Average Asking Rents in San Francisco and Oakland SlipAugust 21, 2018
The weighted average asking rent for an apartment in San Francisco, including one-off rentals as well as those in larger developments, slipped another 1.4 percent over the past month to $4,170, which is 2.0 percent lower than at the same time last year and 6.6 percent below a peak in the fourth quarter of 2015. That being said, the asking rent for a one-bedroom has ticked back up to around $3,600 a month (versus $3,650 in 2015).
At the same time, the weighted average asking rent for an apartment in Oakland ticked up 2.5 percent over the past month to $2,630, which is nearly 12 percent higher than at the same time. But the jump is being driven by an increase in the size (i.e., mix) of the available units.
And adjusting for mix, the average asking rent for an apartment in Oakland appears to have actually slipped around 2.8 percent over the past month to $2,500, which would be 16 percent below a 2016-era peak but 6.1 percent higher versus the same time last year with the asking rent for a one-bedroom holding around $2,100 a month (which is 42 percent less expensive than in San Francisco versus 43 percent less expensive at the same time last year).
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
So both are lower than long ago peaks – 2015 for SF, 2016 for Oakland (so much for the “rises last/falls first” rule) – but the latter is more lower than the former. But more recently, SF is below last year but Oakland – adjusted – seems to be higher. Ay yi yi!
Yes, Oakland is up but it’s actually down. Now that Oakland is up and S.F. is down, we throw in other variables to make it look like Oakland is slipping compared to SF. Oakland, which is barely mentioned on this site despite a historic building boom, has to always be put in its place behind S.F.
You’re still here, years later, shilling your chip-on-the-shoulder inferiority complex about Oakland vs. SF. I lived in SF for 14 years, moved to Oakland 4 years ago against my will, and I can tell you conclusively and absolutely:
Oakland is inferior. It’s an industrial working-class city full of crime, trash, and poor air quality. Don’t live here unless you have no other choice. (That is, unless you can afford to live above 580 and never even pass through the flat lands other than on a freeway to/from somewhere else.)
“Oakland, which is barely mentioned on this site despite a historic building boom”
Pardon ?? You must be confusing this site w/ some other you contribute to. But, whatever, the one that should feel slighted is SJ: even their undernourished downtown occasionally does things…but you’d never know it from here.
Notcom, back in the day socketsite was going to launch a complete sister site dedicated to South Bay real estate. IIRC, that was around the time that The 88 was going up and lots of folks thought that San Jose was going to be the next epicenter of high-rise development. Then the so-called “financial crisis” happened, so maybe the site didn’t take off.
Silicon Valley Business Journal has an excellent development tracking map for San Jose, with particular focus on downtown. A lot of under construction and in-the-pipeline projects down there.
The massive Google office development in downtown SJ (8 million square feet) will be the second largest office development in the Bay Area after Baylands. More is sure to follow. The airport restricts heights in downtown SJ – the city should develop a second downtown hub out of the flight pattern that would allow for much taller buildings than can be built downtown.
It doesn’t even have to be separate, just shifted over and adjacent to downtown. For a similar proximity see downtown San Diego relative to its airport’s flightpath.
True. The portion of downtown SJ in the flight path, as it is, could see tens of millions of feet of new office space in mid-rise buildings. It is pretty much low rise and ripe for office and residential development. Shift zoning in the adjacent area to allow 50 and 60 story towers and give SJ (the third largest city in California after LA and SD) a commensurate downtown core.
False. Lindbergh’s orientation is somewhat perpendicular – NW/SE – to DSD, while Mineta is directly in line…it couldn’t be much worse if they’d tried. And the restrictions are quite severe, I believe it’s a 5% glide path and a fan-shaped approach area, so unless your idea of “adjacent” is Pescadero, I don’t think the idea would fly…so to speak.
And the trend is to increase restrictions, not ease them.
“…just shifted over and adjacent to downtown”
That would be nice though both neighborhoods to the east and west of DTSJ will resist density mightily. My prediction is that highrise SJ will occur in a combination of the North First area as well as a few “Century City”-like pockets scattered around the city where vast big box shopping centers are converted to higher density.
DTSJ can do just fine within the existing FAA mandated height limits. There’s still plenty of parcels ripe for increased density.
The lateral distance between the final approach path to SAN and buildings in downtown in the 400-500 ft tall range is ~0.5 miles, and those buildings are closer to the end of the runway at SAN than the bulk of downtown San Jose is to the end of the runways at SJC. San Jose could absolutely have 500 foot tall buildings half a mile or mile to the northeast or southwest of downtown if local zoning allowed for it.
Down SJ will never move. It’s impossible.
But the new Google office is definitely sparking lots of new development. Expect it to become solidly medium rise over the next ten years. It’s been a long time coming.
Personal unverifiable spreadsheet real news.
If you have confidence in your analysis, upload your data.
I really want to talk about this photograph. The distortion is amazing.
Right! Is the bus getting sucked into a wormhole?
Comments are closed.