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.
with shared bathroom?! They picked one of the priciest neighborhoods in the city, though they found a rent stabilized unit, unsure of how easy it is to get. For some of the cities, rental prices vary a lot by neighborhood.
I think it's hilarious how the Manhattan apartment is probably considered a steal there by New York City standards. I can hear the occupant bragging about having a rental-control unit with a shared bathroom in Greenwich Village for ONLY $1500 and others being jealous. I have a studio in West Des Moines, Iowa that costs about a 1/3 of that. It's bigger, I get my own bathroom, and there's even a shared swimming pool, partially paid utilities, and laundry facilities on the premises lol. And my rent has risen significantly recently. Of course, it's not in the heart of the largest city in the nation with its plethora of big-city amenities. Obviously location makes a huge difference in rent whether it be between cities or neighborhoods within cities. Rents in the newer part of the I city I live in are way more than the rents in my neighborhood. Anyway, this was a fun article. I always like these kind of comparisons. Thanks for posting, OP!
Living in New York is absolutely not worth spending every last penny you earn on a rathole like the one shown in the article. It's insane people can live like that and think they have it good. I've got all of the same amenities you can find in any average Manhattan neighborhood right here in South Minneapolis...and my apartment is easily four times the size of that walk-in closet at half the cost!
That being said, by no means am I against living in small/manageable spaces. I really wish well-designed micro-apartments would take off in the Twin Cities. If I could get a place for half the price (and half the square footage) but still have roughly the same amount of actual living/storage space (with fold-out furniture and the like), I'd definitely go for it.
Not great, but certainly better than some of the options shown in the OP's link.
Yea, definitely not great. Really only better than the NYC and Boston examples. Still, good to have a different perspective for the major cities--thanks for posting.
Yea, definitely not great. Really only better than the NYC and Boston examples. Still, good to have a different perspective for the major cities--thanks for posting.
^^^Well that all depends.
The example from LA is in the Fairfax district, which puts you between West Hollywood and Hollywood, in one of the best, most vibrant, transit-rich and interesting parts of town. Definitely a super desirable neighborhood. Furthermore, clearly more spacious than NYC's, SF's and DC's example and yet hard to tell if it is indeed more spacious than Boston's though I would presume so. Cat allowed, on-site laundry, window AC, upgraded appliances, large closets and definitely a sizable 1 BR, WITH included covered parking (that would never happen in some of the other cities where parking is either not available or it's $350+/mo for a spot, or a spot can be bought for $80K+++).
Still super expensive compared to most US cities but better than only NYC's and Boston's examples?
NYC's is clearly the smallest, but then again it's in one of the priciest and arguably most desirable neighborhoods in the entire city - 2nd only to Tribeca, Chelsea, NoHo, Flatiron, DUMBO, and NoMad.
Boston's actually looks quite spacious, and has nice finishes (it's the current owner's horrible furniture that makes it look "bad"), but it puts you in a purely residential neighborhood away from high quality transit and sandwiched in a housing zone between BU, Harvard, and BC. Could be very appealing to some, or complete turn off to others (like me - Boston is already pretty quiet and less nightlify, no need for additional separation), but definitely not an "undesirable" neighborhood.
SF's is smack in the middle of the Tenderloin and looks easily 2nd smallest to NYC's. Furthermore, even in the TL it's pretty difficult to find a place of that "quality" for $1500. This is what is being offered in the TL now:
Well the point of the article still holds. In IAC, Omaha, KC, etc you could easily get an extremelynice downtown apartment in a better location with more amenities than you could get in NYC, San Francisco, DC, etc for the same price.
You must have been high when you wrote that. You don't seriously believe that?
Actually seems like a deal for SF right now, too. It's very difficult to find anything under $2K unless it's teeny tiny (with shared kitchen/bath type of deal) or in an off location (Tenderloin, Bayview, or maybe way out in Outer Sunset).
Clicked on the picture in the article and that apartment seems to be in the tenderloin. So there's your answer. $1500 is a bit unrealistic for one to have their own place in good parts of SF these days. That's roommate pricing in most apartments.
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.
