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.
As a basis of comparison, averages and family income aren't really informative.
It's better to go with medians and household income, IMO. They more accurately reflect what the typical person/household makes.
But in any case, SF is vastly richer than Montreal, and no, the higher housing costs don't "even things out". The higher housing costs are, if anything, an advantage for SF in terms of relative wealth, because almost anyone owning a home has really impressive household wealth.
Yup, when ppl cite higher housing prices in SF as washing out extra income, they ignore that that reflects higher equity/wealth. On the other hand though, it also means more money lost to interest payments and property taxes, fees, transfer fees.
Also many ppl in SF rent; higher rents are pure lost money
The high COL in SF is unfortunate overall and could be resolved with smarter/fewer housing and zoning restrictions and a more seamless approval process for projects
Here's a link on some housing data from a research. Neither seems particular affordable to me:
Rank/Metropolitan Market/Median Multiple/Median Price/Median Household Income
263/Montreal, QC/5,1/$287,300/$56,700
325/San Francisco-Oakland/7,8/$568,000/$73,200
I am not from Canada or US, nor do I live there. So I don't know if this qualify by sour grapes or whatever you called me. But I find it absurd bragging about how many extra cars or extra food one can waste when there are plenty of people still struggling, in both cities (~15%+ of the population? Nobody is going on about those statistics besides a few links). I think people have made their point already? SF makes more money. Rich and upper middle class earns more in SF. Houses are worth more in SF. Things are cheaper in general in Montreal. I think people already get that? Or are people really going to hammer it all the way through?
And aren't there anything more interesting to discuss in this vs forum? Like public transport? Architecture? Outdoor activities?
Here's aModerator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowedon some housing data from a research. Neither seems particular affordable to me:
Rank/Metropolitan Market/Median Multiple/Median Price/Median Household Income
263/Montreal, QC/5,1/$287,300/$56,700
325/San Francisco-Oakland/7,8/$568,000/$73,200
I am not from Canada or US, nor do I live there. So I don't know if this qualify by sour grapes or whatever you called me. But I find it absurd bragging about how many extra cars or extra food one can waste when there are plenty of people still struggling, in both cities (~15%+ of the population? Nobody is going on about those statistics besides a few links). I think people have made their point already? SF makes more money. Rich and upper middle class earns more in SF. Houses are worth more in SF. Things are cheaper in general in Montreal. I think people already get that? Or are people really going to hammer it all the way through?
And aren't there anything more interesting to discuss in this vs forum? Like public transport? Architecture? Outdoor activities?
Good points. If it's only about money then there is no use for these threads. I believe Hartford, CT is number one statistically when it comes to money.
So there's no use discussing here - we can all go home!
(That said - I am not sure most of the posters on here would want to live in most neighbourhoods in central Hartford if they saw what they looked like, but that's a whole other story. Or maybe it's not...)
Here's a [Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowedon some housing data from a research. Neither seems particular affordable to me:
Rank/Metropolitan Market/Median Multiple/Median Price/Median Household Income
263/Montreal, QC/5,1/$287,300/$56,700
325/San Francisco-Oakland/7,8/$568,000/$73,200
Let me tell why this is misleading^
First of all, the median home price in San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont is actually $750,000.
But that's not really my point, this is:
There are plenty of people who can afford the relatively small number of homes for sale in the Bay Area at any given time. We have approximately 300,000 households than earn $200,000+ annually and usually there are between 4-5 thousand homes for sale, about a third of which are priced at $1 Million+
So right off the bat, we have a huge issue with supply and demand that affects even wealthy people, so by the time we even get to the middle market, the inventory of homes for sale is tight, the competition is extremely fierce and homes sell very fast and well over asking price in many cases.
So yes, it's expensive if you are a single earner, middle income household. But as I stated earlier, the average family income for families where both parents work is around $150,000 so it's not as difficult as the numbers would suggest.
Quote:
And aren't there anything more interesting to discuss in this vs forum? Like public transport? Architecture? Outdoor activities?
No one is stopping you from talking about other issues.
First of all, the median home price in San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont is actually $750,000.
But that's not really my point, this is:
There are plenty of people who can afford the relatively small number of homes for sale in the Bay Area at any given time. We have approximately 300,000 households than earn $200,000+ annually and usually there are between 4-5 thousand homes for sale, about a third of which are priced at $1 Million+
So right off the bat, we have a huge issue with supply and demand that affects even wealthy people, so by the time we even get to the middle market, the inventory of homes for sale is tight, the competition is extremely fierce and homes sell very fast and well over asking price in many cases.
So yes, it's expensive if you are a single earner, middle income household. But as I stated earlier, the average family income for families where both parents work is around $150,000 so it's not as difficult as the numbers would suggest.
No one is stopping you from talking about other issues.
Well I tried to but my posts seems to get buried under the same statistics you keep posting, so not like I haven't tried.
