Bay Area Home Prices by Transit Stop | Hacker News Reader

Bay Area Home Prices by Transit Stop

estately.com

191 pointswebwright86 comments

Related somewhat: Atlanta median income down MARTA's Red line (travels North to South) http://news.wabe.org/post/atlanta-biggest-gap-between-rich-a...

It is fun to play "who will get off at which stop" on marta Red line because of this effect.

The income disparity in atlanta is insane and getting worse.

Here's one for New York:

http://projects.newyorker.com/story/subway/

And Chicago:

http://youarehere.cc/j/subway/chicago.html

A very cool sonification of income inequality along the New York subway: https://datadrivendj.com/tracks/subway

Wow that's interesting how for Brown line the median income is already high for Addison and stays relatively constant all the way downtown

Chicago's is heavily skewed by the loop stops - where almost nobody lives. Filtering those out would give a much clearer view.

Here's one for DC: http://www.estately.com/washington-dc-real-estate-by-transit...

Seems like it would be more interesting in terms of price per sq ft. Some of the "expensive" stops just seem like places where the median sale represents a 4 bedroom house instead of a 1 bedroom apartment.

Ha! That's the feedback that inspired the price per square foot for this map.

Hahaha Washington & Stone represent!

Surprised no one has mentioned the Delmar divide in St Louis.

> edit: Keep down voting squares.

And here's one for London:

https://www.thrillist.com/lifestyle/london/london-undergroun...

Direct link to large-scale map:

http://assets3.thrillist.com/v1/image/1560005

Note we tend to think of flats in terms of number of bedrooms. Hatton Cross is right next to Heathrow airport, if you're wondering why it is so cheap.

http://www.findproperly.co.uk/price-per-square-foot.php#.Vv-...

This map has areas of london by square foot for a closer comparison, but isn't by tube stops. Looks like we are more expensive than the bay area, if you go by area - We live in much smaller houses than in America, I believe

I've lived in both recently, and London definitely wins for more the more decrepit Victorian stock, but SF is no stranger to the flat conversion phenomenon and I'd say the average living space in the city is not much bigger than London.

However what tips the scales for London being more affordable IMHO is the fact that there is not 500 square miles of water smack in the middle spreading everything out. For instance in London I lived 9 tube stops from the center and it was < 5 miles by bicycle. In the Bay Area I also live 9 BART stops from downtown SF but it is 15 miles, I can't cycle (because no bike path over the bay bridge), and I get less for my money relative to London. Throw on the anemic transit here, and London is much more doable on a budget.

>London is much more doable on a budget.

Agree, even though the story is probably a bit different for developers due to the difference in salary.

True although that's changing. London salaries outside The City used to seem to top out around £60k, but in recent years that ceiling has been broken. Meanwhile, Google and Facebook still pay ridiculous salaries, but smaller companies can't afford that, and with funding slowing down it's going to lead to even more belt tightening. You might be surprised how many people in tech are working for $50k, $60k, $70k in SF these days.

No engineers are making under $70k in SF unless they traded salary for a lot of equity.

s/Bermondsy/Bermondsey and I think it should be cheaper than Canada Water

One for Greater Boston http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/30/boston-apartments-heat-map

Since pricing increases based on proximity to downtown SF, my intuition would lead me to think that pricing should also increase based on proximity to a BART station (or existence of a BART station) within a suburban city, since it positively impacts ability to get to downtown SF. But I'm not sure that's true in reality. It also doesn't line up with the stereotypical NIMBY complaint I've always heard (e.g. Marin County) that transit attracts riff-raff and would therefore depress home prices. I suppose there've been studies done on this sort of thing so perhaps I'll have a quick google.

This is definitely true for Caltrain stations in SV, but I'm actually not sure if it applies to BART since it at least seems like most of the more expensive neighborhoods in the city aren't particularly close to a station.

