Go South, Young Househunter

The U.S. Census Bureau released some new housing data for the years 2000-2005, and there was some semi-good news for two Bay Area cities. San Jose boosted its total housing units by 6.3% to 299,650, while San Francisco's housing stock rose 2.4% to 354,963 units. Yay! More housing is good, what with housing prices affected by "supply" and "demand," right?

However, those housing stock gains were totally puny when compared to how dramatically the median home values for those cities jumped. From 2000 to 2005, the median value of a San Jose house shot up 47% to $625,400 and the median value of a San Francisco place surged 51.7% to $726,700. It's no wonder that San Francisco has the second-lowest rate of owner occupancy among the nation's 15 biggest cities (New York has the lowest), but we're totally intrigued by San Jose's hefty 61% rate of owner occupancy, as that makes them No. 3 in the big-cities group.

Some renters made out slightly better -- San Francisco median rents rose 6.3% to $1118. However, San Jose rents actually dropped by 9% to a median of $1153. So, cheaper rents, higher rates of owner occupancy ... would-be landed gentry (or the landed poor) might have done well to scope out the commute on the 280 or 101.

(Image of I-280 in San Jose by by Sean O'Flaherty, via
Wikipedia.)

SFist Lisa S. contributing