Top 5 median rents in then nation. Agree or disagree?

[nei]

Originally Posted by Bluefox

Weird that Riverside is higher than Seattle.

Rents are expensive, houses are cheaper than Seattle. Median owner-occupied home price is $251k for Riverside, $441k for Seattle. It's a frequent suburban pattern: rentals are scarce but homes to buy aren't. More extreme is Suffolk County, NY (Long Island). Median rent is $1480 / month only San Francisco is higher, but the median owner-occupied home price is $395k, less than many big cities.

[anonelitist]

Here are some facts to clear the air.

1) These numbers include subsidized and rent-controlled units. There are 2 states remaining with major cities still subject to rent control:

a. NYC has grandfathered rent control units that make up 50,000 very very old units in the city, though it has a "rent stabilization" program whereby a landlord can only raise rent per annum by 4% and reset to market if a tenant leaves (about 1/3 of NYC apartments are subject to this). Only apartments in highly desirable areas achieve any sort of super large discount to market, and 35% of rent stabilized occupants have lived in their apartments for 20+ years. If a tenant leaves, there are easy ways to take the unit out of rent stabilized circulation (off the bat rent can increase by 17%, and $1 for every $40 spent on improvements). Once a rent of $2500 is achieved, the unit is no longer subject to regulation, and that is not a high number to get to in much of NYC.


b. In CA, it's much simpler. SF, SJ, Oakland, and Los Angeles, among other smaller cities, have rent control for all units in these respective cities built prior to 1979, which are subject to 2% increases per annum, and can reset to market once a tenant leaves. They will never be taken out of rent stabilization circulation, though, unless the program is gotten rid of.

For San Francisco, this means that roughly 75% of rental stock is subject to rent stabilization. Similarly and probably more starkly to NYC, most residents in rent control have stayed put and passed on their rent stabilization through the family for many many many years. Because the difference between the average rent stabilized rent and market rent in SF (more extreme than in NYC), more people stay put.

c. For public housing the following link offers a comparison of 5 cities:

NYC = 8.3% public/section 8/low-income housing
LA = 3.2%
Chicago = 5.5%
Houston = 3.7%
Philly = 4.9%
SF = has 31,300 units of public/section 8/low-income, which is 9.2% of all housing units, among the low-income count, the city has the highest concentration of "SROs" remaining in the nation (single-room occupant units), with more UC

Hopefully that clears up both rent control and public housing. Ironically, the cities with the highest in-place median rents as of 2012 also have the most rent-controlled units and the most public-housing. So let's get to what market is, and why the media is still so high even with all of that rent-control and subsidized housing.


Moving on to market rents:

1. San Francisco

$3200 citywide median according to Livelovely (a tracker) and $3437 within 10 miles of city according to Rentjungle
This means $2200 for studios, $2775 for 1 BRs, and $3795 for 2BRs according to Livelovely, and $2897 and $3898 for 1 and 2 BRs respectively according to Rent Jungle.

There are some neighborhoods that are cheaper and some that are much more expensive. The links below have the deets, by bedroom and neighborhood -

Are You Sitting Down? SF's Median Rent Rate is $3,200/Month - The Numbers - Curbed SF
Average Rent In San Francisco, San Francisco Rent Trends and Rental Comps

2. San Jose

$2255 median rent with limited rent stabilized units and public housing (had 60% the population it does today in the year that rent stabilization was enacted, was a single family home bedroom community at that time)

3. San Diego

RentJungle pegs median rent in San Diego at $1683 right now, with 1 BRs at $1389 and 2 BRs at $1752.

Rent stabilization and public housing are basically a non-factor in San Diego, which is why the 2012 median is only slightly less than the market-rate median presented above.

4. Washington DC

RentJungle pegs the DC market-rate median at $1824, with 1 BRs going for $1692 and 2 BRs going for $2070.

Obviously there are neighborhoods that are much more expensive. The medians for U Street, Georgetown, and Logan Circle are between $2500-2800

5. Boston

RentJungle has Boston higher than DC with a median of $2480, with 1 BRs at $1990 and 2 BRs at $2413. I follow apartments a good bit and I can tell you that the Boston overall median is skewed by studios.

