Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 352 posts

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#221

Post by wdr1 »

nether wrote: post #157
xor1 wrote: post #122

Los Angeles though... :( One of my friends just moved here and is sharing a 5-bedroom home with 25 other people. I thought he was bullshitting me, and I still couldn't believe it when I went over. He's paying $600 a month to share a bedroom with four other guys. He told me it was the best thing he could find on 1-day notice. He pays for rent online, and he has no idea who the actual owner is, nor who is actually rece…

Is this place in Santa Monica? Think I know what it is.

Out of curiosity, where?

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#222

Post by rietta »

alexchantavy wrote: post #216
techsupporter wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The rents are astounding to me as an Atlanta area resident. My fully loaded mortgage+escrow payment... I see this a lot of the time when rents for certain areas of the country come up. My friends in Dallas and Austin say the same thing. FWIW, I own a duplex unit inside the city of Seattle, so my views may also be a little skewed. My usual response is, "yes, but then I'd have to live in [other city]." There are a lo…

> ...and I have gigabit fiber, too. ;) What's your provider?

With Google Fiber out of the race, it's pretty much a question of when AT&T will run their Gigapower service here. They're installing for the neighborhoods less than a mile away at the moment. I suspect Comcast will get more competitive with their gigabit service in short order to compete or AT&T will upgrade their service here.

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#223

Post by curun1r »

zazen wrote: post #17

I know nothing about the San Francisco housing market apart from what I've heard in discussions here on HN. The received wisdom here seemed to be that powerful NIMBY lobbies in SF were preventing needed development and causing the sky-high rent. But this article is talking about an "historic construction boom". Did something change regarding development in SF? Or was the NIMBY effect always a bit over-stated? Anyone…

NIMBYism is largely targeted at preventing construction in the traditional residential areas. Most of the new development is large buildings in areas that aren't traditionally residential. In particular, the areas around where the Giants stadium (SOMA) is and where the Warrior's arena (Mission Bay) is planned have seen many new high-occupancy construction projects because there aren't neighborhood groups being obstructionist.

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#224

Post by BWStearns »

meddlepal wrote: post #202
BWStearns wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're mostly in Brighton and way deep Dorchester. The commonwealth ave one is as ridiculous as the same price being advertised for a real 2br in a doorman building in Chelsea. This is akin to measuring salaries by the high end of glass door. Sure. Someone may have gotten that price, or it could be a lie, but you won't.

Yep, flawed study. The stuff in Brighton, deep Dorchester, Hyde Park and Roxbury should be thrown out since a lot of it is very much not TOD and you'd barely know you were living in Boston.

What is TOD btw? I think I agree with you but I'm curious about the term.

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#225

Post by itissid »

And I thought Jersey City and Hoboken were bad. I pay 1825 in rent for a 2 bedroom that's 30 min from my work. But thats because the landlord has not jacked up the rent since I moved in 2 years ago. A new place as big as mine today will probably rent at 2500, which is still not as bad as many other places like SF.

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#226

Post by awqrre »

xor1 wrote: post #122

Los Angeles though... :( One of my friends just moved here and is sharing a 5-bedroom home with 25 other people. I thought he was bullshitting me, and I still couldn't believe it when I went over. He's paying $600 a month to share a bedroom with four other guys. He told me it was the best thing he could find on 1-day notice. He pays for rent online, and he has no idea who the actual owner is, nor who is actually rece…

I would rather live in the woods and hunt for food...

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#227

Post by BoorishBears »

cb18 wrote: post #214
blhack wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you have a mortgage... What is your point?

I suspect he's saying that his daily payment on his house is roughly on par, or less than the daily rate of a high priced hostel. You could have figured that out yourself without the attitude, right?

Except that's not really saying much. If there was nothing more to owning a house than paying a mortgage instead of rent everyone would own a house and never rent.

The cost to live in the hostel when you include all factors is lower even if the daily rates were the same.

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#229

Post by pascalxus »

johngalt wrote: post #203
oneplane wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah, I knew about things being bad in the USA, but I didn't know living conditions are going towards third-world standards :/ Where I live (The Netherlands) there are laws that even protect foreign workers (i.e. from Poland) from all being stuffed in a single room. At this point it's starting to look like even jail cells have more room and privacy.

The problem isn't: "We are an exploited underclass unable to live in reasonable conditions." The problem is more along the lines of a gold rush type movement of people. Where large cities are attracting a large influx of people increasing demand on housing faster than it can be corrected. Plenty of inexpensive housing in Ohio. Not so much along the California coast.

That, plus a complete refusal on the part of government and voters to build any more housing.

not to mention all the environmental impact fees, taxes, and endless regulation which increase housing costs way beyond where it would be without. It's not just LA and SF (gold rush cities that have housing problems). In CA, even the rural areas with miles of space in every direction, housing still costs a lot more than the national average.

Re: Rents are plunging in the most expensive U.S. markets

#230

Post by pejrich »

xor1 wrote: post #122

Los Angeles though... :( One of my friends just moved here and is sharing a 5-bedroom home with 25 other people. I thought he was bullshitting me, and I still couldn't believe it when I went over. He's paying $600 a month to share a bedroom with four other guys. He told me it was the best thing he could find on 1-day notice. He pays for rent online, and he has no idea who the actual owner is, nor who is actually rece…

Sounds like your friend is a fool. I had a nicely sized studio in West Hollywood about 2 years ago. It was right on La Brea and Santa Monica, and that cost me $1000. With laundry and parking. The idea of paying $600 to split a room 5 ways is crazy. That is more representative of your friend than it is of LA housing market. WeHo is probably among the more pricy areas in LA(save Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and a few others), and I found and signed for that room in about 6 days. There is a paid rental listing website. It seems like a scam, but it's not. It was called Westside Rental I think, you'll see the name on a lot of signs. It's work the ~$60 for a membership to see all the listings, maybe you can sell your membership to someone else after if there's a few weeks left.

I ended up leaving LA because that place is a hellish shit hole, but not because of the rent.

Post reply on HN