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.
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.)
Also, the average Angeleno can't afford any of these things in the first place. The thing to keep in mind is that Los Angeles, more than any other city, has a massive underpaid immigrant population who are underpaid because they are not legally in the country and have wages according to that. For those who are not immigrants living in a floating purgatory of legality and all that entails, Los Angeles is actually an incredible deal. The question for the short-term is whether or not those social and wage discrepancies will result in structural issues for Los Angeles or if LA will be able to absorb both that and the drive for median incomes to live it through.
Meh, if anyone is bemoaning the costs of 1 bedroom apartments in these cities, get a roommate or two, move in with your significant other, get a second job, or just move to a cheaper place. We need some people to repopulate Detroit, Cleveland and some other cities hit hard by recession. Now is a good time to get in.
I think DTLA is a better bang for your buck than most of San Francisco...
Except IMO, San Francisco on the whole is a much better place to live/ work/ play than Downtown LA, which certainly is improving every day, but SF, while not perfect, offers all the amenities one could want without having to travel very far, in a really beautiful urban setting with a vibrant waterfront, bustling streets, etc.
DTLA still has a way to go before it can truly compare to SF in the realm of 'urbanity'
Quote:
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.
Kudos, but the difference is that Santa Monica to Pasadena is very far apart. In SF you get pretty much world class everything, without having to traverse entire area codes, but rather by walking a few blocks.
What I dont like is the shortsighted vision of those responsible for planning Bay Area housing.
Speaking of Oakland, earlier this week the city saw its most expensive single family home residential transaction ever, a contemporary house in the hills that sold for $20.5 Million. Thats pretty shocking for Oakland.
I'm looking at this list with a severe side eye. As far as Texas goes Austin is by far the most expensive of the cites for apartment living yet they have Dallas first? I don't know where they get these statistics from sometimes.
I'm looking at this list with a severe side eye. As far as Texas goes Austin is by far the most expensive of the cites for apartment living yet they have Dallas first? I don't know where they get these statistics from sometimes.
I'm looking at this list with a severe side eye. As far as Texas goes Austin is by far the most expensive of the cites for apartment living yet they have Dallas first? I don't know where they get these statistics from sometimes.
I know downtown Austin is very expensive, but what about neighborhoods closer to the periphery of the city limits? What if 1 bedroom average rent is only like 800 a month? So while downtown might average 1800-2000 for a 1 bedroom, a neighborhood 10 miles away might only average 800-900. Austin has large city limits.
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.....
Your link includes "35 largest metro areas". The median rent for the San-Francisco-Oakland MSA according to Zillow is $3,325, so there would not be a separate Oakland, and the numbers/rankings will look a lot different. Most metro areas are a lot more affordable than their central cities.
For instance, the average 1 BR on the market right now in Chicago, according to the data that Zumper has access to, is ASKING $1,970, however, according to Zillow, using the data they have access to, the median ASK for rent for the MSA is $1,652 for all apartments available on the market.
Also, there is no real way to know what people are actually paying in rent. That information is always very confidential (it's not like public tax records). This data is about what is available publicly, and the "ask".
I swear, people on this site have a real hard time interpreting numbers. Asks don't necessarily mean that the rent will be achieved. Sometimes in really hot times/markets, due to demand, what they ask will be exceeded as renting becomes almost an open bid process. It has actually been this way for hot neighborhoods in SF for a while, especially for decent apartments that come on the market. The ask may be $3700 incl parking for a 1 BR 1 BA, but it may end up getting $3750 with no parking based on demand and the sort of "bid" process that can exist (and the interviews to go along with them if you can believe it). Typically, apartments get at or a little below their ask, and in bad economies, definitely below.
The other interesting tidbit about the Bay Area is that almost the whole area is uniformly expensive. There is very little drive til you qualify, or drive til you can afford the rents, and with geography and topography complicating things, with insufficient transit infrastructure for the density/population of the region, it makes for quite a cluster and a real grind.
In New York, you can live in the city in a decent apartment in a decent part of the city with access to trains for quite cheap. You cannot do that in the Bay Area.
Some of you attempting to have bragging rights on how expensive your city is, it's really pathetic. There is nobody in the Bay Area who thinks of the area highly enough to justify these rents/costs in perpetuity. There is already a loss of business/talent to other cities, and this won't go on forever.
Sadly, as Montclair mentioned, much of the situation is self-afflicted. One has to wonder where all the tax money goes because it's not going to enough transit projects, and clearly there is not enough being built to satisfy demand, but there are enough people in rent control or in houses with Prop 13 tax protection who are financially comfortable enough and satisfied where they live enough (they cannot move or they lose these protections) to continue making life difficult for everyone else.
Your link includes "35 largest metro areas". The median rent for the San-Francisco-Oakland MSA according to Zillow is $3,325, so there would not be a separate Oakland, and the numbers/rankings will look a lot different. Most metro areas are a lot more affordable than their central cities.
For instance, the average 1 BR on the market right now in Chicago, according to the data that Zumper has access to, is ASKING $1,970, however, according to Zillow, using the data they have access to, the median ASK for rent for the MSA is $1,652 for all apartments available on the market.
Also, there is no real way to know what people are actually paying in rent. That information is always very confidential (it's not like public tax records). This data is about what is available publicly, and the "ask".
I swear, people on this site have a real hard time interpreting numbers. Asks don't necessarily mean that the rent will be achieved. Sometimes in really hot times/markets, due to demand, what they ask will be exceeded as renting becomes almost an open bid process. It has actually been this way for hot neighborhoods in SF for a while, especially for decent apartments that come on the market. The ask may be $3700 incl parking for a 1 BR 1 BA, but it may end up getting $3750 with no parking based on demand and the sort of "bid" process that can exist (and the interviews to go along with them if you can believe it). Typically, apartments get at or a little below their ask, and in bad economies, definitely below.
The other interesting tidbit about the Bay Area is that almost the whole area is uniformly expensive. There is very little drive til you qualify, or drive til you can afford the rents, and with geography and topography complicating things, with insufficient transit infrastructure for the density/population of the region, it makes for quite a cluster and a real grind.
In New York, you can live in the city in a decent apartment in a decent part of the city with access to trains for quite cheap. You cannot do that in the Bay Area.
Some of you attempting to have bragging rights on how expensive your city is, it's really pathetic. There is nobody in the Bay Area who thinks of the area highly enough to justify these rents/costs in perpetuity. There is already a loss of business/talent to other cities, and this won't go on forever.
Sadly, as Montclair mentioned, much of the situation is self-afflicted. One has to wonder where all the tax money goes because it's not going to enough transit projects, and clearly there is not enough being built to satisfy demand, but there are enough people in rent control or in houses with Prop 13 tax protection who are financially comfortable enough and satisfied where they live enough (they cannot move or they lose these protections) to continue making life difficult for everyone else.
Well, when the SF Bay area is gaining jobs at a rate of 130k a year, of course, that means a large population growth and subsequently a large demand for housing.
The economy essentially needs to crash in the SF Bay area for prices to go down. Sadly, that means people must lose jobs and suffer.
Sadly, as Montclair mentioned, much of the situation is self-afflicted. One has to wonder where all the tax money goes because it's not going to enough transit projects, and clearly there is not enough being built to satisfy demand, but there are enough people in rent control or in houses with Prop 13 tax protection who are financially comfortable enough and satisfied where they live enough (they cannot move or they lose these protections) to continue making life difficult for everyone else.
California Tax Code provides for downsizing and not losing Prop 13... it is a one time event for older people... some counties even allow for county to county transfer...
So Prop 13 doesn't lock someone into an area that is older and wishing to downsize.
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.
