you can add Toronto, ON and Vancouver, BC to that list. canada's major cities have big property bubbles.

also - does that NYC stat include all of the boroughs? i find it hard to believe that the AVERAGE price is north of $1mil.

I bet the average of over a mil is right for NY. I have some friends who bought a townhouse in Brooklyn for just over a million dollars about five years ago. I bought my (larger and more elegant) townhouse in Springfield, MA for $108,000 8 years ago.

My friends do not earn ten times what I earn. They rent out part of the house, and got help with the down payment from wealthy parents, but *still* I don't know how they make ends meet.

The median home price in Springfield, Mass is $180,000 (for 2009, figures just out). If you want to be a homeowner, come and check us out! http://www.ChooseSpringfieldMass.com -- from urban lofts to leafy lots with Victorians. 2.5 hours from NYC, 1.5 from Boston.

From my perspective, the home prices and monthly rental costs for the 10 cities listed are astronomical. Your housing costs including utilities should be within 30-35% of your income. Do those cities offer jobs that pay sufficiently to cover the cost of living? I'm considering jobs in other states and I'm finding that to not be the case. Is housing no longer affordable for 1 income households?

Yep... When I was in Dallas, my rent on a two bedroom, one bath with a backyard was $1,000. Total investment for the year -- $12,000. Similar places for sale nearby went for $300,000 (although nicer, I have to admit). My mortgage would have been much closer to $2,000 or more a month).

I moved home to Baton Rouge so I could afford to buy ($157,000 for a three bed/one bath that is livable, but needs improvements in a great neighborhood). Best money I've spent.

Those figures are for LIST prices, not sale prices, which is why the figures for New York seem higher than usual.

This could be helpful. However, it ain't the buyin', it's the sellin' !!!!

Almost $3k for rent in SF? Are you kidding me? How are those numbers determined? Are they taking into account luxury penthouses? Is it an average of all listing or median price? I live in a nice, BUT SMALL one bedroom on the eastern side of the city and I pay $1500. Granted, I got a great deal, but even then, I would not look for a one bedroom more than $2K. I'd expect to be able to find a two bedroom for $2100. Or are they looking at equal spaces, in terms of square footage, of what's for sale and what it would cost to rent that?

portland seems about right.
im thinking maybe the rent prices are for houses? or perhaps apartments with actual rooms...
something I know nothing about.
ahh, to have rooms.

I live in Portland and that seems about right. Late last year I looked at a condo a block from my place and the monthly payments would have been twice my rent for a similar age of building and square footage.

The average pay most likely doesn't cover the cost of living. That's why so many people I know have roommates or else move out of the city. Also, some buildings allow for reduced rent if you qualify (if you can prove reduced income). A friend pays about $650 for a 600 sf place in the Pearl District under this program.

@ adiaphane: I lived in a modest one bedroom in SF's Castro district when I worked in the city two years ago and the rent on my apartment was over $3000/month. My employer footed the bill so I didn't really care, but judging by the places I saw (which were not penthouses) that average appears pretty spot on. The one I would question is Cleveland. I just moved away from Cleveland and I had been renting a brand new loft downtown. I was paying on the high end for rental properties within Cleveland proper and my rent was $1050/mo. without parking or utilities. So I don't know how their average is that high. Even if they included the metro area, the suburb prices would lower the average, as it's even cheaper out there. Maybe a median price would be more indicative of the rental situation.

I have to think these are means and not medians. At least the Omaha number seems a little high for renting.

I live in Omaha, the average list price is nowhere near this number.

If only my parents read English, I could forward this along to them. Then they could FINALLY stop asking when I'm going to buy a house. P.S. I live in brownstone and will always want a brownstone even though I'll never be able to afford one. :( But I can always rent to live in one! :)

Sorry, meant to say, I live in "Brooklyn" not "brownstone." I'm getting ahead of myself.

i think that the portland numbers are a little silly. i'm thinking these also might be for 3 bedroom places. i am not just saying this because i'm a real estate agent, either.

if you are willing to live in a bit of a smaller space, you can live right in town, have a reasonable mortgage payment and still own for not much of a difference in monthly costs.

My town is about even on the renting vs buying. You can buy an apartment style condo here for as much (or less) money a month than you would pay to rent that same condo. Ditto for houses.

However, the vacancy rate for rentals has been around 0.4% for the last four or five years. Its damn hard to find a decent apartment. Plus, we have three cats which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to find a nice place to rent without paying through the nose. We're glad we bit the bullet and just bought a house.

Yes, in Dallas the sales prices ballooned up right along with the bubble over the last decade, but rents have stayed pretty flat - at least for duplexes and houses in established (older/character) neighborhoods. Makes me really wish I had not bought. Ugh!

In terms of dollars saved, renting is cheaper in San Francisco. However, there are a lot of other factors to consider besides dollars:

- Much of SF's rental stock is in poor condition, especially the older properties (of which constitutes the majority of rental stock in SF). Blame it on rent control.

- Many landlords are restrictive when it comes to tenant remodeling. Besides, most tenants don't want to spend too much money on furnishings that they'll have to leave behind (e.g. cabinets, flooring, etc).

