7 ms·

Changing San Francisco is foreseen as a haven for wealthy and childless (1981)

70 points by raldi 11y ago

swuecho 11y ago
be there for 1 day in Friday. I'd say it is worse than I thought and it is on the way to death.
pbreit 11y ago
This whole meme is tired. The whole south, southwest and west 3/4 of the city are family friendly, less expensive and devoid of dot commers. And for the most part, very livable.
- raldi 11y ago
  It's true; the more-affordable housing corresponds with the empty areas of this map: http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/105/2/4/San_Francisco_subway_map_by_qweqwe321.png http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/105/2/4/San_Francisco... I think techies just have a stronger desire to live near transit than the previous generation of San Franciscans did.
  - boulos 11y ago
    Proximity to transit options raises prices, which when you need "at least two" bedrooms is a sizable increase. Like pbreit said above, there are much less expensive parts of the city, but people mostly decide to leave once they feel they "must" have a 3 bedroom place or a private yard.
    - raldi 11y ago
      I think it's more that they must have proximity to transit, and the ones who can't afford that figure that if they're going to be forced to live a car-centric lifestyle, they might as well move out to the suburbs where the prices are somewhat cheaper than SF's transit-poor neighborhoods.
      - tsotha 11y ago
        That's a good observation. For me it's an either/or thing: Either I'm going to live in an area with good public transit, or I'm going to live in an area where I can drive a car to work in less than half an hour with convenient, free parking on both ends. Transit-poor SF neighborhoods are the worst of both worlds.
  - diego 11y ago
    Driving in the Bay Area is much, much worse than it was in 1998 when I moved here (and it was already pretty bad compared to the 80s, I imagine). I just spent seven months looking for a house within half a mile of a BART station because minimizing the need to drive is extremely important to me.
  - dataker 11y ago
    True. Also, many parts of North Bay are fairly affordable, but commuting time may be as much as ~1h with no public transportation.
  - amorphid 11y ago
    It's not just that techies yearn form public transportation. It's not practical to drive to downtown SF. San Francisco is certainly expensive, but much of that cost can be absorbed by not owning a car, not paying for parking downtown, and earning a higher wage. For anyone working downtown and living in a place that itself doesn't have parking, a car is mostly a liability.
- jacobolus 11y ago
  The whole south, southwest, and west 3/4 of the city are zoned to only allow low density residential, have poor access to transit, spend huge amounts of space on roads and parking, and basically require car ownership. If there were better mixed use zoning (think 3–6 story buildings and looser parking requirements) in those areas and others throughout the Bay Area, and better transit, the whole region could fit many more people and reduce the stress on overall housing supply. Plenty of folks who live in low density residential areas don’t necessarily want to drive everywhere or live a suburban lifestyle, but are stuck there by housing prices in more urban areas. There could even still be a large number of single-family houses once you get 3–4 blocks away from transit stops, and they would be cheaper than they are now, because there would be less demand on them. The whole city (and the whole Bay Area) has absurdly priced housing, and even in the southern/western areas of the city ($1500+/month per bedroom), rents suck up a huge proportion of people’s income and middle-class folks are priced out. Young people who aren’t in the tech industry can only afford to live in the city if they cram several roommates into a tiny single-family house or flat and spend 50% of their income on rent, and many service workers in SF are commuting in from far outside the city. The middle-income people I know in SF are mostly still there through rent control, wouldn’t be able to afford it if they were just moving in, and are stuck in their current house/apartment unless they want to completely leave the city. As someone who grew up in a suburb, my personal opinion is that suburbs may be friendly for “families” but they suck for people aged 9–25, 65+, anyone single, or anyone who can’t get around by car or doesn’t enjoy driving everywhere. Luckily the low density parts of San Francisco are still pretty navigable by bicycle, and have reasonable access to downtown, so they’re not as bad as many other suburbs.
  - raldi 11y ago
    > The whole south, southwest, and west 3/4 of the city are zoned to only allow low density residential Correct, pretty much. Everything yellow in this map is zoned 40-X, a.k.a. buildings taller than 4 stories are not welcome: http://i.imgur.com/Tn7CSTX.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Tn7CSTX.jpg (You can make maps like this at http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/ http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/)
