3 ms·
LA (at least in the places you'd want to live) is no longer cheaper than SF. This data set is flawed.
by scurvy 9y ago
LA (at least in the places you'd want to live) is no longer cheaper than SF. This data set is flawed.
- Judgmentality 9y agoDo you have any data to back up that claim?
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoNo, Nice places in SF are still a bit more expensive than nice places in LA (and Santa Monica of course). They both have been getting more expensive, but the difference is still there.
- scurvy 9y agoYou need a car in LA, not SF so there's the cost of car ownership. Venice and Santa Monica have skyrocketed the past 3 years due to Snap. $9500/mo for a 2BR at 4th and Rose? Happening location, but that's much higher than SF. https://twitter.com/chiropractic/status/926191351430971392 https://twitter.com/chiropractic/status/926191351430971392 Housing costs are probably equal now or within a percent or two.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoMost of Santa Monica isn’t that bad, and even Venice can be reasonable away from the water. There are plenty of places in SF that exceed high end places in LA for rent, and they are similar or greater in area to boot. Let’s at least compare apples to apples. It isn’t just SNAP, google is big in Venice as well. Many tech startups are in the west of LA. I just don’t a year in Westwood. It was pricey, but not SF pricey. And ya, you need a car, which is also true for much of the Bay Area. (Well, we didn’t need a car until we had a kid, Uber + bus worked well enough before child car seats became an issue)
- scurvy 9y agoI'd hardly call 4th and Rose "high-end" though. That was kind of my point. Even the periphery, fringe places are coming up to SF levels.