There's a sort of "feedback loop inversion" effect in play where transit caters to extremes of poverty and wealth and not the middle. For example, Palo Alto's Caltrain stops are not high-end real estate because transit runs through it - they're high-end because they have become a major destination for tech workers over the course of a few decades. On the other hand, West Oakland BART is within easy reach of many major destinations but it's been heavily resistant to gentrification: major firms do not have a presence there, and it's historically a working-class community, not a wealthy suburb. BART's deployment there is effectively transit as a "handout" policy, a way to make sure low-income workers get to their low-income jobs.

But places that are a bit outlying and don't have a big job market, like much of Marin, sit in a nebulous zone in between: they aren't really "in demand" right now, and that gives the community leverage to stomp out anything that would change that.

>BART's deployment there is effectively transit as a "handout" policy

Is that really how it's framed?

It's coded. You see "handout" named as such more often when it's low-quality, inefficient service. With a system like BART, the whole thing was motivated by pressure to relieve middle-class downtown commuters specifically, and everyone else by chance(hence a design without redundancy that requires a midnight service shutdown). Geometry forces it to pass through many types of communities, but during construction, the slightly richer, whiter communities had more room to shape their relationship to the system:

Prime examples of how public pressures escalated the cost of the system are the Berkeley subway and the Ashby Station. After originally approving a combination aerial and subway line through Berkeley, that city later came to oppose the plan in favor of a subway-only line, which was much more expensive. The new plan necessitated redesign of the Ashby Station from an aerial to a subway facility. Extensive controversy and hearings ensued for the next 2 1/2 years, finally to be resolved by Berkeley residents voting to tax themselves additionally to finance the changes they wanted. Next, a Berkeley City Councilman filed a successful suit to redesign the Ashby Station, yet a second time, asserting the use of skylights in the original plans was not a true subway design. [0]

And indeed, the "nicer" stops on BART tend to be underground, while the "inexpensive" ones are mostly aerial alignments adjacent to freeways. (See the history around "freeway revolts" and you get a similar picture of class/race division.)

[0] http://www.bart.gov/about/history/history2

I highly recommend that you check out the book Mass transit and the politics of technology: a study of BART and the San Francisco Bay Area. It's a different, if similarly unflattering, take on the forces that shaped BART's eventual geometry.

https://www.worldcat.org/title/mass-transit-and-the-politics...

I would have thought living near the airport would be the cheapest square footage on that map.

In Toronto they can barely give away apartments located near Pearson Airport due to the incessant noise (and some crime, probably associated with the low purchase price of the apartments).

The prices are ~50% of what they are everywhere else in the city.

That is largely true for the east bay—the Coliseum Bart station is the transfer point to the Oakland airport. And the neighborhoods around SFO are not nearly as gentrified as many others nearby on the peninsula.

there might be a lot of value in located near airport for businesses which rely on air freight, which probably drives costs up, since it competes against residential for land.

This really makes me feel like the whole Raiders mess is missing a real opertunity to turn that area into a great mixed use housing/retail/entertainment area.

I mean it's got 3 lines running through it, it's near Alameda's lovely shopping, it's near the freeway, it's quick to both Oakland and SF downtown.

LOTS of housing and options there - even IF there is a new stadium in that area...

Why does Millbrae's price change by $6/sq between the BART map and the CalTrain map? (Both services are serviced at the same station.)

Might be splitting by some voronoi method so there's no reason to expect the areas represented by each station to be the same

I can't understand why DC and Colma remain so cheap (comparably). Sure, the area doesn't have as much walking distance locales but a quick Bart ride will get you anywhere you want to go. Are people really that sensitive to small inconvenience?

It could be school quality and/or crime too. The suburban costs seem to correlate with school quality, crime, ease of building [0] and distance to job centers.

[0] In Palo Alto home prices are artificially high in part because the schools are great and it's very hard to build new houses there. In Mountain View and Sunnyvale there is a lot of newer development and the schools are a little worse. This trumps distance.

I wonder if Colma has a stigma due to being full of graveyards? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colma,_California

I've actually thought about moving out of SF proper into Colma someday because it seems underpriced for its location and amenities. Daly City is quite nice too -- agreed that that part of the map looks like the best deals around.