    - 11y ago
- theothercorner 11y ago
  "less expensive" http://imgur.com/I9KYO4Z http://imgur.com/I9KYO4Z If you can afford any of these homes, you're in the far right of the income distribution. And this is the 'less expensive' neighborhood that has lousy transit.
  - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
    Any engineer with a decent job in the Bay Area should be that far right on the income distribution. I could take a gig there at $300k+ if I chose to (a specific offer, which was recently re-extended to me), and most who work for large companies probably approach $200k in total compensation. I know some who are making ~$450k -- not famous developers, so you've probably never heard of them, but good ones. I left the Bay Area a decade ago because, in order to buy a four bedroom house (2 kids+home office) in a good school district, the cheapest, crappiest house would have set me back $1M. A nice house started at $1.2M or so. In the suburbs. And I just didn't want to be tied to one of those high-paying jobs. I wanted to be able to quit and do my own thing. So I left that market behind. For Bay Area prices in general, those are typical. Period. The fact that I see a few ~$700k prices on that map means to me that yes, there are some bargains to be had in that area. The only exception is if you have a high tolerance for run-down areas and/or poor schools; lots of cheaper houses in Oakland, for instance, even near Bart stations. THAT's where the people who can't afford San Francisco, but who work there, should be (and are!) looking. I did a San Francisco commute on Bart for nearly four years, and it's not bad. Or live in Alameda and commute on the ferry; that is an awesome commute. Did that for a year as well. But I have a house near Boulder/Denver, Colorado now. Cost: ~$360k. Coming from the Bay Area, I had enough equity to pay cash. Transit: Short walk to two busses that could take me to different parts of Boulder or Longmont (though traffic is low here and I typically drive my Volt, charged with the solar panels on my house). Neighborhood: Short walk to a library, grocery store, about ten restaurants, and two cafes (not counting the Starbucks embedded in the grocery store). Eighteen minute drive to Boulder or Longmont or the north part of Denver. All that and no mortgage. The recruiters who email me face an uphill battle trying to convince me that I want to live in the Bay Area again. I miss my Bay Area friends, for sure. But it would take something really compelling to make me want to return.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 11y ago
  > This whole meme is tired But finding out that it goes as far back as a 1981 NYT article is interesting in the plus ça change department.
- jarjoura 11y ago
  The south and south-western parts of the city are fast becoming the most expensive spots to own. You'll see the same $1050 per sq ft applies, regardless of neighborhood. It's true they're more family friendly, but I've heard from many that SF public schools aren't exactly top-tier. There's Lowell for high-school, and some excellent elementary schools for dual-language families, but that's about it. The south-eastern side is still achievable for under a million, but anecdotally a friend put an offer down on a place in Bay View that was listed for $699k that had 20 competing offers and sold for $980k in cash. (a small 3 bedroom, 1 bath) I am not saying you're wrong that this city is family friendly, but I am saying that there doesn't seem to be an end in sight for it being priced out of reach of normal middle class families. Especially considering you'll probably send your kids to private schools increasing your expenses.
- backtoyoujim 11y ago
  "And for the most part, very livable." That is the definition of flyover country.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    If you can call that living.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      Not everyone wants to be cheek by jowl with strangers.
  - pbreit 11y ago
    I meant by San Francisco standards.
ucaetano 11y ago
San Francisco has 50% more land area than Manhattan, 15% more area than Paris. It has half the population of Manhattan, and roughly 1/3 of Paris. SF is mostly low-density houses, with a small mid-density area in the east 1/3. It could be easily converted to a mid-density city with widespread public transportation by opening west of Van Ness for development, while charging development fees to fund expansion of public transportation. But there are way too many entrenched interests preventing that. Guess that the only way out is to wait for the next big one.
- nugget 11y ago
  The market always corrects itself. San Francisco's high prices will continue to create an exodus of young talent which should help support a second Silicon Valley type nexus, whether that be in Seattle, Austin, New York, or elsewhere. It was interesting to hear Yelp call out high developer salaries on their last earnings call. Companies are starting to invest in satellite offices and this will have long term consequences.
  - raldi 11y ago
