Is San Francisco becoming Manhattan? (Los Angeles: real estate market, apartments, rent)

[luau]

To Shrink Rents, S.F. Considers Shrinking Apartments : NPR

mod cut I wouldnt be surprised if San Francisco had the second most expensive rents in the U.S. next to Manhattan.

[ccm123]

It is already the Manhattan of the west coast.

[Curmudgeon]

Ain't never been or gonna be a Manhattan!

[gone down south]

In this one narrow, self-selected category, then yeah, SF and Manhattan are pretty much the same place.

[BIMBAM]

You don't need to be Manhattan for that to happen, you just need the right confluence of factors in the real estate market. To bring some perspective, we already have 200 sf micro apartments in Vancouver and we're definitely no Manhattan.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by luau

To Shrink Rents, S.F. Considers Shrinking Apartments : NPR

mod cut I wouldnt be surprised if San Francisco had the second most expensive rents in the U.S. next to Manhattan.

San Francisco already has the most expensive rents outside of New York but at the same time, San Francisco is where the term 'anti-manhattanization' was coined by people who did NOT want SF to become wall to wall highrises so they vehemently scrutinize and oppose highrise projects that they feel would destroy the ambience of SF.

I can see their point in some ways, but Im generally very pro-development myself.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Ain't never been or gonna be a Manhattan!

And hopefully, never will be.

[Carlite]

What would it mean for San Francisco to "be Manhattan"? If it's about population density, San Francisco's average density (around 16,000 people per square mile) is one quarter Manhattan's density (around 64,000 people per square mile). So, no, in physical form, San Francisco is not going to be like Manhattan. If you're asking whether San Francisco will have a lot of young, highly educated, mostly childless households like Manhattan, the answer would be yes, although not necessarily in all parts of the city.

[luau]

Originally Posted by Carlite

What would it mean for San Francisco to "be Manhattan"? If it's about population density, San Francisco's average density (around 16,000 people per square mile) is one quarter Manhattan's density (around 64,000 people per square mile). So, no, in physical form, San Francisco is not going to be like Manhattan. If you're asking whether San Francisco will have a lot of young, highly educated, mostly childless households like Manhattan, the answer would be yes, although not necessarily in all parts of the city.

I was just saying that SF seems to be becoming like Manhattan in that rent is insanely high for the square footage. It's sad that I can basically eat whatever I want whenever I want, wear $150 sneakers, and drive and M5 but can't put a decent roof over my head. And in case you're saying - you can afford a decent place if you didn't drive that car, no:

1. It's a used '06
2. How am i going to be an adult and not have a car?
3. If I were to get a car half the price I still don't believe in spending a ridiculous proportion of my income on rent.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by luau

I was just saying that SF seems to be becoming like Manhattan in that rent is insanely high for the square footage. It's sad that I can basically eat whatever I want whenever I want, wear $150 sneakers, and drive and M5 but can't put a decent roof over my head. And in case you're saying - you can afford a decent place if you didn't drive that car, no:

1. It's a used '06
2. How am i going to be an adult and not have a car?
3. If I were to get a car half the price I still don't believe in spending a ridiculous proportion of my income on rent.

You don't seem to quite get San Francisco. This sounds more like a Los Angeles post. Not trying to start anything, just saying...