Rental prices in the city of SF are out of control (San Francisco: rental market, how much)

[caligirl2009]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

"Average price" includes the high-end apartments with full amenities including gym and doorman. Rents out in the family neighborhoods run at around half that. Do your research, check Craigslist.

Wrong. It really is brutal out there. For example, look at this post:

Large unique room with bathroom in beautiful large home with parking

Yes it's a beautiful house in Pac Heights, but $2200 for 5 roommates is ridiculous. Oh, and your room is going to be the library.

Oh and they mostly work in the tech space. Go figure.

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by caligirl2009

Wrong. It really is brutal out there. For example, look at this post:

Large unique room with bathroom in beautiful large home with parking

Yes it's a beautiful house in Pac Heights, but $2200 for 5 roommates is ridiculous. Oh, and your room is going to be the library.

Oh and they mostly work in the tech space. Go figure.

LOL... I would like to some epidimieology data to see how the roommate situation in SF has affected infectious disease spread. The funny part is the incoming roommate is described as 'lucky' to have the library room with the charm of floor to ceiling racks in all walls... They can turn part of that room to a pantry! Our smart techies in action-

[caligirl2009]

For all of you who think you're protected by rent control, think again!

San Francisco Sentinel » Blog Archives » San Francisco’s Unique Character Crumbling as Wealthy Techies Take Over

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

What's wrong with in-law units? That's exactly what I was referring to. I checked Craigslist in the Sunset and Richmond just a few days ago, and had no trouble finding listings in that price-range.

Right, but (at least in the Sunset) only 12% of available units were under $1500, which is the "less than half" of $3000 figure you cited. Most run considerably more.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by pch1013

Right, but (at least in the Sunset) only 12% of available units were under $1500, which is the "less than half" of $3000 figure you cited. Most run considerably more.

hm... OK. Granted, I didn't make a study of the whole thing. I just looked up some rentals for one of the posters here, because everyone (including me) was getting on his case and saying all he could afford was a room. So I checked and found out there were a number of 1-br. and studios available in decent neighborhoods for around (but not strictly limited to) $1500. It seemed like we were misinforming him.

[Kurinji]

According to the NY Post, SF is behind NYC rents, with the avg monthly rent in SF costing about $2,000/mo.

Average city rent passes $3,000 while home prices soar in Brooklyn, Queens - NYPOST.com

Here's one near UCSF: Top Floor, Walk to UCSF, Remodeled, Garage available

[clongirl]

Originally Posted by Obamadon1

That's not really the full story. If it were free market economics, there would be a lot more construction and the price of housing would fall. Many more people could live in the city. It's free market demand and limited market supply.

Nope... unfortunately it actually wouldn't work like that. You can look to NYC, London, Berlin,Paris, Madrid, etc. for the answer on this. Building of more apartments, highrises etc. only attracts more and more people that are more than willing and able to pay the big bucks to live there. Places that are generally deemed "desirable" command premium prices...particularly if the economy is thriving.

You can also look to suburbs will a lot of new housing/building going on around the Bay Area...like San Ramon/Dublin for instance. Tons of building, prices still very high by countrywide standards.

[Obamadon1]

Originally Posted by clongirl

Nope... unfortunately it actually wouldn't work like that. You can look to NYC, London, Berlin,Paris, Madrid, etc. for the answer on this. Building of more apartments, highrises etc. only attracts more and more people that are more than willing and able to pay the big bucks to live there. Places that are generally deemed "desirable" command premium prices...particularly if the economy is thriving.

You can also look to suburbs will a lot of new housing/building going on around the Bay Area...like San Ramon/Dublin for instance. Tons of building, prices still very high by countrywide standards.

Sorry but you are lumping together a bunch of very different cities there. London and Paris have some of the strictest building restrictions in the world and are therefore two of the most insanely expensive cities in the world (London house prices: The parasitic city | The Economist). Berlin does not, and is famously affordable for a major European city. New York has all sorts of building restrictions that limit supply - The 8 Reasons Why New York Rents Are So Ridiculously High - Business Insider. Bay Area suburbs are cheaper than city centers and there is construction there because that is the easiest and cheapest place to build. It is more expensive than living in Bakersfield because a lot more people want to live in the Bay Area, not because they allowed new construction.

You've got an obvious logical fallacy in your argument - correlation ≠ causation. Because there is a lot of construction in cities and cities are expensive, it does not follow that that construction causes cities to be expensive. A lot of new buildings is not evidence that the level of housing adequately meets demand and therefore the price of housing is the free market price. There are all sorts of obvious restrictions, so your argument does not make intuitive sense, nor is it backed up by any serious research I'm aware of. New housing, along with new parks, light rail, bike lanes, theaters, does make an area a more attractive place to live. But following your logic means we shouldn't do any of those things because they will raise the cost of living. That is nuts.

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by DSLGal

According to the NY Post, SF is behind NYC rents, with the avg monthly rent in SF costing about $2,000/mo.

Average city rent passes $3,000 while home prices soar in Brooklyn, Queens - NYPOST.com

Here's one near UCSF: Top Floor, Walk to UCSF, Remodeled, Garage available

Yay, a studio with no dishwasher and no parking for a mere $1895 -- all utilities extra. Or $2094 if you want a parking space.

It does have nice floors, though.

[adam405]

Originally Posted by ccm123

I think that many established people, in the technology industry would. SF provides access to some high paying career opportunities, with some promising and established technology companies.

If these people had minimal financial literacy, how could they make enough $$$ to afford the rents in SF?

I don't think you understand the issues at play here. I spend my life 24/7 around these tech workers and I know how they think, how they act, and what they believe in. It's a massive lottery culture. No 24 year old tech developer drops $40k/year (post-tax) on rent because he loves the city, culture, and social scene in San Francisco. He is too busy to do much besides work. These people ALL believe they are about to strike it rich in the stock option lottery. Just survive for one more year and Yahoo will come in and buy us out. Imagine every person in a small town spending 50% of their income on scratch off lottery tickets, to the point where they didn't save much money for retirement and had very little disposable income. Is that sustainable? Well, sure - yes and no. In SF we just have a classier, more white collar version of this story before us. Again, this isn't a repeat of dot com 1.0 - I believe the tech economy is fundamentally sound and sustainable. But the lifestyle sacrifices that young workers are making in order to participate in that economy (notably, the willingness to pay so much in rent), is NOT sustainable.