    > The market always corrects itself. "In the long run, we're all dead." -Keynes It took generations for a second Motor City to emerge outside of Detroit. New York is still the unchallenged capital of the finance and fashion worlds. There's no "Second Hollywood" in the United States. There's a Reno and an Atlantic City, but neither holds a candle to Las Vegas. What makes you so certain tech will have an exodus from San Francisco between now and the year of your retirement?
    - nugget 11y ago
      It's hard for two kids in a garage to start a new car company or a new investment bank. Much easier for them to start the next big tech company.
    - Encosia 11y ago
      > There's no "Second Hollywood" in the United States. Look into what's been going on in Georgia for the past few years. Not a replacement for Hollywood yet, but it's a good example of how quickly alternatives can take off due almost entirely to geographic differences in the cost of doing business.
beatpanda 11y ago
Are y'all finished with denying your role in destroying the city yet or are you still in denial?
- beatpanda 11y ago
  I see from the down votes that you all still think its someone else's fault. Enjoy your shitty country club.
  - jbarciauskas 11y ago
    Those responsible for limiting new development are at least partially responsible.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- raldi 11y ago
  By "y'all" are you referring to the people who moved to San Francisco in 1981 and "destroyed" the city by making all the changes this article describes? Or are you referring to the gays and hippies who did the same a decade earlier? Or do you mean all the civilians who destroyed what used to be a nice military town? Or do you mean the soldiers who ruined a nice Gold Rush town? Or do you mean the 49ers who destroyed a Mexican ranching and missionary outpost? Or the Mexicans who spoiled a charming Ohlone village?
SQL2219 11y ago
http://www.jobdensity.com/QueryGrid.aspx?q=936&t=Software%20Engineer&qt=6/29/2015%208:51:25%20PM http://www.jobdensity.com/QueryGrid.aspx?q=936&t=Software%20...
inguinalhernia 11y ago
Same as it ever was. Boom, bust, boom, bust. Booming now, when's the bust?
- raldi 11y ago
  There have been short-term booms and busts, but the long-term trend looks like this: http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/54aadb0df92ea1558800c86a/Case-Shiller_Simpl-Percentages.jpg http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/54aadb0df92ea1558800c86... Imagine a version of yourself in 1987 waiting for the bubble to burst.
notacoward 11y ago
Seems apropos: "The Uberfication of everything is turning San Francisco into an assisted living community for the young." https://twitter.com/startupljackson/status/408137232533303296 https://twitter.com/startupljackson/status/40813723253330329...
- raldi 11y ago
  Why just the young? I don't remember there being an age limit to sign up for Uber.
  - notacoward 11y ago
    Probably because the majority of people who can afford to use all those services all the time are young techies. But then, it's not my tweet.
    - raldi 11y ago
      That's not really true, though.
      - notacoward 11y ago
        What do you base that on? Who do you think uses these "gig economy" services? First, people with high disposable income - i.e. not the poor or those with families. Second, people who are so comfortable with their smartphone apps that they'll use them to replace very small amounts of time doing the same things in more traditional ways - i.e. not a lot of old people. Sure, there are some outliers, but "young techie" pretty well captures the core demographic here.
        raldi 11y ago
        You're backpedaling. Earlier you said only young people can afford to use these services. Now you're saying only young people choose to use these services. The latter may be true; the former certainly isn't. When the horseless carriage came out, or electric light, or the radio, traditonal-minded folk chose not to buy them. But I don't think anyone would say those inventions made the world into an assisted-living facility for the young.
tzs 11y ago
I was curious and looked up the current rents for apartments that I used to live in. Pasadena, CA: $500 in 1988, $1100 now (1 bedroom, 1 bath) (2.96% increase per year) Cupertino, CA: $765 in 1988, $2600 now (1 bedroom, 1 bath, 750 sq ft) (4.64% increase per year) Seattle, WA: $515 in 1992, $1180 now (1 bedroom, 1 bath, 600 sq ft) (3.67% increase pr year) Silverdale, WA: $705 in 2007, $1200-$1500 now (1 bedroom, 1 bath, 600 sq ft) (4.95%-7.10% per year) (And now house, Kitsap County WA, 1400 sq ft on 1/5 acre lot, $1300/month mortgage, taxes, insurance) While looking this up, I noticed that Los Angeles and surrounding cities have a lot of 1 bed/1 bath apartments in OK places for under $800/month. I don't know why more tech companies aren't heading to Southern California. Good weather, good rental rates, plenty of first class schools pumping out STEM people to hire (Caltech, UCLA, Harvey Mudd, USC for instance), diverse art/cultural attractions, good food city. Commuting isn't bad by car if you have some flexibility in hours so you can avoid rush hours.

