Median Rent SF: One Bedroom Apartment Map

http://tiles.mapbox.com/mizmay/map/map-j5tv8jkr

by incanus77 • 13 years ago

74 68 13 years ago

tiles.mapbox.com

johnyui• 13 years ago

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.

zobzu4• 13 years ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "efficient".

personally I live in a one bedroom, and there's one of me, and the heat map for my area looks perfectly accurate. I'm also happy not to be forced to live with someone and still work any where I like. Freedom 'n all.

jennyjenjen2• 13 years ago

So wait, couples are 'forced' to live together? You would think a couple would like each other to some extent, and in a lot of cases enough to gladly live together.

auctiontheory• 13 years ago

If almost 45% of San Franciscans are single, plus a chunk of polyamorous, co-opers, and goodness knows who else, it may not be true that "most people live in couples." http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/solocities.aspx

Also, I know it's often done, but a one-bedroom is rather cozy for two people for the long term.

potatolicious3• 13 years ago

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 rent to $2500 to open up options in the Haight, Castro, and Mission, we're still talking about $30K in pure rent.

Nowadays I'm in NYC, where no sane landlord will let you break the 40X Rule, where your monthly rent multiplied by 40 may not exceed your pre-tax annual income. On $100K that's $2500 a month - and that's an absolute upper bound rent. $2500 is totally feasible in SF, but you definitely won't have your pick of apartments. A income of $100K would be well-advised to stay under $2500, where pickings are increasingly slim.

> "Also, bear in mind most people live in couples"

Citation needed. I know a lot of people who have roommates in SF, but SF is a notoriously single city. I'd be extremely surprised if >50% of SF's population is living with a spouse or partner.

Some quick Google-fu:

In fact, it looks like as of the 2000 census[1] that 38% of the city lived alone, and 56% of households do not have a spouse or partner living there. I wouldn't call that "most people".

[1] http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm

Side note: it's crazy that you can rent places in good parts of Manhattan for cheaper than parts of SF these days.

bretthoerner2• 13 years ago

> I'd be extremely surprised if >50% of SF's population is living with a spouse or partner.

I think when the grandparent said "living in couples" they mean "in pairs" not "romantically engaged." Most well-to-do SFers I know live with 1+ roommate. That's all they're saying. A 2(+) BR apartment cuts costs per person because you share the "core" (kitchen, bathroom, living room).

Retric• 13 years ago

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.

notJim3• 13 years ago

Least efficient, but also most desirable for many (single) people.

smsm422• 13 years ago

When people live in couples, there's a distinct possibility of being three of you instead of two of you, and then maybe more :) And then combined income of 100K is really not a lot of money.

chockablock• 13 years ago

Awesome. Wish there was a legend for the color scale.

ante_annum• 13 years ago

I would love one of these for LA!

vytasgd• 13 years ago

And I for Chicago!

scep12• 13 years ago

Great map, but the financials are a bit misleading. Maybe a note qualifying the salary numbers with a message indicating that the stated number is more of a minimum would help.

Take Mission for example - would you really spend $2250 per month rent on an 82,000 salary? That's nearly 2 weeks' take-home pay after taxes. Good financial practice says that your rent/mortgage should only be 1 week's take-home pay. A responsible spender should make closer to $120,000 to be spending $2250/month on rent.

bicknergseng2• 13 years ago

"most likely you can afford to live here"

Seems like a good enough qualifier. Especially since these are median prices, so cheaper rents are to be found.

not actually. SF is nuts.

jseliger2• 13 years ago

>SF is nuts.

True: but it can stop being nuts, or at least be less nuts, whenever voters want it to be: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... . SF's housing price problem is entirely self-inflicted, even if many people seem to treat it as some law of nature.

notJim3• 13 years ago

These numbers seemed way off to me. When I was making $80k, I thought $1700 was a stretch, I can't even imagine paying $2250.

Here In NYC, the rule of thumb is 40x your monthly rent to get salary to qualify (so $2250 would mean $90k salary.) I guess it's different in SF?

binarycrusader• 13 years ago

I think you're failing to account for taxes and other things out here. At $100K+ year, someone out in the bay area will likely see only 64% of that in their paychecks. So by that rule, they'd have to find somewhere to live that cost them no more than $1230 per month.

In the bay area, I'd say 1.5 ($1846) weeks to 2 ($2461) weeks of pay is a more realistic number.

The only people I know that have rent/mortgage that is 1 week's take-home pay either make significantly more than $100K per year or have split the rent between multiple occupants/families.

Being a single person in the Bay Area, or a couple with one income earner is not an easy task when you consider those figures.

thatthatis• 13 years ago

In the past century, in the US, people spent approximately 1/3 of their income on housing.

Its been years since I did that analysis, and I can't find it anymore so I don't know if it was 1/3 of pre or post tax, but I do remember that it was remarkably consistent over time.

anmol• 13 years ago

You are right about responsible spending numbers. Tech workers making $80k-ish in SF can't really afford to live in the Mission, SoMa, South Beach etc. WITHOUT roommates. There just aren't any 1-beds for less than $2500 - $3000 in the Mission right now.

flyt• 13 years ago

The data not reflected here is the housing quality for the given price, and included features. For example most of these locations East of the park probably don't have parking, which could be an additional hundreds of dollars per month, if it's even available.

rrwhite• 13 years ago

Are the including Studios in this or just 1BR? I ask because a 1 BR is a luxury apartment for a single inhabitant. Most folks living by themselves would have a studio. SF is expensive but it's not that expensive.

bicknergseng2• 13 years ago

Some other related statistics I thought were interesting:

According to the Census, the median household income in SF was $72,947. According to census data from 2007-2011, approximately 1/3 of SF residents make over 100k. There's a notable doubling of households making >200k between 2000 and 2011, from ~20k to ~42k.