And besides, on the flip side of what acejack was saying about Hartford, consider the following cities: London, Paris, Rome, Istanbul, Berlin, NYC, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Vienna and so on... Which one of these cities have comparable GDP or income level as the Bay Area? None? Does necessarily mean people would prefer SF over those cities? Not really. I'm not saying Montreal is necessarily in the same league a those, but just wanted to say how there are other things to consider about. But it's city data (civil reasoning will only get you so far) you brag about what you wanna brag about. High house price and number of 1% and wealthy certainly adds to the prestige factor, so what ever float your boat but I don't see anyone arguing with the numbers (even through the linked report was probably well researched so there are basis for those numbers they posted I'm sure).
Good points. If it's only about money then there is no use for these threads. I believe Hartford, CT is number one statistically when it comes to money.
So there's no use discussing here - we can all go home!
(That said - I am not sure most of the posters on here would want to live in most neighbourhoods in central Hartford if they saw what they looked like, but that's a whole other story. Or maybe it's not...)
Hartford is probably the poorest metropolitan area in Connecticut. There's no way it's the richest in the U.S.
The richest MSA is almost certainly SW Connecticut (Stamford-Norwalk or whatever they call it). It's basically the rich northern suburbs of NYC.
Location: Montreal -- close to NYC, Boston, Toronto, etc.
Climate: I would prefer Montreal because I like 4 seasons, but San Francisco can be ideal for some people.
Quality of life: Montreal....The Bay Area is home to some vicious ghettos (Oakland, Richmond, East Palo Alto, etc)
Crime: Montreal obviously has much less crime...
Stores/Shopping: Probably San Francisco....
School/College: San Francisco has more elite universities. Education costs are so expensive in the US though.
Entertainment/Things to do: San Francisco
Diversity: San Francisco by far....
Economy: San Francisco
Culture: Montreal
Food: Montreal
History: Montreal
Overall beauty: San Francisco
Where would you rather live? Montreal...The neighbourhoods are much more interesting in Montreal. San Francisco's neighbourhoods can be surprisingly bland, especially the sunset district and the Richmond district. The homeless population is overwhelming in the Bay Area as well. San Francisco has some very wealthy pockets (Pacific Heights), but at the same time, it has very poor areas as well (Tenderloin). It's not quite as drastic in Montreal.
The people in the Bay Area (and Northern California in general) were surprisingly unattractive. In most cities, people dress up and look very nice (especially in a place like Montreal). People in the Bay Area looked so blah. This is something that struck me the very first day.
Where would you rather visit as first timer? San Francisco has MUCH more to do as a tourist. Not to mention, San Francisco is really unlike any other place in America, geographically. It feels very strange being there at first.
Quality of life: Montreal....The Bay Area is home to some vicious ghettos (Oakland, Richmond, East Palo Alto, etc)
I'm beginning to believe that Bay Area is very different from everywhere else in North America as far as cities with crime and the concept of 'ghetto'. We don't really have any city that is totally void of decent to really nice areas(except East Palo Alto according to a long discussion we had in the SF forum). Anyway, Oakland(Pop 400,000) and Richmond(Pop 100,000) are not 'vicious ghettos'. They are cities with areas that have high crime and some poverty, but much of these cities is quite nice, even very desirable.
As far as Oakland, I could go on and on about great neighborhoods, the foodie and arts mecca Oakland has become, the artist, yuppie and hipster magnet Oakland has become, etc.
But long before the current infusion of culture, artists and yuppies, Oakland already had extremely well established and top tier neighborhoods.
The people in the Bay Area (and Northern California in general) were surprisingly unattractive. In most cities, people dress up and look very nice (especially in a place like Montreal). People in the Bay Area looked so blah. This is something that struck me the very first day.
And that's exactly my impression of Montreal from the jump. I was anticipating much more based on the hype I had heard in New York about how people dress up there, but I attended a society gala in Montreal and trust me, San Franciscans put the Montreal crowd to absolute shame, no contest.
There isn't even a stand alone Chanel store in Montreal-Instead it's a vendor inside of a department store(Holt Renfrew), I found that ironic and a bit embarrassing if you ask me. I mean, since Montreal has a much more intimate connection with France and Paris.
And quite frankly it says a lot about the market's ability, or rather inability, to sustain a store like that.
High end retails are sustained by Asian tourists from what I've read. Montreal doesn't have so many of that. And take into account that the Bay Area is. Twice the size of metro Montreal, and that lots of smaller Chinese cities have a standalone Chanel
Boutiques. But if having one is that important for you, yeah if you want something from say Chanel can still buy it or get it online but maybe lacks a personal salesperson? But I'm sure there're plenty of high end retail shopping in any major cities really in North America. I doubt one has to go to NYC or SF or LA.
In general I find people, both men and women, in Montreal take care of themselves better in terms of fashion and grooming. There's a certain European mentality there that's a bit different than say the other major cities in North America. And they do carry a lot of smaller European brands and have some if those boutiques so I do tend to see the similar style there.
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.
