Live data from Hacker News

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

businessinsider.com

21–30 of 352 posts

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

#22

Can this please be re-titled as a US study? First blush of the article title made me go "What? Seriously?"; the two markets I look at first are London and Sydney.

I've heard similar reports about the London rental market, but then again when it comes to the housing market, the UK press report on every scrap of noisy data they can get their hands on.

London has also seen a huge glut of (supposedly) high-end property come online. Builders are struggling to sell, so they're now starting to offer discounts on the new housing stock [1]. If what the article says is true, I would be surprised if the same scenario didn't play out in London.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/f6692d4e-8327-11e6-8897-2359a58ac...

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

#23

Zumper is pretty inaccurate when it comes to SF I have found. The influx of new residents still vastly outpaces new construction + people leaving SF. As such, rents are not going down. The easiest way to verify this is just to ask anyone trying to rent in SF.

As a possible counterexample, in the past month I have seen street signs in my carpetbagger-friendly neighborhood for rental open-houses and "For Rent" signs on buildings, which I haven't seen since before the recession.

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

#24

Can this please be re-titled as a US study? First blush of the article title made me go "What? Seriously?"; the two markets I look at first are London and Sydney.

My personal anectodal evidence is that the London lettings market is softening as well.

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

#25

Where in Boston could someone possibly find a two bedroom for $2600? Shenanigans

So here's the results[1] from Zillow for a 2BR for $2500 or less in an actual Boston zipcode. These aren't all the results, as it limits the results to 500. If you're not looking for a managed, new luxury apartment, it's tremendously easy to find.

Moreover, if you go on Craigslist, you'll find far, far more. Zillow listings are almost always represented by a realtor, broker or property management company so it's only a subset of the market.

[1]http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_rent/Boston-MA/house,condo,a...

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

#27
post #7

A friend used to rent out a spare room in SF on a regular basis. Two years ago, he could get $1850 for a single room with it's own bath room, furnished. We're talking 6-10 replies from a Craiglist post within 24 hours. Stopped renting it out about a year ago. He just posted it again. Zero takers at $1850. Finally got someone for $1600 (-13% decrease in rent) after a month. A dramatic change. The rental market in SF i…

I don't have much to offer except this:

> The rental market in SF is definitely turning towards the buyer.

About fuckin' time.

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

#28

Zumper is pretty inaccurate when it comes to SF I have found. The influx of new residents still vastly outpaces new construction + people leaving SF. As such, rents are not going down. The easiest way to verify this is just to ask anyone trying to rent in SF.

I'm currently in the process of packing for a move on the 1st. Rents are definitely going down compared to the last time I moved in 2014, the new place is significantly cheaper than my current apartment. In 2014 when I went to a showing, there were several other groups also there to compete against, this year I was the only one at most showings.

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

#30
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…

The NIMBYs have had a very strong effect in that they significantly delayed the pipeline of development. Ultimately, the demand for housing had to be met, but it required extra years of community meetings and fights with the NIMBYs. Basically, the construction boom would have come sooner.
Post reply on HN