Based on the two datasets, it seems like 2/3rds of the population of SF either cannot or can only barely afford to live in the city.

I for one am ready for the rent bubble to pop.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0667000.html http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/... http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/...

cynicalkane2• 13 years ago

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 scarcity. That is, everyone wants to live there, but the city refuses to allow more units to be built or make it easier to rent. This damage is self-inflicted; California liberals hate density and gentrification although such things are green, decrease broad-market housing costs thereby serving the "displaced" poor, increase urban vibrancy, and reduce traffic congestion compared to the status quo.

I saw a study that suggested the economic cost for permission to build a unit in SF (calculated by subtracting a unit's cost from the value of the land it sits on plus the cost of building it) is $600k. By contrast, it's $100k in Chicago and five figures in any major city in Texas.

dreamdu5t• 13 years ago

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.

nugget• 13 years ago

I would argue that there indeed is quite a bit of speculation going on. Most of my friends are spending an unsustainable % of their income on rent, betting that their stock options will pay off. Of course for most, they won't, and once that sinks in the market will adjust.

727374• 13 years ago

Very cool. I wish there was a time dimension on this. Also, would love to see Berkeley/Oakland. SOMA was actually one of the best values merely 5 yrs ago. My friends got a huge 1BR loft with parking spot for 2500. Granted they had no rent control and got effectively evicted when the rent increased to 3300. So maybe it wasn't the best value afterall.

vecinu• 13 years ago

Seems high for a 1br, I have a 2br for that price.

phil• 13 years ago

Lol they forgot about the loin.

vinhboy• 13 years ago

When the hell did bayview become so expensive comparatively?

hnriot• 13 years ago

Since it was redeveloped.

smtddr• 13 years ago

You haven't seen anything yet. Bayview is where Google's new googleplex building will be located.........

hartard• 13 years ago

Bay View is just the name of the new complex. It will still be located in Mountain View. [1]

[1] http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/02/exclusive-pre...

mleonhard• 13 years ago

The northern side of Bayview borders the expensive Potrero Hill neighborhood. And the very southern end of Bayview has some new apartment buildings, with a large hill separating them from the ghetto.

rayiner6• 13 years ago

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.

bretthoerner2• 13 years ago

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

rayiner6• 13 years ago

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.

derwiki• 13 years ago

Why is Seacliff so low? That's one of the nicest parts of town.

mixmastamyk• 13 years ago

Constantly foggy?

rms2• 13 years ago

And has a longer commute to downtown by public transit than Oakland

dougblack• 13 years ago

As a graduating student destined for San Francisco this summer this map is a godsend! Great help in narrowing down areas to look for good housing. Finding a place in SF seems brutal.

Thanks!

abalone• 13 years ago

I would not have expected a light patch in the lower haight. That's one of the most desirable spots in the city. (Maybe due to very low availability?)

rms2• 13 years ago

The nice-ish two bedrooms in the Lower Haight for 3600/month are where I suggest new transplants to the city move.

vacri2• 13 years ago

Why is the area around the Golden Gate park so much cheaper than the surrounding areas? Is it working class? Seems strange that with access to a large park (and no other info) that it would be considerably cheaper than neighbouring areas.

tolvak• 13 years ago

I've always speculated that the main force driving down rent prices on the west side of San Francisco (and down through Daly City and Pacifica) are largely due to the weather being foggy and chilly more often (especially in the summer) on the far west side of the northern peninsula, so it is seen as less desirable. I'm sure there are other factors at play as well, but that seems to be a major one.

potatolicious3• 13 years ago

Transportation. San Francisco's Achille's Heel (though the city has many, many such heels).

If you look at the heatmap you will see that it corresponds to transportation infrastructure almost to the T. Areas with access to BART are expensive. Areas with access to a functioning MUNI train are expensive (along the J-Church, for example).

Outer and Inner Richmond has no mass transit, whatsoever. The Inner Sunset has the N-Judah train, which has about 1/4 the capacity it really needs - i.e., don't count on it getting you to work during rush hour. In fact, don't count on it getting you downtown during off hours either, given its notoriety on breakdowns... From the Outer Sunset to downtown the N-Judah easily takes a full hour.

Yes, to go six miles.

Transportation in San Francisco is really a clusterfuck. For the second densest city in the US it is positively shameful. Even sleepy Portland, OR, has a better transit system. In fact you can find mid-sized cities in the Midwest with better transit. SF is really the worst-run city I've ever lived in.

San Francisco is where people move to live the car-free, urban lifestyle, and then yearn for a car and beg for rides all the damned time.

Ultimately, you either give up and buy a vehicle, or you give up and develop legs of iron cycling over hills, or you move to the Mission.

vacri2• 13 years ago

Thanks, that makes sense. It's odd though - when I visited SF I found it bizarre the sheer variety of public transport available - trains, trams, buses, ferries, cable cars, half-tram/buses, half-bus/trams...

adregan• 13 years ago

I pay far less living in Tokyo, and I can walk to Shinjuku station in 20 minutes. I pay a lot more for food and my apartment is tiny, but rent is affordable, and if you share a place, it becomes really reasonable.

However, it's certainly not as cheap as Philly was.

Median Rent SF: One Bedroom Apartment Map

Related Stories