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

San Francisco rents increased by 13.5% in 2014

blog.zumper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: San Francisco rents increased by 13.5% in 2014

#31

Post by tinbad »

hkarthik wrote: post #26
tinbad wrote: post #14

The rent prices in SF (and around) have baffled me ever since I moved here in 2011. Can anyone explain who is supposed to be able to afford $3k+ for a studio? Me and my gf both work in tech (making well north over 100k each) and between the two of us we barely can afford a 2bedroom apartment for about 3k/mo. I can't imagine living by myself and paying such insane amounts on rent alone. After adding in things like stu…

To live in the city, you really need a household income of $300K+. Anyone below that is either going across the Bay Bridge or south into the peninsula. Based on your pricing, you're best off heading to the East Bay and commuting in via BART. The peninsula may be a better option but you won't get much relief from the rents and everything is car-based and a bit sleepier for young people.

You are so right, we live in San Mateo now and the closest place we could afford to buy a house without maxing out our budget was Tracy, CA (Pleasanton/Livermore are is also still quite affordable). Needless to say the commute is terrible from there so we have rented the place out and hopefully we can return there once our jobs are more settled and we have more flexibility to work remotely.

Re: San Francisco rents increased by 13.5% in 2014

#32

Post by weissadam »

The last time I visited SF, I saw an awful lot of new construction. Even though I'm aware that it's unquestionably a landlord's market over there these days, there has always been a sizable spread between what modern/new stuff rents for and what the older stock rents for. I'd really have to see a distribution of years since construction/last major remodel, to really believe any data like this. To lump it all together seems naive to me.

Re: San Francisco rents increased by 13.5% in 2014

#34

Post by dasil003 »

alexbilbie wrote: post #33

It's the same across the pond here in London - 9.5% increase between October 2013 and October 2014 Average rent is now £1411 (~$2200) http://homelet.co.uk/index.php/homelet-rental-index/greater-...

The benefit of living in London is that there is a super smooth gradient of rent decrease as you move further out in all directions, and there is reasonable commuter rail all the way. The downside of course is tiny rat-infested 150-year-old boxes remodeled 30 times since then, each time with a poorer job than the last. San Francisco has the upper hand here having burned to the ground more recently.

Re: San Francisco rents increased by 13.5% in 2014

#35

Post by thecage411 »

sdkaufman78 wrote: post #25
discardorama wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, to add to what everyone else said: there are out-of-towners who are buying up this newly-built property; either as a place to stash some cash (people from China, Russia), or as a crashpad for when they come in to town (from other parts of Bay Area) for an event or something.

Not sure why parent is being downvoted. I personally know several rich (corrupt?) people from China who have bought or are actively shopping for homes here in the SF bay area. They still work & live in China, but from what they've told me, their goal is to 1) Buy a house for their kids studying in the US; 2) Launder their money; 3) Own a property outside of China as an investment; 4) Have a safe house in case they ne…

people admit that their goal is to launder their money?

Re: San Francisco rents increased by 13.5% in 2014

#36

Post by MrDom »

Are these numbers so low because of rent control? I lived in a 300 square foot studio last year that cost me $1400 a month. That exact same studio now costs $2800. I've seen similar increases from craigslist posts throughout the city, compared to what I was looking at last year. What I wouldn't give for it to only have increased 15%.

Re: San Francisco rents increased by 13.5% in 2014

#38

Post by hkarthik »

tinbad wrote: post #31
hkarthik wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To live in the city, you really need a household income of $300K+. Anyone below that is either going across the Bay Bridge or south into the peninsula. Based on your pricing, you're best off heading to the East Bay and commuting in via BART. The peninsula may be a better option but you won't get much relief from the rents and everything is car-based and a bit sleepier for young people.

You are so right, we live in San Mateo now and the closest place we could afford to buy a house without maxing out our budget was Tracy, CA (Pleasanton/Livermore are is also still quite affordable). Needless to say the commute is terrible from there so we have rented the place out and hopefully we can return there once our jobs are more settled and we have more flexibility to work remotely.

In the limited research that I've done about Bay Area real estate, you're best off selling the Tracy home while prices are high, because the schools in Tracy aren't great.

There is likely a minor market correction coming but you could see a lot of the homes lose 20-40% of their value in places like Tracy. The homes that will retain most of their value will be the ones with really stellar schools (9+ on greatschools.org or higher) because there's always demand for them. They won't correct much beyond 10-15% at the most.

If you're dead set on buying, I would go with Pleasanton if you can afford it. Solid schools, and a somewhat reasonable BART commute into the city. Otherwise just save your cash until you can drop $1 mil into a house.

Re: San Francisco rents increased by 13.5% in 2014

#39

Post by runamok »

tinbad wrote: post #30
krigi wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in SF and I work in tech. I make north of 100k and my rent is 2k. Your situation seems bizarre to me. If you and your girlfriend make north of 100k, then you're pulling in cumulatively 13k-15k/mo after taxes. At $3k/mo your rent is below the commonly cited You really are doing something wrong. I don't know if you're griping in vain, but you and your girlfriend should review your lifestyle and make some changes…

We are definitely not living in financial hardship and I didn't mean to come off as someone who did. I definitely consider myself as one of the privileged ones and it helps that I have someone else contributing to the household. It's hard for me to imagine however, how I would be able to survive on my own or try and raise a family in current conditions, let alone being one of the less privileged, meaning not working…

My pet theory (with some anecdotal evidence) is that a lot of external investors are buying up most of the inventory. And a lot of young people making > 100k will spend large amounts of their income to live in the bay area even if they have to have roommates, etc. Cities like SF and NYC do have the advantage that you don't strictly NEED a car at least in some areas (and of course the gas, maintenance and insurance that goes with it) so that frees up a decent chunk of cash too.

What generally happens is once people start getting married and having kids they move to other states. I have seen this with several friends.

Re: San Francisco rents increased by 13.5% in 2014

#40

Post by discardorama »

sdkaufman78 wrote: post #25
discardorama wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, to add to what everyone else said: there are out-of-towners who are buying up this newly-built property; either as a place to stash some cash (people from China, Russia), or as a crashpad for when they come in to town (from other parts of Bay Area) for an event or something.

Not sure why parent is being downvoted. I personally know several rich (corrupt?) people from China who have bought or are actively shopping for homes here in the SF bay area. They still work & live in China, but from what they've told me, their goal is to 1) Buy a house for their kids studying in the US; 2) Launder their money; 3) Own a property outside of China as an investment; 4) Have a safe house in case they ne…

Yeah, I don't know why I was downvoted too... I was speaking from personal experience also. I happened to be friends with a realtor, and he would tell me about the crazy bids he was getting from China. A property in Pacific Heights got 2 Chinese bidders in a bidding war, both buying it sight-unseen, all cash, from China. Crazy times.

And I have friends in the Peninsula who have such crashpads in the City (unfortunately, I didn't win the IPO lottery like they did).

So I'm not blaming "furriners" or "1%", just stating what my limited experience has been.

Post reply on HN