Affordability of SD relative to LA? (San Diego, Santa Monica: apartments, rental market, neighborhoods)

[rs913]

I know a constant refrain of this forum is that San Diego is getting incredibly expensive (as is true for any desirable US city in the last 10 years - thank you, Chinese investors).

But can anyone comment on how the rental market stacks up to that in LA?

I'm considering moving south to take a job at UCSD, and currently live in West LA, where almost all the rental housing stock consists of these awful 60s/70s-era apt buildings with laundry rooms and window AC units, and where 1BRs in these places go for $2500 or more.

San Diego's rental market can't possibly be as bad as that, right? Right?

(I read the entire stickied thread but I still wonder if anyone's looked for apts in both places and can compare.)

[loveautumn]

For a one bedroom, you can find an apt for less than that. I'd say around $1500+ for a nice place, around UCSD might be somewhat higher due to availability. There are waiting lists for a lot of the apt complexes now, especially in North County.

[kettlepot]

For comparison purposes, we have those awful 1960s & 70s era apartments as well. In LA they are Dingbats; in SD they are Huffmans. There is a slight difference in layout, but in their essentials they are the same. I've not looked in LA for apartments, but I am well versed in Dingbats and Huffmans.

In San Diego, they are mostly found in Pacific Beach, Hillcrest, North Park, Normal Heights and City Heights. Only Pacific Beach is near UCSD. I'm not sure what the rents are near UCSD, but for the other neighborhoods a 1br Huffman should run from $800 (City Hts) to $1500 (Hillcrest).

Newer, better quality apartments are in the $1200 - $1800 range. Of course, luxury apartments would be more.

[rs913]

Originally Posted by kettlepot

For comparison purposes, we have those awful 1960s & 70s era apartments as well. In LA they are Dingbats; in SD they are Huffmans. There is a slight difference in layout, but in their essentials they are the same. I've not looked in LA for apartments, but I am well versed in Dingbats and Huffmans.

In San Diego, they are mostly found in Pacific Beach, Hillcrest, North Park, Normal Heights and City Heights. Only Pacific Beach is near UCSD. I'm not sure what the rents are near UCSD, but for the other neighborhoods a 1br Huffman should run from $800 (City Hts) to $1500 (Hillcrest).

Newer, better quality apartments are in the $1200 - $1800 range. Of course, luxury apartments would be more.

First of all, who says these forums aren't educational? Thanks to you I just learned what a Dingbat is - and the Wiki link is interesting. I do remember seeing them around SD.

I've seen a few listings for what could probably be called "luxury" apartments around the UTC area (near UCSD) for under $2000 - as in new-ish buildings, W/D in unit, and central AC. Around Brentwood, Santa Monica and West LA, the few places that meet that description would be around $3000 and would have ridiculously small square footage (like 500 instead of 700).

So I'm still wondering if SD may be a bargain zone compared to the fancy parts of LA. Am I being wildly optimistic?

[LuvSouthOC]

Of course San Diego is cheaper on average than West LA.

[Pedro2000]

SD is cheaper than LA in most places, but comparing Santa Monica to UTC? Why?
Far different environments. I think Santa Monica is overpriced, but then again, I could work at some cool startup and live near the beach. Santa Monica and even West LA are known as Silicon Beach so there are executives and tons and tons of tech startups. It's almost comparable to the Bay Area in many ways. It isn't close to Silicon Valley, but to even be mentioned in conversations tells you a lot. Plus you still can work in Hollywood and other places if you want.

I mean I could work for Hulu and walk to the beach. Nobody is really working for cool tech startups in UTC. You're probably working at Illumina or for a biotech firm. And while many people make a good living, it's not considered "cool" and nobody ever really becomes a "millionaire" working for places like Illumina besides the executives.

The reality is most people will never make it big working for tech companies either, but there is a huge perception that you could. Most people working in Biotech are PhDs who don't really care to make it big and would rather cure cancer or save the ocean(Scripps Institute of Oceanography is actually over in La Jolla).

