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

Median Rent SF: One Bedroom Apartment Map

tiles.mapbox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 73 posts

Re: Median Rent SF: One Bedroom Apartment Map

#41

Post by Retric »

potatolicious wrote: post #11
johnyui wrote: post #2

Surely a one bedroom place is the least efficient way to live? Also, bear in mind most people live in couples, so if there's two of you, a combined income of $100,000 is very reasonable, and you should be able to live anywhere here.

Ah, if only SF housing was so simple. > "$100,000 is very reasonable, and you should be able to live anywhere here." $100K is really not total-freedom money in a city like SF. Take the FiDi and Mission Bay for example - $3200/month for a 1BR means $38,400 in rent every year. That's spending $39% of your pre-tax income on rent, a deeply inadvisable amount, if any sane landlord would even allow it. Even if we drop the…

I fail the 40x rule yet I have a lot of disposable income. IMO, the only rule is what you have left over after rent vs. expenses.

By high I mean I often have close to a 1000$ left over at the end of the mont which has been going to savings.

Re: Median Rent SF: One Bedroom Apartment Map

#42

Post by jseliger »

dreamdu5t wrote: post #32
cynicalkane wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no rent bubble. Bubbles are caused by speculation. There isn't a large amount of people renting or owning speculatively in San Francisco. In fact, pro-tenant regulations in San Francisco make it an especially bad place to speculate. I have heard of the city forcing landlords to renew leases for suspected drug users that leave spent needles all over the porch. High rents in San Francisco are caused purely by…

I don't think it's correct to imply that the city refusing to build more units is why SF is expensive. There's only so much space in SF, regardless of how high, fast, or dense you want to build.

Amazing, 21st-century technologies like "elevators" and "steel" can be used to make very high buildings: per this: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... , which I posted elsewhere in this thread, it would be very easy for developers in SF to deploy these technologies in order to provide more living space.

Re: Median Rent SF: One Bedroom Apartment Map

#43

Post by rayiner »

bretthoerner wrote: post #37
rayiner wrote: post #31

I'm surprised it's that cheap. I pay $1,550 a month for a 430 square foot studio 20+ miles north of Manhattan. In a gentrifying, working-class neighborhood no less.

I know people that live in Manhatten studios that big for less, so there must be something else to your location, benefit wise?

It's a new building right on the Metro North line (which takes you straight into Midtown). But the surrounding neighborhood is otherwise like Harlem (and not the newly gentrified parts of Harlem).

I think average studio in Manhattan is over $2,500, and that includes Harlem, etc, which drags down the average. The above chart seems to top out at $3,250 for financial district. In comparison, the average 1BR in TriBeCa is pushing $5,000.

Re: Median Rent SF: One Bedroom Apartment Map

#44

Post by rayiner »

Retric wrote: post #41
potatolicious wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, if only SF housing was so simple. > "$100,000 is very reasonable, and you should be able to live anywhere here." $100K is really not total-freedom money in a city like SF. Take the FiDi and Mission Bay for example - $3200/month for a 1BR means $38,400 in rent every year. That's spending $39% of your pre-tax income on rent, a deeply inadvisable amount, if any sane landlord would even allow it. Even if we drop the…

I fail the 40x rule yet I have a lot of disposable income. IMO, the only rule is what you have left over after rent vs. expenses. By high I mean I often have close to a 1000$ left over at the end of the mont which has been going to savings.

> I fail the 40x rule yet I have a lot of disposable income. IMO, the only rule is what you have left over after rent vs. expenses.

In New York, the rules are whatever the landlords want them to be. Renters have zero bargaining power with vacancies as low as they are in the city.

Re: Median Rent SF: One Bedroom Apartment Map

#45

Post by subsystem »

rayiner wrote: post #34
dreamdu5t wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's correct to imply that the city refusing to build more units is why SF is expensive. There's only so much space in SF, regardless of how high, fast, or dense you want to build.

SF isn't particularly dense. It's twice as big as Manhattan,[1] but has only half as many people. It's the second-densest major city on paper, but it seems to me that this is because the city itself doesn't have the "long tail" of less-dense urban area merging into the suburbs that other cities have. If you look at the downtown areas of Manhattan, places like Midtown are over 100,000 people per square mile. Neighborh…

While I admit I don't know a lot about SF, I have a hard time seeing that large scale redevelopment would make sense once an area is already gentrified, not least from an infrastructure perspective. I also think gentrification works best when it "moves around" to new places, something that seems to have happened successfully in NY.

Re: Median Rent SF: One Bedroom Apartment Map

#46

Post by rayiner »

subsystem wrote: post #45
rayiner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF isn't particularly dense. It's twice as big as Manhattan,[1] but has only half as many people. It's the second-densest major city on paper, but it seems to me that this is because the city itself doesn't have the "long tail" of less-dense urban area merging into the suburbs that other cities have. If you look at the downtown areas of Manhattan, places like Midtown are over 100,000 people per square mile. Neighborh…

While I admit I don't know a lot about SF, I have a hard time seeing that large scale redevelopment would make sense once an area is already gentrified, not least from an infrastructure perspective. I also think gentrification works best when it "moves around" to new places, something that seems to have happened successfully in NY.