DC and Colma also suffer from some of the worst fog cover through out the year around the area.

Yep, Daly City is pretty miserable climate wise. It'll often be covered in fog and cold in the middle of a summer day, while a few miles away it's sunny and warm. You also have to deal with mold and rust issues.

I've looked at apartments there a couple times, and while it's vastly more affordable than SF, the climate + distance outweighs the upsides (for me anyway).

Now chart it for AC Transit transbay buses and weep at how much you've been getting ripped off just because you don't want to take a bus to work

The transbay busses are slower because they get stuck on the bridge. 8 minutes for bart to cross the bay vs 1hr for a vehicle on the bay bridge during rush hour. If I'm wrong, I would be pleasantly surprised.

I took the transbay NL bus for several months. Never had a ride take anywhere close to an hour, except for once when it was raining really hard, but that's because traffic in SF was so gridlocked, but the bridge was OK.

You're very wrong. The bus has its own lane around the toll plaza. The actual time on the bridge is 10 mins. I make it from Berkeley to SF in 35 mins once the bus picks me up. I can walk to the Bart station but always take the bus. It's a much cleaner and nicer experience. Wait. I mean, the bus is awful. Definitely nobody start taking the g or fs. Thanks.

It would seem there's no where on the peninsula can you buy an average 1500sqft house for less than $1million, ~$700/sqft.

https://www.openlistings.com/p/172-sweeny-st-san-francisco-c...

In the shadow if the 280 / 101 interchange?

Sure, just saying stuff pops up in that price range if you're patient. This is better location and has a pool! https://www.openlistings.com/p/257-justin-dr-san-francisco-c...

Peninsula sorted by price: https://www.openlistings.com/z/94134?focus_params_id=172-swe...

It might seem that way, but it isn't.

I'm guessing you have one or two additional criteria on your search, but there are a bunch of homes currently for sale that match your stated criteria: http://www.estately.com/37.5981,-122.5977,37.7576,-122.3059?...

(edit: first link was borked)

I'm looking at moving to the bay area in the next few months. I've settled on fremont but im looking at renting. Assuming rent linearly correlates with the costs here it does not seem that bad a cost or commute (relatively speaking). Any advice or cautions?

Do you have kids of a school going age or will be in school in the next few years? That makes a huge difference as far as SV is concerned. Fremont is one of the better school districts in CA second only to the Cupertino school district. Correspondingly prices in Fremont are quite high.

If schools are not an issue then you have a lot more options in terms of cost.

The next issue is prevalence of crime/safety. Fremont is a very safe place to live, but as you go along the BART corridor there are variations in this factor.

If you don't mind endless daily commutes then you can also look beyond the Pleasanton/Dublin corridor where there are good schools coming up with relatively affordable home prices.

The Dublin/Pleasanton school situation is considerably better than in Fremont -- and always have been along with the rest of the 680 corridor bedroom communities.

Fremont schools are a very mixed bag and while they've improved recently thanks to gentrification they're not fantastic historically. There are still quite a few moderately poor schools mixed in the Fremont district.

For your comparison:

http://www.greatschools.org/california/pleasanton/pleasanton...

http://www.greatschools.org/california/fremont/fremont-unifi...

School and housing is better site than great schools.

http://www.schoolandhousing.com/mobile/

Mission San Jose in Fremont is one of the top 10 public schools in terms of API & SAT in the state of CA.

http://schools.latimes.com/sat-scores/ranking/page/1/

Yes, like I said it's a mixed bag. Mission San Jose has very high scores but others like JFK High aren't great.

Unlike Fremont, all schools in Pleasanton have excellent scores. There is no concern of rolling up into the wrong schools depending on where you live, availability, etc.

I would love to see a similar chart with median 1BR rental prices instead.

Fremont is an Indian ghetto.

A lot of the non-Indian people that I have talked to mentioned a desire to move because of that, especially Chinese friends.

There's a lot of variation in Fremont neighborhoods from sketchy to super-wealthy, so it depends on what you can afford, whether schools matter to you, what you want to be near, etc.

