I posted something similar about a year ago discussing astronomical rents and San Francisco being the most expensive in the US.

Well SF's median rent went up 13.1% in a year. A 2 bedroom is now at 5k. Fucking crazy. :RpS_blink:

https://www.zumper.com/blog/2015/10/zumper-national-rent-report-october-2015/

Columbus sitting at #40.

Living in a large city does not appeal to me whatsoever. This is one reason.

I paid $90 a SF for a brick house on a golf course, full basement, additional three season room and three and half car attached garage. Hope this helps.

Sonofanump;1759318 wrote:I paid $90 a SF for a brick house on a golf course, full basement, additional three season room and three and half car attached garage. Hope this helps.

Because, Ohio?

I don't get the appeal.

I've never been to San Francisco, but I have several friends there. I'm eventually going to plan a trip the check the hype.

Surprised Oakland is so high. I've always heard it was a shithole.

gay lives matter

Automatik;1759319 wrote:Because, Ohio?

Because rational housing prices in Ohio.

More like below average cost per square foot.

San Francisco is beautiful, and has everything you could want in a city. It's nice to walk over a hill be greeted by a stunning view of a bay with mountains. That said, not worth it.

I live in a one-bedroom apartment in one of the most desirable neighborhoods in Chicago. I pay less than the average (according to that list). Zumper can suck it.

Oakland is high cause it's close to SF lol. It is a shithole, but does have very nice places on the water. SF has the best views in the country, IMO.

raiderbuck;1759353 wrote:I live in a one-bedroom apartment in one of the most desirable neighborhoods in Chicago. I pay less than the average (according to that list). Zumper can suck it.

Yeah, same. I don't own, but I rent on Michigan Ave and my rent isn't high at all. The owner's monthly payments aren't much higher than my rent payments.

Point being, you can live in a big city and find affordable, nice places.

...except in SF. Fuck that place.

It's getting harder and harder here in Brooklyn. Affordable and nice means hellish commutes. I just moved further out 2 months ago, not thrilled about it, but it's a lot cheaper.

Automatik;1759371 wrote:It's getting harder and harder here in Brooklyn. Affordable and nice means hellish commutes. I just moved further out 2 months ago, not thrilled about it, but it's a lot cheaper.

Do you live by yourself or room with others? NYC also gets you with those broker fees.

I have roommates, but I'm not on a lease...month to month.

Luckily I never had to deal with ridiculous broker fees. We had one at my last place, but it was a flat fee. It was around $400 a person, so not bad at all. My friend (a finance baller) just signed for a place. The fee was 15% of the full year's rent. It's absurd.


I'm assuming other metro areas deal with fees too?

Automatik;1759390 wrote:I have roommates, but I'm not on a lease...month to month.

Luckily I never had to deal with ridiculous broker fees. We had one at my last place, but it was a flat fee. It was around $400 a person, so not bad at all. My friend (a finance baller) just signed for a place. The fee was 15% of the full year's rent. It's absurd.


I'm assuming other metro areas deal with fees too?

No such rates in DC. DC has some very strong tenant rights. Rent is high, but you get a lot more bang for you buck than you will in NYC.

Aren't broker fee's just built into your first month's rent (nothing additional than what you already pay)? Never used a broker, but I thought that's how that works?

Here it's a percentage of the full year, flat fee, or just one month on top of first month, security, sometimes even last month's too. It's fucked.

No fee is possible you just have to search your ass off and deal with a lot more bullshit.

Pay the fee and the broker does the work for you.

SportsAndLady;1759395 wrote:Aren't broker fee's just built into your first month's rent (nothing additional than what you already pay)? Never used a broker, but I thought that's how that works?

Yes, many times the landlord is actually paying the broker first month's rent. You as a consumer don't pay anything extra, but it varies depending on where you are.

And some of these units get listed with multiple services. Really pissed me off one time when I was moving out and I was getting 2-3 calls a day to show my apartment. They were supposed to give you 24-hr notice, but I would have them call me up wanting to show someone in half an hour. And it's because if they have to wait a day, they might lose the sale(commission). After about 3 calls like that I put my foot down. Fortunately it did rent pretty quickly, but I still had about 10 showings over 2 weeks.

SF is a great 3 day visit (much like NYC & Vegas) but all 3 would suck to live in 365. I was in SF a couple months ago and hipsters have taken over the Wharf area. I'm all for hipsters being stupid and paying for rent thru their nose ring.

Automatik;1759390 wrote:I have roommates, but I'm not on a lease...month to month.

Luckily I never had to deal with ridiculous broker fees. We had one at my last place, but it was a flat fee. It was around $400 a person, so not bad at all. My friend (a finance baller) just signed for a place. The fee was 15% of the full year's rent. It's absurd.


I'm assuming other metro areas deal with fees too?

Not in Chicago. At least not on that level. You can use a realtor to help you find a place, and yea you might encounter a fee with that. But we also have apartment finder services that have low fees. I think I paid maybe $80-$100 for an application, followed by the standard 1st month's rent. But beyond that? Hell no, NY real estate fees are in a league of their own.

Sometimes the apartment finder people are free. You just end up paying the actual landlord. I've had that happen once.