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.
I think these numbers are skewed on the low side because the medians probably include both subsidized public housing units as well as elderly and long-time renters that might have rent protection of some sort in some of these cities.
I'd be a lot more interested in what a list would look with an apples-to-apples comparison, like the rents of free-market apartments of the same size in different cities. I'd assume that the usual suspects -- NYC, San Fran, San Jose, DC -- would come out near the top. But who knows?
Still, that's pretty low, even for outer boroughs. I do wonder how much NYCHA/rent control is seeping in into those stats. The only place that can be that low is probably the Bronx. Both Queens and Brooklyn are definitely not that low for market rents, and those 2 boroughs constitute over half of NYC rents.
Just under half of NYC rental units are free market rentals, though rent stabilized units are often close to market rents outside of Manhattan. The stats posted is all renters. Census says the median NYC rent is $1,167. Median market rent is around $1500:
Just under half of NYC rental units are free market rentals, though rent stabilized units are often close to market rents outside of Manhattan. The stats posted is all renters. Census says the median NYC rent is $1,167. Median market rent is around $1500:
Then the stats are comparing apples to oranges imo. Most cities' numbers in that table show their market rents. Are there other cities on the list where the majority of rents are not free market?
Then the stats are comparing apples to oranges imo. Most cities' numbers in that table show their market rents. Are there other cities on the list where the majority of rents are not free market?
I thought that table was the median rent residents paid, regardless of type (that's what the census lists). In some ways, it's silly to compare by market rent if the majority of renters are paying market rent. Don't think there are any other large cities where the majority of renters aren't free market renters, though it's not an unusual setup in Europe and East Asia*.
*One extreme is Singapore, 80% public housing. Stockholm is mostly rent regulated / controlled. Rent is cheap, but good luck finding an apartment...
Rents are cheap in South Chicago where crime is high. In the more desirable areas of Chicago, tenants pay a pretty penny. It evens out.
yeah I think is case for a few places - similar dynamic in Philly
Chicago and Philly have a higher proportion of inexpensive rents which drives the prices down relative to say a Boston/DC/SF
I think I remember a poster on this forum rotodome who is from philly living in BK being surprised that rents for Philly more desireable locales were not all that much cheaper than BK counterparts (yet sales prices are better in Philly in these areas just not as much disparity on rents)
but Philly like Chicago has large swaths of much cheaper rent areas bringing the rents down
Prices for say a gold coast or rittenhouse square are not cheap by many standards
Weird that Riverside is higher than Seattle. Something is amiss with that.
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.