Definitely consider proximity to transit: the current surge in employment has lead to a surge in traffic jams. The three main transit systems are BART, Trains (Ace and Amtrak Capitol Corridor), and the Dumbarton Express bus.

Feel free to ask followups -- I'm a born-and-raised.

Oakland

What is Caltrain like for commuting in the South Bay? Would it make sense to rent near a Caltrain station in one of the cheaper cities and commute to the Silicon Valley area?

South bay from? My summer gig is in downtown Mountain View and I stay really close to San Jose Diridon station. Looking at the schedule, the train ride can be as short as 15 minutes (SJ to MTV) and the rents here are ~$3K/mo for a 2 bedroom apartment.

Define South Bay. The South Bay terminus stations (San Jose and tamien) are probably the cheapest COL...

The Caltrain is surprisingly expensive. It is also a long trip from SF to SJ, and has been running late for months when going Northbound.

Beware that if you buy a Clipper card, they tend to "forget" your deposit without recourse. The fine is $250 for being caught without proof of payment or jail.

Caltrain regularly hits cars on the track and has to stop the train for more than an hour, so you'll need a backup plan if you expect to get home on time.

It's really good in two cases.

1. You're leaving from 4th & King / 22nd Street - This is is because the train PACKS in and the further down the line you're trying to get on, the worse chance you'll have of actually getting a seat and being comfortable.

2. Your company is right off the Caltrain stop - This is because if you have to take a shuttle or some other mode of transportation, you're throwing more randomness in your trip about when you'll make the Caltrain to head back home.

I used to live at the Avalon at 4th and King and work in East Palo Alto and the commute was great for the most part. Rent near any Caltrain stop is not cheap, but you're paying for the convenience of being near transportation. The main issues I had where when I had to get back; If my shuttle was delayed or late for the train I needed to catch, I usually had to end up running or would miss my train. The itself was reliable, but my shuttle driver was not.

Caltrain is just two parallel railroad tracks.

What this means is that they have absolutely no way to mitigate minor problems - every problem becomes a major problem. It is not uncommon for them to have a train stall leaving a station, and that leads to half the trains in the system being 20 minutes late. If they have a pedestrian or vehicle collision, things get much worse.

They also only run one train per hour that stops at every station, so your commute is limited to a few train options every day if you're not going between two of the 5-6 most popular stations.

In addition, if you're not working within walking distance of a station, you'll have to take a shuttle, which could easily add 20 minutes to your commute, and have it's own schedule that you need to mesh with caltrain's schedule.

They must have major sample bias to rank Orinda below Rockridge.

Maybe, but keep in mind it's per square foot, and I'd bet the average Orinda residence is 2-3X larger than the average Rockridge residence.

We're using price per square foot. We are a member of the MLS, so we have every home and condo for sale.

You know what looks crazy? Not factoring in size. We did it and it looked really goofy.

(I'm the founder of Estately)

Price per square foot is .. not always a great metric.

Price per square foot tends to goes down as square footage goes up.

(For example, a 1700 sq ft home in mountain view will cost you 2 mil. A 3400sq ft one in the same place will cost ~3 mil, not 4 mil).

Agreed. It's an imperfect measure.

I lobbied to put both on here, but then you end up with an unreadable map.

You do have to pick something and run with it, I understand that. But price per square foot is pretty bogus because one cannot buy housing by the square foot. You have to buy it per _house_. I think you could make a fair comparison if you went with median 2-bedroom sale price instead.

Sure, but there are areas where there really aren't many 2 bedroom houses or they aren't really representative of the local real estate.

Maybe just an average price per bedroom.

Also price per square foot doesn't reflect lot size. Orinda will, I suspect, have larger lots than Rockridge.

If you wanted to buy a decrepit 600 sq. ft shack on a 10-acre lot in downtown Woodside, a price per square foot metric might seem like it should be <$1M. In reality the property would sell for $10M+ based on the land value, with the shack having negative value because of the cost to tear it down. (Ob. Steve Jobs Woodside reference here.)

