
Median Rent SF: One Bedroom Apartment Map - incanus77
http://tiles.mapbox.com/mizmay/map/map-j5tv8jkr
======
bicknergseng
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/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk)
[http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/...](http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk)

~~~
cynicalkane
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
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.

~~~
rayiner
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. Neighborhoods like Rittenhouse Square in
Philadelphia top out over 60,000 per square mile, and neighborhoods like Gold
Coast in Chicago are around 50,000. The only neighborhoods that dense in San
Francisco are Chinatown (75,000/square mile) and Nob Hill (50,000 per square
mile).

There are a lot of neighborhoods in San Francisco like the Mission District
that are in the 20,000-30,000 range. The near north side in Chicago is about
30,000, and there are vast swaths of low-rise areas there that could be built
up (the whole west side of the near north side is semi-industrial). If built
with high-rises with generous street set-backs, 50,000 people per square mile
is very easy to achieve without feeling cramped.[2]

[1] And frankly, even Manhattan as room to grow. If upper manhattan were as
densely built as lower manhattan, you could probably fit another half a San
Francisco onto the island easily.

[2] When people think of 50,000+/square mile density, they think of Manhattan,
but that's a bit misleading. Manhattan's paper density is understated because
it has an absolutely enormous daytime population (almost 4 million people, or
180,000 per square mile). This is the result of everyone commuting in from NJ,
CT, etc. Manhattan also has relatively poor set back and air and light
requirements, no alleys (so people share street space with trash bags), tons
of tourists, etc, which all make the place feel more cramped than it would
otherwise be. My neighborhood in Chicago is 50,000 residential per square
mile, and it can feel pretty empty if you stay away from the tourist areas.
That's because land area is saved by having residential high-rises, which
allows very generous set-backs for air and light and broad sidewalks.

~~~
cynicalkane
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.)

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
tanzam75
Often, it reflects the age of the town.

Grid layouts were very common from the mid-19th century to about World War II.
For example, Boston's colonial-era city center is a mess, but Back Bay and
Cambridgeport are an orderly grid, and the postwar suburbs outside Route 128
are sprawl. A city like Chicago did not exist in 1776, and so it has a more
orderly downtown.

There's also a certain path-dependence at work. Western states were also laid
out in a rectangular grid by federal land surveys, and thus arterial roads
often fell on the boundaries. Subdivisions, however, can be much messier,
depending on when they were developed and what the developer felt like doing.
Compare Seattle (prewar) to its outer suburbs across the lake (postwar). Or
inner Phoenix (prewar) to outer Phoenix (postwar).

------
scep12
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.

~~~
bicknergseng
"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.

~~~
jseliger
>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...](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/facebook_george_lucas_and_nimbyism_the_idiotic_rules_preventing_silicon_valley_from_building_the_houses_and_offices_we_need_to_power_american_innovation_.html)
. SF's housing price problem is entirely self-inflicted, even if many people
seem to treat it as some law of nature.

------
727374
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
Seems high for a 1br, I have a 2br for that price.

------
vinhboy
When the hell did bayview become so expensive comparatively?

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

~~~
hartard
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...](http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/02/exclusive-preview-
googleplex)

------
flyt
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
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.

------
rayiner
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.

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

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
potatolicious
Harlem studios are nowhere near $2500 - $2500 is at at the upper bound of
studio prices in Manhattan, outside of anomalous neighborhoods like TriBeCa.

You can easily get into the $2K range in Chelsea, a bit less on the Upper East
Side, and in the high $1Ks in the Village. Harlem is gentrifying, but the last
prices I've seen there aren't anywhere close to $2500.

Manhattan housing prices are more or less stabilized as all of the manic
demand has moved to Brooklyn. DUMBO, Williamsburg, Park Slope, are now giving
even the most expensive parts of Manhattan a run for their money.

------
adregan
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.

------
vacri
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.

~~~
potatolicious
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.

~~~
vacri
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...

------
phil
Lol they forgot about the loin.

------
dougblack
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
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?)

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

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

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

~~~
mixmastamyk
Constantly foggy?

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

------
ante_annum
I would love one of these for LA!

~~~
vytasgd
And I for Chicago!

------
johnyui
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.

~~~
potatolicious
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.

~~~
bretthoerner
> 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).

~~~
smsm42
"Couple" used to mean romantically engaged. When I lived with a roommate, if
somebody asked "are you guys a couple?" it'd certainly suggest something we
were not :)

