Welcome to the December 2018 Imperial Beach Rent Report. Imperial Beach rents declined over the past month. In this report, we'll evaluate trends in the Imperial Beach rental market, including comparisons to cities throughout the metro, state, and nation.
View full Imperial Beach Rent Report
Welcome to the December 2018 Imperial Beach Rent Report. Imperial Beach rents declined over the past month. In this report, we'll evaluate trends in the Imperial Beach rental market, including comparisons to cities throughout the metro, state, and nation.
Imperial Beach rents have declined 0.3% over the past month, and have decreased moderately by 1.3% in comparison to the same time last year. Currently, median rents in Imperial Beach stand at $1,280 for a one-bedroom apartment and $1,660 for a two-bedroom. This is the second straight month that the city has seen rent decreases after an increase in September. Imperial Beach's year-over-year rent growth lags the state average of 1.4%, as well as the national average of 1.3%.
While rent prices have decreased in Imperial Beach over the past year, the rest of the metro is seeing the opposite trend. Rents have risen in all of the largest 10 cities in the San Diego metro for which we have data. Here's a look at how rents compare across some of the largest cities in the metro.
As rents have fallen moderately in Imperial Beach, many large cities nationwide have seen prices increase, in some cases substantially. Compared to most large cities across the country, Imperial Beach is less affordable for renters.
| City | Median 1BR price | Median 2BR price | M/M price change | Y/Y price change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| San Diego | $1,560 | $2,030 | -0.3% | 1.0% |
| Chula Vista | $1,650 | $2,150 | 0.7% | 3.6% |
| Oceanside | $1,770 | $2,300 | 0.4% | 2.1% |
| Escondido | $1,430 | $1,860 | 0.8% | 0.0% |
| Carlsbad | $1,900 | $2,460 | 0.8% | 1.8% |
| El Cajon | $1,260 | $1,640 | -1.1% | 0.7% |
| Vista | $1,430 | $1,850 | 0.1% | 2.0% |
| San Marcos | $1,540 | $1,990 | -0.2% | 2.4% |
| Encinitas | $1,900 | $2,470 | 1.8% | 3.0% |
| National City | $1,180 | $1,530 | 0.3% | 1.9% |
| La Mesa | $1,420 | $1,840 | -0.7% | 1.5% |
| Imperial Beach | $1,280 | $1,660 | -0.3% | -1.3% |
| Coronado | $2,930 | $3,800 | 0.3% | 0.0% |
Data from private listing sites, including our own, tends to skew toward luxury apartments, which introduces sample bias when estimates are calculated directly from these listings. To address these limitations, we’ve recently made major updates to our methodology, which we believe have greatly improved the accuracy and reliability of our estimates.
Read more about our new methodology below, or see a more detailed post here.
Apartment List is committed to making our rent estimates the best and most accurate available. To do this, we start with reliable median rent statistics from the Census Bureau, then extrapolate them forward to the current month using a growth rate calculated from our listing data. In doing so, we use a same-unit analysis similar to Case-Shiller’s approach, comparing only units that are available across both time periods to provide an accurate picture of rent growth in cities across the country.
Our approach corrects for the sample bias inherent in other private sources, producing results that are much closer to statistics published by the Census Bureau and HUD. Our methodology also allows us to construct a picture of rent growth over an extended period of time, with estimates that are updated each month.
Read more about our methodology here.
Apartment List publishes monthly reports on rental trends for hundreds of cities across the U.S. We intend these reports to be a source of reliable information that help renters and policymakers make sound decisions, and we invest significant time and effort in gathering and analyzing rent data. Our work is covered regularly by journalists across the country.
We are continuously working to improve our methodology and data, with the goal of providing renters with the information that they need to make the best decisions.
/-117.13053,32.580921,18/320x160.jpg80?access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoiYXBhcnRtZW50bGlzdCIsImEiOiJyOFpURF9RIn0.1SwTdF0jFznPbbOsG-GVHQ)