I was also surprised by the $/sqft figures for Orinda and Lafayette. I think there just aren't that many "for sale" samples within 1 mile of those stops. A lot of it is commercial, apartments, or open space.

Also, it says this data includes sales from the last six months, which exactly covers the low season for housing sales. I'd be very interested to see this again in September or October.

A semi-related factoid about Orinda: lowest % of passengers who get to/from the station by foot of any in the BART system.

I stayed by 19th and Mission on Funston for a while. I didn't realize that real estate was so expensive there. I would have thought the Embercadero, Marina etc would be more expensive.

The Mission is up and coming, it's now one of the hot real estate areas. I'm pretty sure Marina is more expensive, though it's not listed on the map.

The average travel times by BART don't seem all that bad, most large metropolitan cities need an hour by transit anyways. Do people in SF-region really not commute to work from afar?

This article[1] claims that the "national average commute time is 24.4 minutes" and that "the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont region is also No. 1 for commute distance" in the country.

[1] http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/05/san-francisco-bay-area-n...

30 minutes doesn't seem that bad. If you commute to Manhattan, you're looking at least 45 minutes door to door from most directions.

Not to worry, within another 30 years technology will solve the problem and mass transit will achieve great speeds, like 100 mph. The average commuter train/subway now has to be less than 50 mph.

Get on a train in Mountain View and arrive in San Francisco in 15 minutes.

It is the frequent/nearby stops that make the mass transit slow today. Nowadays all trains/bus engines can drive cars to 80mph already.

No, do the math. The express trains and subways aren't that fast either. Some are much slower because of frequent stops but that's not the only problem.

There are a lot of people living further away from the city commuting in than people that live near BART or caltrain stations.

Anecdotally, half the office (in a small startup) I worked with drove to a BART station, then took BART the rest of the way.

Also, I'd say the sprawl goes pretty far. I grew up in Vacaville, and it was not uncommon to commute into San Francisco. That was 50-something miles away.

Travel times from Fremont to the 1st SF stop is about 45 - 50 minutes. Assuming no police activity, medical emergency or BART equipment problem ( you might have heard they have no clue wtf is wrong ? ) .

BART parking is full pretty early ( 7:30 am ) and trains are usually standing room only by the 2nd stop and by the 4th or so its crammed standing.

I am leaving in Oct. I dont plan on paying 3k+ a month ( 1100 sq ft 3BR/2BTH ) with a patch of grass for a yard and having to plan my times to move around commuting hours ( forget heading anywhere nice on the weekend as everyone else is too ). I am 5 minutes away from a BART station by car ( 15 - 20 by bike )

The beach is wonderful, Santa Cruz is nice. the area is great. I have been here 6 years and I am starting to feel like a caged rat ready to bite the other rats for absolutely no reason :)

I commute from afar: Dublin/Pleasanton (last stop). It takes me 46 min just on the train without delay, plus a 12 min trip to the bart and a 7 minute trip to my work from the SF Montgomery station, so 65 minutes on a perfect day. But, often there are delays which turns my commute time up to an average of about 75 minutes.

19th St Oakland is more expensive than Dublin/Pleasanton? Something is surely amiss.

Also, Rockridge more expensive than Orinda??

19th St Oakland is in the middle of Uptown - it was expensive 5 years ago, let alone today. Not sure where you think it is but it's right in the middle of one of the most vibrant downtown areas in Oakland...

Rockridge is likely more expensive PER SQUARE FOOT because Orinda has more space so places are much larger but at the same price or only marginally higher. I mean Stephen Curry just bought a 3.5 million place out there that's pretty darn massive but a small 2 story home in Rockridge starts at like... 800k and not for a nice one either.

Makes sense overall.

I've been in Rockford for a year and a half, and just sabot the entire block has been sold in that time. It's a pretty popular neighborhood... And closer to everything than Orinda.

Rockford? You mean Rockridge? Ditto - I moved here in late 2014 and it's by far the most popular for new construction and old buildings being sold.

Yes, rockridge. Mobile typing ftw.

Been there. Howdy neighbor!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com