commute to peninsula or south bay for jobs.

Is the lifestyle in SF better overall? Or is it because of convenient public transportation?

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by leafetarian

It seems that SF rents are substantially higher than San Jose / South bay. What explains the difference? What makes people pay such high rents when they can get a peaceful place with a yard and garage in south bay and don't have to worry about parking, SF driving complexity, etc.

I wouldn't say that rents are really that much higher in SF, but in the South Bay you do get more bang (sq. ft.) for your buck.

If you live in SF, chances are getting a "peaceful place with a yard and garage" is not your top priority. Neither is worrying about driving.

[jade408]

South Bay = suburban. SF = urban. In most metros in the US, if the homes are roughly equivlanet in neighborhood levels and amenities, the suburbs are cheaper. It is no different in the Bay Area. For some people, paying the premium to live in a denser area is worth it. Others can't fathom it.

[mdwstrnkid]

Originally Posted by leafetarian

What explains the difference? What makes people pay such high rents when they can get a peaceful place with a yard and garage in south bay and don't have to worry about parking, SF driving complexity, etc.

Reason 53: There are more than 60 restaurants within a 5 block radius of my house.

[gone down south]

Originally Posted by leafetarian

It seems that SF rents are substantially higher than San Jose / South bay. What explains the difference? What makes people pay such high rents when they can get a peaceful place with a yard and garage in south bay and don't have to worry about parking, SF driving complexity, etc.
?

Some people like city living, some like suburban. What answer did you expect to get?

[capoeira]

Originally Posted by leafetarian

It seems that SF rents are substantially higher than San Jose / South bay. What explains the difference?

One reason is that rent control limits the available supply of units in SF. Many people who would move stay because of rent control. This leads to a much lower turnover of available units and the few units available for rent can command higher prices.

For example I know someone who bought a large house in the East Bay but they still keep their very cheap rent controlled apartment on Russian Hill that they had since the 1980's. In a normal supply and demand market this unit would be available for rent.

[mayorhaggar]

Prices around Palo Alto and Western San Jose, Cupertino etc are very high. Average prices of similar units around SF and the Palo Alto area are similar, but apartments and houses in SF are really small, on small lots, and are older with less likelihood of amenities--washer/drier, dishwasher, parking, etc.

[leafetarian]

I think only Palo Alto may come close to the rents in SF. The other places you mentioned are not so expensive compared to SF.

Also, the places you mentioned have some of the best schools in bay area and that is why rents are higher. SF doesn't seem to schools as good as Palo Alto, Cupertino or Los Gatos and schools create a lock on the rental / purchase market. Without living in school district your kid cannot go to those schools. Whereas people can always live in a suburb and travel to SF for social life / dining etc.

capoeira had a good point about rent control and reduction of supply.

I wasn't looking for any specific answer but just trying to understand. Personal preference (being city person vs. suburban) is one thing but often economic factors of supply and demand have a big effect than just vague personal preferences.

I also thought that may be some people in SF get rid of a car which is not possible in suburbs. And avoiding car expense, they can justify higher rent in SF vs suburbs. Is that what you see? Because car expense can easily cost close to 1000 per month including everything.

[ketzusaka]

I'd rather a urban life, so SF is much more desirable than the suburbs of the south bay. I don't care about a yard or a picket fence. Not having to have a car is a big plus as well. All the money that I normally would spend on a vehicle can go to rent.