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.
Clearly some more than others, mister 26,059 posts
Yawwwwwns.
All this wasted energy because you dont want to explain your strange comment:
You essentially said that greater pollution and dirt are what make megacities "special" and therefore in a higher league of urbanness than SF, Boston and Seattle as far as urban fabric.
Who said "millions of poor people living in grit is special"? There's only one buffoon with an internet connection that I know that would even characterize LA as "millions of poor people living in grit".
I wish I could find something decent in LA for $1500, or hell even $1800. I moved from Long Beach over to the San Fernando Valley, and let me tell you it's very hard to find a decent 2 bedroom apartment under $2000 in a nice area. I now pay very close to $2100, and I have only live in my apartment for 10 months.
In two months when the lease expires the rent is going up an extra $250, that is if I sign another 12 month lease. If I so choose to go month to month, it goes up to $3500 per month. It's like this in many of the SFV district, especially those near the Ventura Blvd corridor, or those along the 118 Freeway on the north end of the Valley. Most neighborhoods that are sandwiched in between these two areas (southern and northern SFV) are not as nice.
The single family homes are ok, but in area mostly zoned for apartments (Vanowen Street, Sherman Way, Roscoe, Parthenia for example, they look very dated and not kept up, and you can they are were not built to house all of the people living in these apartments, the neighborhoods are very overcrowded. Yet they are still a bit pricey for what you get, and the streets are dirty.
I don't get how you guys are saying Los Angeles is that much cheaper than NYC. When I lived in NYC, I remember seeing one bedroom apartments in Brooklyn for $900-$1000 yet it seems like the minimum for one bedrooms in Los Angeles is $1,700. Plus it's only $100-$130 a month for the subway in NYC (I never took taxis) whereas a car in Los Angeles is going to be around $500-$1,000 a month (car payments, gas, car insurance, tolls, maintenance).
I don't get how you guys are saying Los Angeles is that much cheaper than NYC. When I lived in NYC, I remember seeing one bedroom apartments in Brooklyn for $900-$1000 yet it seems like the minimum for one bedrooms in Los Angeles is $1,700. Plus it's only $100-$130 a month for the subway in NYC (I never took taxis) whereas a car in Los Angeles is going to be around $500-$1,000 a month (car payments, gas, car insurance, tolls, maintenance).
Yeah but in several parts of NYC you also probably want a car and in just as many parts of LA a car is entirely optional (especially if you are pressed for $ b/c LA is not a cheap city to own a car, as you prove above).
I know it is sort of against what people always assume about LA and NYC, but I can tell you right now, living in a suburb of LA (granted the most urban of the suburbs) I could easily go without a car. It's nice to have but hardly a necessity - a second car would be a burden.
As far as the rents, I don't know. But I have heard that NYC makes the Bay Area look affordable, and I know the Bay makes LA look affordable.
Anyways, as far as my ~1500 a month rent, we got an insane deal to live in a top-tier neighborhood in (almost) LA. Obviously it has the same sorts of issues any downtown-adjacent renter-dominated neighborhood would have (read: property crime) but it's pretty perfect, and a rarity in LA. Our other options were Mid-City and Highland Park; great neighborhoods, but I shudder when I compare them to the convenience, walkability, and transit-orientation of my current location.
But I'm a city nerd; it would be embarrassing for me to live in a crappy neighborhood I hate.
In 2011 actually. I saw one bedrooms in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn for $900 whereas the cheapest one bedroom in Los Angeles seems to be $1,500-1,700
Are you comparing 2011 NYC to 2015 LA? Because yeah I bet 2015 LA is more expensive than 2011 NYC.
In 2011 when I moved back to LA there were tons of apartments in the $1000-$1500 range all over the city. And even today there are lots of 1BR in the $1000-$1500 range in places like East LA, South LA and the East San Fernando Valley.
Bay Area is significantly more expensive than NYC for renting right now. Where NYC exceeds anywhere in the US is per square foot and absolute dollar at the very very top end. For instance, it's not hard to find $20K+ rentals in Manhattan or $50M+ condos for sale (these days), and they won't necessarily be "large" places. This is not the case in SF, but for the 0-99%, SF has really become that much more expensive than NYC from a rental perspective. From a buying, very similar - a 300-400 sf studio in an older, cramped part of town in Manhattan or SF will cost $500K, and it only goes up from there. The Bay Area as a metro is WAYYYY more expensive than NYC's metro or any other metro, for that matter for both renting and buying (you don't get the significant relief on rents or home prices for leaving SF and you certainly don't get adequate transportation). Rents in the Peninsula/SJ and even desirable parts of East Bay like in and around Berkeley are really what you can expect in most of Manhattan these days (for comparable, obviously suburban Bay Area doesn't have comps for 250-350 sf studios in older buildings). But finding a studio in Manhattan for < $2K is *much* easier than finding one in SF these days. It goes like this for all bedroom types, too. It is absolutely a real and cliffhanging problem for SF and the entire Bay Area. Also, it has come to a point where typically you get a little more from a rental in NYC/Manhattan than you get from one in SF. Many if not most NYC/Manhattan buildings are doorman buildings due to sheer size. Better finishes and often more amenities (like a laundry room, or at least a better laundry room). It's gotten to the point where SF landlords have absolutely no reason to even attempt to make their buildings all that livable. Expect dilapidated apartments, on average. Not much new, and the few new apartments are absolutely going to command $6-10 per square foot depending on studio or 3 BR. The price per square foot for old stuff (most stuff) is even higher, but the square footage is teeny tiny and the buildings are falling apart.
The affordability/housing price/availability crisis going on in SF that now gets constant national press all the time is not exaggerated, at all. It really doesn't help that SF has the longest/most expensive/most tedious permitting process and that the progressive NIMBYs are working really hard to push through housing moratoriums at the worst possible time. It's a huge s**tshow in the Bay Area right now. Huge. What was once a "positive problem" of strong demand and only a bunch of development opportunities has turned into an epic disaster as things haven't played out resolve these issues the way a market would resolve them.
I know several people who in the last month have moved from NYC and are having a hard time swallowing rental pricing in the city.
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.