It's not a matter of "gentrifying." It's a matter of tearing down all the stupid low-rise buildings and putting up skyscrapers. You know, civilization.

What I find deeply ironic about the Bay Area is the conflict between the whole "high tech" thing and the pathologically suburban upbringings of most of the people who work in the sector. It's people who talk about 21st century technology who aren't comfortable with solidly 20th century technology.

Re: Median Rent SF: One Bedroom Apartment Map

#47

Post by dennisgorelik »

zobzu wrote: post #35
dreamdu5t wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's correct to imply that the city refusing to build more units is why SF is expensive. There's only so much space in SF, regardless of how high, fast, or dense you want to build.

I think that what they mean is that the height of buildings in SF is limited in most places (except the financial district). So while the land is mostly occupied, the buildings could be 10x bigger (each of them). So yes.. there is some "artificial" scarcity. Yes but. If the city was a manhattan with only big buildings, nobody would want to live there, anyway. The reason why people like SF is that it does NOT feel too…

The main reason why people are ready to pay such high rent in San Francisco is because it's much easier to get high paying job there.

"Does not feel too much like a big city" is a "nice to have", but is not the main reason.

Re: Median Rent SF: One Bedroom Apartment Map

#48

Post by cynicalkane »

rayiner wrote: post #34
dreamdu5t wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's correct to imply that the city refusing to build more units is why SF is expensive. There's only so much space in SF, regardless of how high, fast, or dense you want to build.

SF isn't particularly dense. It's twice as big as Manhattan,[1] but has only half as many people. It's the second-densest major city on paper, but it seems to me that this is because the city itself doesn't have the "long tail" of less-dense urban area merging into the suburbs that other cities have. If you look at the downtown areas of Manhattan, places like Midtown are over 100,000 people per square mile. Neighborh…

The Gold Coast in Chicago is a particularly good example.

It's Chicago's most prime real estate, preferred by celebrities and high powered executives. Yet it's cheap enough that most people here could live there in a studio or 1br on a code monkey salary and have plenty to spend left over. This is because Chicago allows supply to meet demand, and has the Manhattan-like neighborhood of the Gold Coast in a city without nearly as much as housing demand as the real Manhattan. (Also, the Gold Coast is way nicer for reasons the parent post talks about.)

Re: Median Rent SF: One Bedroom Apartment Map

#49

Post by subsystem »

rayiner wrote: post #46
subsystem wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I admit I don't know a lot about SF, I have a hard time seeing that large scale redevelopment would make sense once an area is already gentrified, not least from an infrastructure perspective. I also think gentrification works best when it "moves around" to new places, something that seems to have happened successfully in NY.

It's not a matter of "gentrifying." It's a matter of tearing down all the stupid low-rise buildings and putting up skyscrapers. You know, civilization. What I find deeply ironic about the Bay Area is the conflict between the whole "high tech" thing and the pathologically suburban upbringings of most of the people who work in the sector. It's people who talk about 21st century technology who aren't comfortable with so…

What I'm saying is that once something becomes gentrified (higher real estate prices, condo conversions, changes in demographics etc.) it gets a lot harder to just tear down buildings. Both from a economic, political and practical perspective.

I do agree with the sentiment in you second paragraph though.

Re: Median Rent SF: One Bedroom Apartment Map

#50

Post by rayiner »

cynicalkane wrote: post #48
rayiner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF isn't particularly dense. It's twice as big as Manhattan,[1] but has only half as many people. It's the second-densest major city on paper, but it seems to me that this is because the city itself doesn't have the "long tail" of less-dense urban area merging into the suburbs that other cities have. If you look at the downtown areas of Manhattan, places like Midtown are over 100,000 people per square mile. Neighborh…

The Gold Coast in Chicago is a particularly good example. It's Chicago's most prime real estate, preferred by celebrities and high powered executives. Yet it's cheap enough that most people here could live there in a studio or 1br on a code monkey salary and have plenty to spend left over. This is because Chicago allows supply to meet demand, and has the Manhattan-like neighborhood of the Gold Coast in a city without…

The thing I love about Chicago is its design reflects a deeply midwestern sensibility. Illinois is plain, flat land. Chicago isn't an island (MFH), or on a peninsula (SF), or sandwiched between two rivers (PHL). They could've sprawled, but instead they built this compact downtown, because it was orderly.

The town my wife grew up in in rural Iowa has less than 2,000 people. Yet, it's got this perfect 10x8 little street grid. Why? The town founders didn't want the layout to be disorderly in case the town ever became a huge city.

Post reply on HN