- The majority of rental apartments in SF do not have in-unit washers and dryers.

- The majority of rentals in SF do not allow pets.

- Pride of ownership is a biggie for some folks. And living in a community consisting of mostly owners tend to be kept in better shape than communities full of renters.

To focus back on dollars, both rent prices and home prices will go up at some point (though there might be some decreases before that). If one purchases a home now and holds onto it until both rents increase and homes appreciate, they might have made the right choice, financially speaking.

And yes, rental prices in SF probably average $3K/month. There are a ton of homes in SF that rent for well over $10K per month, pulling up the average. I'd guess that the average single family home in SF (3BR) rents for over $3K. On the lower end of the spectrum, a studio in a bad neighborhood will still probably fetch $1K/mo.

^ A nice two bedroom in one of SF's newer towers will also rent for around $3K/month.

The NY average sale prices are so high because of the 10mil trophy properties in Manhattan. Those always throw off the average- most real estate firms usually report average including and excluding those properties especially when there are a lot on the market at one time.

I can attest to the Seattle prices. I'm in a downtown loft net rent of $1350 per month. Similar places priced at $450-500K- pretty much doubling my rent.

A lot of those prices don't look right.
Here are some articles from calculated risk all on rental prices. I know there are some buy vs rent graphs in there and i think they are based off the case shiller and fed numbers.

Do these include just rent or also utilites? I think that for Omaha with utilities this isn't far from right. My partner and I are in a one bedroom for $450, we have about 750 sq ft...but the neighborhood isn't great (a murder across the street, a few shootings at a bar that was closed because of it, a stabbing at another bar) and the place has a lot of jankety repairs. But at least the utilities are paid for!

I've always been in midtown and usually paid $700 for a two bedroom. In the last place, utilities could easily run $300 a month even conserving heat/air thanks to poor insulation.

Oops! I meant to include that owning here in Omaha can be difficult because property taxes are quite high from what I understand. Especially in some of the nicer neighborhoods.

SF is definitely right as far as the average house price. The apartment listing is on par for a three bedroom apartment. I live there - I should know.

Renting and owning are so different that I don't think it's logical to compare the two. You can't get tax credits or build equity when renting, and you also don't have to pay property taxes. Plus, there are so many more benefits to owning a house that I wouldn't consider ever renting again--I'm not talking about monetary benefits. I'm talking about quality of life benefits.

For what it's worth, we own a 1911 farmhouse in Portland that we paid $120,000 for in 2004. It is possible to find deals in this city.

surprised LA isn't on that list where a 2 bed bungalow in a decent neighborhood that you dont' have to spend an hour on the freeway to get to work will run you 800k plus and a 2 bed rental 2500 -3500 per month.

My name says where I live and the boyfriend and I live in a 2-bed, 2-bath, 1200 sq. ft. apt. in a recently rehabbed historic building in midtown and we pay, ahem, $620. The place is all electric and at the peak of summer we'll pay about $90-$100 with the thermostat set at 77F most of the time. That's with 6 south-facing windows, 5 west and 6 east. Central air and heat. We love our apt.

My wife and I just bought a 1200 sq. ft. 3 bedroom house in Omaha for $77k, granted it is in midtown and some people don't think it is the greatest neighborhood. (we love it) we do pay a little bit more than we did for rent but we have plenty of friends who pay a lot more in rent than we do for our house payment.

If you're freaking out about high housing costs in general, you can skip the car in several of those cities.

The milder climates will be lighter on your utility bill too.

I live in SF, came from Michigan, and the auto, summer A/C and winter gas prices were a nice financial boon.

Figures seem about right for Seattle, but I have one caveat. Rentals might be affordable but there's slim pickings if you're choosy about style. So SO much carpet (ugly and such a bad idea in rentals) and zero-personality high rises.

I'm with thorndale on this. I pay $775/mo in rent for a little one bedroom on a quiet street in Logan Square, Chicago. My friend pays that much for a sprawling 1 bedroom condo in the Edgewater neighborhood (further from fun/downtown). He has constant condo association headaches. He's also not sure about the market and selling even though he wants to move in with his boyfriend of almost 4 years. I'm not definitely not buying anytime in the foreseeable future. I just signed my 3rd lease. I love it.

I don't think this guide is really useful because everyone will pay a different mortgage rate based on their income and credit history. If you're a low-risk candidate for a mortgage, you'll get a much better rate...

cashba is right, when looking at these prices for certain areas remember there are other costs of living. I live in SF and my utility bills are almost non-existent; I also don't need a car. Food here is really cheap, too. And yes, salaries reflect the cost of living.

Wow--those numbers are way off for Dallas. The average house price in Dallas is probably somewhere around 150k. It's definitely a better idea to buy than rent in Dallas if you are ready for that step.

Really? the average house price in Dallas is 150K????? That's amazing.

In Metro Vancouver, the average house sale price in May 2010 was about $662K. The list price is probably a bit higher. Mind you, my mind is so warped, I think $1million is a normal price for a house. And the only other place I lived was Toronto, where its only slightly better. Maybe its time to relocate...lol

Like many of you, I find these numbers off. Average rent in Miami is no where near that high. And we just rented a 4 bedroom house in Cleveland for $1050/mo when it couldn't sell for $129k. Better to buy than rent there.

