While location, location, location is something that is empasized a lot, the best places often come with compromises that are hard to come to terms with – chief among which, the financial matters. Across the 30 most populous US cities, the following chart from CafeRent.com shows how much bang you get for your buck…
(click image for interactive version)
For the record, the proportions in this infographic are correct – if San Diego seems twice as large as San Francisco, it’s because its average price per square foot is half that of the Golden Gate City. And in case you were wondering: yes, the hypothetical Manhattan studio that you’d get for $1,500/month, fits loosely inside the living room of a four-bed, three-bath Memphis home you could rent for the same amount of cash:
In Boston’s 41 Saratoga community, one could rent a 386-square-foot studio unit for that price, and for an extra $100, that space could “grow” to 513 square feet. Although the apartments seem to lack bedroom furniture, they are brand new, featuring open floor plans with hardwood flooring, granite countertops and stainless steel appliances.
In the right column, Southport Crossing in Indianapolis offers three-bed townhome layouts with 2.5 baths in a broad price range topping out at a little over $1,600. The amenities here include a resort-style swimming pool as part of the common space, and individual units come with up to 400 square feet of enclosed patio area.
Meh. My house is 1032 sq. ft. and more than adequate for my wife and I and two dogs. I wish it was half that size. Mortgage, taxes and ins. are about $600/month. Comparable homes in the area rent for $2k/month. If I were single today I’d live a minimalist lifestyle in an RV of some kind.
Interesting…………..The areas controlled by democrat/socialist/progressive politics allocate the smallest living spaces for their proles, and the most lavish expensive digs for their ruling class…………………………just sayin………………