70 points by raldi 11y ago

be there for 1 day in Friday. I'd say it is worse than I thought and it is on the way to death.

This whole meme is tired. The whole south, southwest and west 3/4 of the city are family friendly, less expensive and devoid of dot commers. And for the most part, very livable.

raldi 11y ago
It's true; the more-affordable housing corresponds with the empty areas of this map: http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/105/2/4/San_Francisco_subway_map_by_qweqwe321.png http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/105/2/4/San_Francisco... I think techies just have a stronger desire to live near transit than the previous generation of San Franciscans did.
- boulos 11y ago
  Proximity to transit options raises prices, which when you need "at least two" bedrooms is a sizable increase. Like pbreit said above, there are much less expensive parts of the city, but people mostly decide to leave once they feel they "must" have a 3 bedroom place or a private yard.
  - raldi 11y ago
    I think it's more that they must have proximity to transit, and the ones who can't afford that figure that if they're going to be forced to live a car-centric lifestyle, they might as well move out to the suburbs where the prices are somewhat cheaper than SF's transit-poor neighborhoods.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      That's a good observation. For me it's an either/or thing: Either I'm going to live in an area with good public transit, or I'm going to live in an area where I can drive a car to work in less than half an hour with convenient, free parking on both ends. Transit-poor SF neighborhoods are the worst of both worlds.
- diego 11y ago
  Driving in the Bay Area is much, much worse than it was in 1998 when I moved here (and it was already pretty bad compared to the 80s, I imagine). I just spent seven months looking for a house within half a mile of a BART station because minimizing the need to drive is extremely important to me.
- dataker 11y ago
  True. Also, many parts of North Bay are fairly affordable, but commuting time may be as much as ~1h with no public transportation.
- amorphid 11y ago
  It's not just that techies yearn form public transportation. It's not practical to drive to downtown SF. San Francisco is certainly expensive, but much of that cost can be absorbed by not owning a car, not paying for parking downtown, and earning a higher wage. For anyone working downtown and living in a place that itself doesn't have parking, a car is mostly a liability.
jacobolus 11y ago
The whole south, southwest, and west 3/4 of the city are zoned to only allow low density residential, have poor access to transit, spend huge amounts of space on roads and parking, and basically require car ownership. If there were better mixed use zoning (think 3–6 story buildings and looser parking requirements) in those areas and others throughout the Bay Area, and better transit, the whole region could fit many more people and reduce the stress on overall housing supply. Plenty of folks who live in low density residential areas don’t necessarily want to drive everywhere or live a suburban lifestyle, but are stuck there by housing prices in more urban areas. There could even still be a large number of single-family houses once you get 3–4 blocks away from transit stops, and they would be cheaper than they are now, because there would be less demand on them. The whole city (and the whole Bay Area) has absurdly priced housing, and even in the southern/western areas of the city ($1500+/month per bedroom), rents suck up a huge proportion of people’s income and middle-class folks are priced out. Young people who aren’t in the tech industry can only afford to live in the city if they cram several roommates into a tiny single-family house or flat and spend 50% of their income on rent, and many service workers in SF are commuting in from far outside the city. The middle-income people I know in SF are mostly still there through rent control, wouldn’t be able to afford it if they were just moving in, and are stuck in their current house/apartment unless they want to completely leave the city. As someone who grew up in a suburb, my personal opinion is that suburbs may be friendly for “families” but they suck for people aged 9–25, 65+, anyone single, or anyone who can’t get around by car or doesn’t enjoy driving everywhere. Luckily the low density parts of San Francisco are still pretty navigable by bicycle, and have reasonable access to downtown, so they’re not as bad as many other suburbs.
- raldi 11y ago
  > The whole south, southwest, and west 3/4 of the city are zoned to only allow low density residential Correct, pretty much. Everything yellow in this map is zoned 40-X, a.k.a. buildings taller than 4 stories are not welcome: http://i.imgur.com/Tn7CSTX.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Tn7CSTX.jpg (You can make maps like this at http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/ http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/)
  - 11y ago
theothercorner 11y ago
"less expensive" http://imgur.com/I9KYO4Z http://imgur.com/I9KYO4Z If you can afford any of these homes, you're in the far right of the income distribution. And this is the 'less expensive' neighborhood that has lousy transit.
- SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
  Any engineer with a decent job in the Bay Area should be that far right on the income distribution. I could take a gig there at $300k+ if I chose to (a specific offer, which was recently re-extended to me), and most who work for large companies probably approach $200k in total compensation. I know some who are making ~$450k -- not famous developers, so you've probably never heard of them, but good ones. I left the Bay Area a decade ago because, in order to buy a four bedroom house (2 kids+home office) in a good school district, the cheapest, crappiest house would have set me back $1M. A nice house started at $1.2M or so. In the suburbs. And I just didn't want to be tied to one of those high-paying jobs. I wanted to be able to quit and do my own thing. So I left that market behind. For Bay Area prices in general, those are typical. Period. The fact that I see a few ~$700k prices on that map means to me that yes, there are some bargains to be had in that area. The only exception is if you have a high tolerance for run-down areas and/or poor schools; lots of cheaper houses in Oakland, for instance, even near Bart stations. THAT's where the people who can't afford San Francisco, but who work there, should be (and are!) looking. I did a San Francisco commute on Bart for nearly four years, and it's not bad. Or live in Alameda and commute on the ferry; that is an awesome commute. Did that for a year as well. But I have a house near Boulder/Denver, Colorado now. Cost: ~$360k. Coming from the Bay Area, I had enough equity to pay cash. Transit: Short walk to two busses that could take me to different parts of Boulder or Longmont (though traffic is low here and I typically drive my Volt, charged with the solar panels on my house). Neighborhood: Short walk to a library, grocery store, about ten restaurants, and two cafes (not counting the Starbucks embedded in the grocery store). Eighteen minute drive to Boulder or Longmont or the north part of Denver. All that and no mortgage. The recruiters who email me face an uphill battle trying to convince me that I want to live in the Bay Area again. I miss my Bay Area friends, for sure. But it would take something really compelling to make me want to return.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dang 11y ago
> This whole meme is tired But finding out that it goes as far back as a 1981 NYT article is interesting in the plus ça change department.
jarjoura 11y ago
The south and south-western parts of the city are fast becoming the most expensive spots to own. You'll see the same $1050 per sq ft applies, regardless of neighborhood. It's true they're more family friendly, but I've heard from many that SF public schools aren't exactly top-tier. There's Lowell for high-school, and some excellent elementary schools for dual-language families, but that's about it. The south-eastern side is still achievable for under a million, but anecdotally a friend put an offer down on a place in Bay View that was listed for $699k that had 20 competing offers and sold for $980k in cash. (a small 3 bedroom, 1 bath) I am not saying you're wrong that this city is family friendly, but I am saying that there doesn't seem to be an end in sight for it being priced out of reach of normal middle class families. Especially considering you'll probably send your kids to private schools increasing your expenses.
backtoyoujim 11y ago
"And for the most part, very livable." That is the definition of flyover country.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  If you can call that living.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    Not everyone wants to be cheek by jowl with strangers.
- pbreit 11y ago
  I meant by San Francisco standards.