Boston.com has the neighborhood breakdown. The most expensive neighborhoods are Back Bay, Charlestown, Beacon Hill, Bay Village, and North End, where average rents are between $3500-3800, or $3.30-$3.50 per square foot (that seems a little low, but indicates that studios/1BRs probably approach or exceed $4).

6. NYC

This deserves a breakdown by borough.

Manhattan - $4,022 ($6.60psf, 43 days on market avg)...$2573 for studios

Brooklyn - $3,111 ($3.23psf, 42 days on market avg)...$2658 for 1 BRs

Queens - $2,709

Curbed has a great breakdown: Brooklyn and Queens See Tons of New Renters, So Prices Rise - Rental Market Reports - Curbed NY



So the bottom line is that there is New York, then San Francisco, then everyone else.


NYC and SF have great data. Because rentals are SOOO much higher in these two cities than anywhere else in the country, and yes that includes DC and Boston, there is an incentive for the general population to be super educated about what they can get and how.

[anonelitist]

NYC has great websites with free data:

Manhattan Rental Market Report | MNS is Real Impact Real Estate

http://www.citi-habitats.com/media/pdf/RMA_7_2014.pdf



Lovely just came out with data on 5 major cities:
Drumroll please, introducing the Lovely Rental Market Report - Q2 2014 - Lovely Blog


Only SF and NYC have an abundance of neighborhoods where the average rents exceed $4,000, and both cities are notorious for very small square footages to boot, such that it's not uncommon to pay $5-7psf in either city. New housing going up in SF is renting at $8psf in some cases, though a discount in whole dollar amount as bathrooms and kitchens are shared by floor. This is happening in NYC, as well, as well as in the hospitality sector (hotels in both cities are now featuring "pods").

NYC has FAR FAR higher peaks, however. The peaks in NYC are too insane to put into words. Tribeca rents are far and away so much higher than anywhere else in the country. But where SF has NYC is low inventory and insane demand, such that while the average time for apartments in NYC to stay on the market are ~40 days, they are down to 13 in SF.

An interesting comprehensive article on SF's housing crisis is below:

How Burrowing Owls Lead To Vomiting Anarchists (Or SF’s Housing Crisis Explained) | TechCrunch


Hopefully people can use these materials to see how their markets might compare.



And everyone should note that the Table in the OP is SELECT cities. The cities at the top of the list are all the cities at the top less Honolulu.

[rnc2mbfl]

Originally Posted by MassVt

The top 6, including Boston, seemed accurate, although I think that the prices for NYC seem a little low, median or not..

The biggest surprise: Jacksonville, at No. 14, with a large increase since 2000. I really don't see the appeal..

Rents in Florida reflect the fact that being a no income tax state results in higher property taxes that get passed along to tenants.

[dalparadise]

Any remotely desirable 1BR in San Francisco--we are talking about a 650 square foot place in a neighborhood north of Caesar Chavez and east of Divis. without parking-- is at least $2700-$3000 these days. That represents the most active rental neighborhoods in the City. In certain areas, rents are thousands more than that, but for something livable and remotely interesting to a professional, you will be hard-pressed to find anything less expensive. Just sayin.

[NYMTman]

San Jose is ludicrously overpriced. We're basically a more sterile version of Dallas, with 5x higher prices. It's unbelievable how much money people are willing to shell out to live here. I'd take LA or SD over San Jose, any day.

[Jason_show]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

Any remotely desirable 1BR in San Francisco--we are talking about a 650 square foot place in a neighborhood north of Caesar Chavez and east of Divis. without parking-- is at least $2700-$3000 these days. That represents the most active rental neighborhoods in the City. In certain areas, rents are thousands more than that, but for something livable and remotely interesting to a professional, you will be hard-pressed to find anything less expensive. Just sayin.

It's true. One of the issues is rent control -- tenants who have been in the same apartment for a while are paying much less than people who have recently rented. The landlords have to make up the expenses from someone, so the person in a rent controlled apartment may be paying $1,200 but a person who has just rented a similar apartment in the same building may have to pay $3,000.

[baileyvpotter]

Originally Posted by Tor_Nado

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.

I suppose it does even out (statistically) however after reviewing the article, I have to ask what about
all the people in the middle? Also, some of the cities have rent control whereas others do not.