1 bd rent in SF hits new high: $3690 per month (San Francisco: rental, refrigerators)

[MechAndy]

Seriously Cowboy,
I think you are right.
It all depends on what you consider “better end”.
My view might be different than most because of the small bubble I work in.
Thanks.
Andy.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by MechAndy

Seriously Cowboy,
I think you are right.
It all depends on what you consider “better end”.
My view might be different than most because of the small bubble I work in.
Thanks.
Andy.

No problem - when you mentioned only 6k for ‘better end’ (keep in mind the average for a 2BR is 4500), I realized you were not talking about the luxury market (which cranks upward drastically). But it makes it clear what a person is getting in the rental market for $3500.

[Finper]

What's going on with the tilting building the Mellennium Towers? Did the condo owners lose everything? Typical SF they can't do anything right infrastructure wise.

[lostsoul359]

Maybe this has something to do with it:

https://fox5sandiego.com/2019/03/12/...ission-scheme/

[KoNgFooCj]

Originally Posted by Oakformonday

The new high rise in Oakland on Franlkin and 17th is renting 1 beds for $3,450. Not as much as the one you are highlighting but getting close and already an SF price, I think? And, it is in Oakland!!! What a transformation.

Livelovezo.com Ask the bot for pricing.

Oakland is gentrifying FAST. It's already becoming unrecognizable and poor groups are being pushed out.

[Corvette Ministries]

Originally Posted by Chicago_Person

...

Low wage jobs will always be needed in any city. Where do these people live?

...

Good question. From the referenced article,

The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development said last year that a family of four earning up to $117,400 qualified as "low income" in the city.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

It’s not relevant to people who want to (or have to) move here. If you are taking a random family and giving them the option to go anywhere, sure it’s relevant to them (but it still is not relevant to supply and demand for an apartment here). You are confusing relevance as it pertains to supply and demand (my original statement) - with relevance as it pertains to an individual’s decision.

Before they have even decided to move here they took into consideration the cost versus other areas, so it is relevant. If San Francisco hits a new high in 1 bedroom apartments, most likely other forms of housing has also and that would factor into someone’s decision to move here.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

Before they have even decided to move here they took into consideration the cost versus other areas, so it is relevant. If San Francisco hits a new high in 1 bedroom apartments, most likely other forms of housing has also and that would factor into someone’s decision to move here.

Again, it’s certainly relevant to the individual making the decision - but it is not relevant to supply and demand. Apartment vacancy rates in SF remain low - the demand continues to outpace supply.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

Again, it’s certainly relevant to the individual making the decision - but it is not relevant to supply and demand. Apartment vacancy rates in SF remain low - the demand continues to outpace supply.

How can you say price has no relevancy to demand? You don't think that if the average rent was $900 a month there wouldn't be even more demand?

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

How can you say price has no relevancy to demand? You don't think that if the average rent was $900 a month there wouldn't be even more demand?

Because it’s demand relative to SUPPLY. That’s why I mentioned the low apartment vacancy rate.