ucaetano 11y ago

San Francisco has 50% more land area than Manhattan, 15% more area than Paris. It has half the population of Manhattan, and roughly 1/3 of Paris. SF is mostly low-density houses, with a small mid-density area in the east 1/3. It could be easily converted to a mid-density city with widespread public transportation by opening west of Van Ness for development, while charging development fees to fund expansion of public transportation. But there are way too many entrenched interests preventing that. Guess that the only way out is to wait for the next big one.

nugget 11y ago
The market always corrects itself. San Francisco's high prices will continue to create an exodus of young talent which should help support a second Silicon Valley type nexus, whether that be in Seattle, Austin, New York, or elsewhere. It was interesting to hear Yelp call out high developer salaries on their last earnings call. Companies are starting to invest in satellite offices and this will have long term consequences.
- raldi 11y ago
  > The market always corrects itself. "In the long run, we're all dead." -Keynes It took generations for a second Motor City to emerge outside of Detroit. New York is still the unchallenged capital of the finance and fashion worlds. There's no "Second Hollywood" in the United States. There's a Reno and an Atlantic City, but neither holds a candle to Las Vegas. What makes you so certain tech will have an exodus from San Francisco between now and the year of your retirement?
  - nugget 11y ago
    It's hard for two kids in a garage to start a new car company or a new investment bank. Much easier for them to start the next big tech company.
  - Encosia 11y ago
    > There's no "Second Hollywood" in the United States. Look into what's been going on in Georgia for the past few years. Not a replacement for Hollywood yet, but it's a good example of how quickly alternatives can take off due almost entirely to geographic differences in the cost of doing business.