So why is Santa Monica so expensive? Because half the startups in LA, like Hulu, and many many others are there. Because celebrities visit the 3rd St promenade and that is a pretty cool place at times. Plus you're close enough to visit Malibu, close enough to visit other places in LA. And the damn pier and beach are cool as hell, but rather crowded. And yes, because there are a lot of people and if you're young, it means a pretty cool place to meet many others your own age who share similar interests. And your interests could be anything.
Is it overpriced? Yeah, but it has that cool factor.

Why are places like UTC far cheaper? Because most people really don't dream of living in a place with Graduate students who are known for studying and not partying and an expensive mall and not much else. UTC is known as a pretty boring place with little going on and not a ton of jobs outside of being related to UCSD and biotech. And nobody really visits it if they don't have to. UTC Mall is ok, but it's a mall, nothing really cool about it, except it has been updated to be high class now. The ice hockey rink is cool, but most people don't even know the ice rink exists unless you actually use it or know about it.

So yeah, Santa Monica will be far more expensive than UTC, but if you want to live in a place like Santa Monica for all the reasons listed above, you don't move to UTC. You move to UTC because you go to UCSD.

[LuvSouthOC]

Again, Pedro nails it, reped again. See above.

[NYSD1995]

The expensive parts oF SD are just as expensive as the expensive parts of LA. The crappy parts are expensive just like LA. Really, SD is just smaller but the development patterns and lifestyle are really the same. I think the main difference is that even in a marginal area, SD is a lot safer and generally nicer for the money. But not really much cheaper.

[rs913]

Originally Posted by Pedro2000

So yeah, Santa Monica will be far more expensive than UTC, but if you want to live in a place like Santa Monica for all the reasons listed above, you don't move to UTC. You move to UTC because you go to UCSD.

Santa Monica's nice, no question. But a little reality check (from someone who's been on the LA westside a year or so)

1. I'm convinced the "cool" parts of LA have moved east to Hollywood, Los Feliz, Silver Lake, downtown, Koreatown, and Mid-Wilshire. Much younger crowd, more energy, better restaurants, better nightlife. The Westside may be nicer and has the traditional LA celebs-and-beach allure, but I think a lot of young people find it totally overrated. I know 5 people who moved from west to east, one who works for Hulu in Santa Monica and now has a much longer commute, but loves it.

2. The reason rents are high on the Westside seems to be high demand (for reasons other than "cool") and limited supply. There are very few new buildings, probably because wealthy neighborhood associations nix them.

3. There are a lot of new tech companies in Santa Monica and Venice. They drive up rents but I think it's because they drive up demand, not because they make the area cool. Silicon Valley has really high rents and a lot of tech companies, and nobody would ever call that area "cool".

4. 3rd Street, the overcrowded dirty SM beach, and especially the crumbling SM pier are not considered cool by locals, just like Hollywood Blvd. isn't either. These are all tourist zones. I was just out for a walk around there an hour ago, and it was almost all tourists and middle-aged people. In fact I see a lot more of the older crowd around Santa Monica and the Westside in general, probably because that's who can afford to live there. It's not as young and vibrant as people think.

5. There's no question LA, SF, and NYC have a cool factor in general and a lot of 20-somethings want to live there, but as rents in these areas become astronomical, I think that's going to fade a little. Not completely, but a little. And these people will flock to smaller cities and make them more lively.

[Pedro2000]

Good post. I don't spend much time up there anymore, so don't know the ins and outs of daily life. But SD isn't really a small city and it's expensive and there aren't as many high paying jobs compared to other cities. Call it the sunshine tax.

The reality to me is somebody who wants to leave LA and move to a cheaper place, isn't moving to SD. They probably leave California. The only people who leave LA and think SD is so much cheaper, are people who already have millions in the bank. For most others, it's not really all that different in cost, just a more laid back and calmer lifestyle. A lifestyle that usually comes with far fewer opportunities.

And I agree nobody thinks Silicon Valley is cool, which is why some younger companies like Twitter and Uber are opening in San Fran. But they have the cool companies.