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.
How is NYC that high if these prices include the outer boroughs (where the majority of people in NYC live and where the vast majority of housing is)? The data they're using must be pretty skewed.
I have friends in NYC, and those prices look as to be what they pay in Brooklyn. Granted Brooklyn is more expensive than other Boroughs, it's also cheaper than Manhattan.
I think in places like NYC a lot of people own their apartments, or have them rent-fixed, or even better collect subsidy from the government.
How is NYC that high if these prices include the outer boroughs (where the majority of people in NYC live and where the vast majority of housing is)? The data they're using must be pretty skewed.
That's a great point, this has to be Manhattan, not including SI, Bronx, outer Brooklyn and Queens.
I have friends in NYC, and those prices look as to be what they pay in Brooklyn. Granted Brooklyn is more expensive than other Boroughs, it's also cheaper than Manhattan.
I think in places like NYC a lot of people own their apartments, or have them rent-fixed, or even better collect subsidy from the government.
Those prices are maybe in line for a quarter to a third of Brooklyn and a sliver of Queens. Outside of that and Manhattan, nope, and those would not cover anywhere near a majority of the city's population nor a majority of the city's housing. Brooklyn's northwest quadrant is expensive and the most desirable parts of that are more expensive than parts of Manhattan (especially those parts north of 96th St).
The data they're drawing from seems obviously skewed. The only way I can see this being true is if there was a huge (and I mean massive) number of luxury rentals opening up that were charging 10K to 100K a month range for 1 bedrooms in prime Manhattan in order to offset all the other much cheaper housing in the outer boroughs, but I'm not sure if there was actually enough of those to balance this out.
Zillow produces a median rent survey for the 35 largest metro areas in the U.S.A. The results do differ quite a bit from the Zumper data posted by the O.P.
The Top Ten from most expensive to least expensive:
1. San Jose
2. San Francisco
3. Los Angeles
4. New York City
5. San Diego
6. Boston
7. Wash, DC
8. Denver
9. Seattle
10. Miami/Fort Lauderdale
Bottom line: all these surveys have to be taken with a grain of salt.....
Zillow produces a median rent survey for the 35 largest metro areas in the U.S.A. The results do differ quite a bit from the Zumper data posted by the O.P.
The Top Ten from most expensive to least expensive:
1. San Jose
2. San Francisco
3. Los Angeles
4. New York City
5. San Diego
6. Boston
7. Wash, DC
8. Denver
9. Seattle
10. Miami/Fort Lauderdale
Bottom line: all these surveys have to be taken with a grain of salt.....
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,547,924 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531
Here are the most expensive cities in rent in to start the 2016 year. You can also see rent growth(or decline) for month over month, quarter over quarter, and year over year to see how your city is trending.
Source: Zumper.com
As of December DC actually jumped back up above San Jose to 5th spot.
Not necessarily. The Zumper survey of Los Angeles and Miami includes separate cities which for LA County include: Santa Monica, Culver City, West Hollywood and Marina Del Rey (unincorporated county area), etc.
What's crazy is at the neighborhood level. San Francisco is so expensive that LA's most expensive neighborhood (Downtown Santa Monica, according to Zumper at least), would be the 28th most expensive in San Francisco, in between Inner Richmond and Haight Ashbury.
Also, impressive (and disturbing) how DTLA has gone up to to be LA's fourth most expensive neighborhood to rent. Which at $2520 makes it more affordable than any SF nabe listed. Of course, this doesn't account for average incomes and overall COL, but nonetheless, I think DTLA is a better bang for your buck than most of San Francisco...especially since you are at the center of the the expanding metro system, with easy access to Hollywood, Pasadena, USC games, Koreatown, Little Tokyo, tons of museums, incredible food culture, Santa Monica in a couple months etc.
Too bad the average Angeleno can't really enjoy such benefits, since so many people don't work in locations ideal to public transportation (at least in terms of home to work and work to home commuting.)
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.