beatpanda 11y ago

Are y'all finished with denying your role in destroying the city yet or are you still in denial?

beatpanda 11y ago
I see from the down votes that you all still think its someone else's fault. Enjoy your shitty country club.
- jbarciauskas 11y ago
  Those responsible for limiting new development are at least partially responsible.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
raldi 11y ago
By "y'all" are you referring to the people who moved to San Francisco in 1981 and "destroyed" the city by making all the changes this article describes? Or are you referring to the gays and hippies who did the same a decade earlier? Or do you mean all the civilians who destroyed what used to be a nice military town? Or do you mean the soldiers who ruined a nice Gold Rush town? Or do you mean the 49ers who destroyed a Mexican ranching and missionary outpost? Or the Mexicans who spoiled a charming Ohlone village?

SQL2219 11y ago

http://www.jobdensity.com/QueryGrid.aspx?q=936&t=Software%20Engineer&qt=6/29/2015%208:51:25%20PM http://www.jobdensity.com/QueryGrid.aspx?q=936&t=Software%20...

inguinalhernia 11y ago

Same as it ever was. Boom, bust, boom, bust. Booming now, when's the bust?

raldi 11y ago
There have been short-term booms and busts, but the long-term trend looks like this: http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/54aadb0df92ea1558800c86a/Case-Shiller_Simpl-Percentages.jpg http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/54aadb0df92ea1558800c86... Imagine a version of yourself in 1987 waiting for the bubble to burst.

notacoward 11y ago

Seems apropos: "The Uberfication of everything is turning San Francisco into an assisted living community for the young." https://twitter.com/startupljackson/status/408137232533303296 https://twitter.com/startupljackson/status/40813723253330329...

raldi 11y ago
Why just the young? I don't remember there being an age limit to sign up for Uber.
- notacoward 11y ago
  Probably because the majority of people who can afford to use all those services all the time are young techies. But then, it's not my tweet.
  - raldi 11y ago
    That's not really true, though.
    - notacoward 11y ago
      What do you base that on? Who do you think uses these "gig economy" services? First, people with high disposable income - i.e. not the poor or those with families. Second, people who are so comfortable with their smartphone apps that they'll use them to replace very small amounts of time doing the same things in more traditional ways - i.e. not a lot of old people. Sure, there are some outliers, but "young techie" pretty well captures the core demographic here.
      - raldi 11y ago
        You're backpedaling. Earlier you said only young people can afford to use these services. Now you're saying only young people choose to use these services. The latter may be true; the former certainly isn't. When the horseless carriage came out, or electric light, or the radio, traditonal-minded folk chose not to buy them. But I don't think anyone would say those inventions made the world into an assisted-living facility for the young.

tzs 11y ago

I was curious and looked up the current rents for apartments that I used to live in. Pasadena, CA: $500 in 1988, $1100 now (1 bedroom, 1 bath) (2.96% increase per year) Cupertino, CA: $765 in 1988, $2600 now (1 bedroom, 1 bath, 750 sq ft) (4.64% increase per year) Seattle, WA: $515 in 1992, $1180 now (1 bedroom, 1 bath, 600 sq ft) (3.67% increase pr year) Silverdale, WA: $705 in 2007, $1200-$1500 now (1 bedroom, 1 bath, 600 sq ft) (4.95%-7.10% per year) (And now house, Kitsap County WA, 1400 sq ft on 1/5 acre lot, $1300/month mortgage, taxes, insurance) While looking this up, I noticed that Los Angeles and surrounding cities have a lot of 1 bed/1 bath apartments in OK places for under $800/month. I don't know why more tech companies aren't heading to Southern California. Good weather, good rental rates, plenty of first class schools pumping out STEM people to hire (Caltech, UCLA, Harvey Mudd, USC for instance), diverse art/cultural attractions, good food city. Commuting isn't bad by car if you have some flexibility in hours so you can avoid rush hours.