Those who insist on comparing renting vs buying by comparing the MONTHLY PAYMENT have no business getting involved in buying a house.

You have to figure the TOTAL COST of a mortgage by the time it's paid off. It's usually 2-3 times what the "purchase price" of the house is. Don't forget to add in the property taxes, maintenance, etc..........and the fact that if you become unemployed, owning a home severely limits your ability to move to find work. You might have to sell the house well before it's paid off.....a money-losing situation.

PROPERTY TAXES...........Renters DO PAY property taxes.....it's factored into the rental cost. I never understand why people believe renters do not pay property taxes. The landlord gets the bill and writes the check, but the renters pay the landlord.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaah.

They're actually saying that it's better to buy in Miami than to rent. They are out of their ever lovin' flipping minds.

A - Property taxes are disgustingly high.
B - Try to get property insurance. I dare you. Then IF you find someone to insure you, I dare you to be able to pay it.

As someone who lived in Miami for 29 years and recently escaped in February, I WILL NEVER, EVER BUY IN MIAMI. Or, Florida for that matter.

Some of those cities look like real estate bargains to me. The only cities on that list that seem expensive are San Fransisco, maybe Seattle, and New York. Otherwise, every other city's average price is miles cheaper than the average in my own town.

IMO, buy vs. rent is more about priorities vs. investment and less about cost.

And $3,000/month rent is ridiculous! I would NEVER pay that much rent for a property that wasn't my own.

Ohjodi,

yes, you factor in the total cost of the purchase price when the mortgage is paid off, but you also assume your equity grows from whatever your down payment is to whatever your sales price is the day you sell your house; the appropriate measure to look at is the difference in the rate of return between the amount (rate) you "expect" to make in equity less the amount (rate) you pay in a mortgage, bearing in mind that you still have an opportunity cost to the money you put in down payment.

Put another way, if you put 60k down and one day it 'becomes' 350k the day you pay off your mortgage, you calculate how much "profit" you made by comparing it to the mortgage rate you paid over the period of time you owned the place.

Historically speaking, comparing a monthly payment is a very decent way of comparing the value of buying vs renting, and assuming you bought some time ago and pay your house off, it is a commonplace way of earning a respectable, if modest rate of return. Up until the last 10 years, your mortgage rate could be assumed to offset the opportunity cost of your earning money on your down payment had you invested it instead.

All of the other factors such as maintenance, property taxes, likelihood of losing your job can all be factored into the effective monthly payment of owning a house.

wow. looking at these numbers i am thankful to be in new hampshire where i purchased a 2 family home for less than 250K on nearly an acre of land with a swimming pool. i keep thinking i paid too much. i guess i should rethink that.

I've never been so relieved to live in Ohio. $415/mo for 625 sq. ft. However, it is the corner of no and where.

I live in Portland and I would say that the numbers are a little skewed but mostly right on. I personally pay $750 to rent a one bedroom on the edge of a desirable area. I consider our rent to be a good deal however. My guess is the $1,145 number is for a two bedroom, and that would be just about right unless you move into the outer areas of Portland which no one really wants to live in.
$300,000 will let you look at actual property you might want to live in, but you can find houses in the $200,000 range but again you are on the outside of the city in a house that probably is small and needs a lot of work.
I'm not sure about other areas, but here in Portland I would say that cost-of-living is rather high compared to the job market. We have had some of the highest unemployment numbers in the country.

It looks like the Mint numbers used just Manhattan for the New York "Buy" prices. Otherwise, there would not be such an enormous gap between the San Francisco "Buy" prices and the New York "Buy" prices.

It would have been helpful for Mint to list what their assumptions were (what size place and what neighborhoods/boroughs/surrounding towns were included).

I live in San Francisco and I think the SF "Buy" price is low. $774K would buy a 2BR 1BA flat with no parking only in the outer neighborhoods or as a massive fixer-upper. You could rent the same 2BR 1BA flat with no parking closer into downtown for well under $3K/month -- try more like $2400. A large 2BR, 2.5BA FDR apartment with a garage parking space in Pac Heights in my building currently rents for about $4K/month. To buy a comparable flat in the neighborhood would easily cost over $1.5M, which results in a price/rent ratio of 31.25, not 21.55 as Mint's numbers produce ('Buy' Price / Monthly Rent times 12).

We got a great price on a rental in Oklahoma City: 1200 sq ft, huge backyard, garage, 1.5 baths, GIGANTIC bedroom (seriously, it's the size of our garage) and all for $600. Not too shabby. :)

Wow, the Cleveland info is completely wrong! I just moved back to the area after 17 years in Europe, NYC and DC, and one of the reasons I came home is that you can rent an apartment in many great parts of Cleveland or the suburbs for $550-$750 and buy a three bedroom house for $140,000 in suburbs with decent schools. You can go higher, but the typical home here is under $200,000, and you can find older homes in the city itself for less than $100,000. So I could get two very nice homes for what my one bedroom DC apartment cost.