The map shows the relation between average net income and average rent prices – specifically for a one-bedroom apartment outside the city center, but you can choose any type of apartment and the results will be mostly the same, only with different absolute figures.
Dot colours show the % of average net income spent on rent each month; dot sizes show the amount of money you have left each month after paying for rent. This is because spending 30% of a 3,000EUR net income is not the same as spending 30% of a 500EUR net income and leaves you with a much higher post-rent disposable
income.
With this in mind, European cities can be broadly divided into several categories:
-Zurich, Vienna, Manchester, Glasgow, German, Scandinavian and Dutch cities: those are essentially the best bargain, having high incomes and also low to moderate rent prices (or at least rent prices that may be high, but where incomes are still high enough to compensate – e.g. Zurich or Amsterdam).
-Paris, Helsinki, Rotterdam, Madrid: rents are about the same as in the previous category (or higher), but incomes are lower, so the final disposable income will also be lower. Still, not too bad on a global scale. Turin, Lyon and Marseille offer low-ish incomes but very low rents.
-Naples, Budapest, Prague, Bucharest, Valencia: low incomes, low rents. As long as you have an average job you won’t really struggle to get by, but you won’t be able to live a luxurious lifestyle and you won’t be able to travel or spend much abroad.
-London, Dublin: high incomes, high rents. You’ll spend a lot on rent, but you’ll still have quite a lot of money left. In these cities, you can manage to save a lot if you’re willing to move to the outskirts and commute.
-Milan, Rome, Barcelona, Warsaw, Moscow: low income, high rent. Lisbon, St. Petersburg, Kiev, Athens: very low income, very high rent. These cities are essentially the worst deal, having living costs comparable to cities with much higher incomes. You won’t save much and you’ll struggle to live in the city with an average income.
Paris is biased because you can’t rent something if you don’t earn 3 times the rent (not a law but it applies to a large majority of real estate ads). In reality the rents are really high.
Germany is doing something correctly when it comes to the housing market (Munich excluded).
Welp, that’s just sad
wtf Lisbon
Trying to rent in Lisbon is impossible, if you are a local. Its just stupid
Bery hard to read the size dimension tbh
Such figures should always be treated with some caution.
Take my hometown Frankfurt, for example, which is also on the map here. We are a relatively “small” city, with about 765,000 inhabitants. Our urban area is quite tiny, which is why a lot of construction is going outside our city, but 2.4 million people already live in our agglomeration.
The people who can’t afford to live in our city, or can’t afford it any more, move to the surrounding area. But then they are not included in the calculations for Frankfurt any more, and it is mainly poorer people who are so not included in the statistics.
Berlin is so cheap.
For Lisbon, you could even add another category on top of that…
For those wondering why: AirBnb rentability, Golden visas (Buy property = EU passport), Old northern europeans moving in.
The average rent for a 100 square meter house in Lisbon costs 85% if the average wage, and that includes A LOT of old contracts.
For new contracts its equal or above average wage.
If you cant buy (Good luck saving the 10%/15%), you are a slave.
Bruuhhhh why is the circle in Prague so small i fucking hate this
In Amsterdam the relation between income and rent is tightly regulated with housing permits. Most common income test is minimally 50 times the rent as income before taxes, so <25%. This relation does not really tell you which towns are expensive. Just who rents the houses.
12 comments
The map shows the relation between average net income and average rent prices – specifically for a one-bedroom apartment outside the city center, but you can choose any type of apartment and the results will be mostly the same, only with different absolute figures.
Dot colours show the % of average net income spent on rent each month; dot sizes show the amount of money you have left each month after paying for rent. This is because spending 30% of a 3,000EUR net income is not the same as spending 30% of a 500EUR net income and leaves you with a much higher post-rent disposable
income.
With this in mind, European cities can be broadly divided into several categories:
-Zurich, Vienna, Manchester, Glasgow, German, Scandinavian and Dutch cities: those are essentially the best bargain, having high incomes and also low to moderate rent prices (or at least rent prices that may be high, but where incomes are still high enough to compensate – e.g. Zurich or Amsterdam).
-Paris, Helsinki, Rotterdam, Madrid: rents are about the same as in the previous category (or higher), but incomes are lower, so the final disposable income will also be lower. Still, not too bad on a global scale. Turin, Lyon and Marseille offer low-ish incomes but very low rents.
-Naples, Budapest, Prague, Bucharest, Valencia: low incomes, low rents. As long as you have an average job you won’t really struggle to get by, but you won’t be able to live a luxurious lifestyle and you won’t be able to travel or spend much abroad.
-London, Dublin: high incomes, high rents. You’ll spend a lot on rent, but you’ll still have quite a lot of money left. In these cities, you can manage to save a lot if you’re willing to move to the outskirts and commute.
-Milan, Rome, Barcelona, Warsaw, Moscow: low income, high rent. Lisbon, St. Petersburg, Kiev, Athens: very low income, very high rent. These cities are essentially the worst deal, having living costs comparable to cities with much higher incomes. You won’t save much and you’ll struggle to live in the city with an average income.
Paris is biased because you can’t rent something if you don’t earn 3 times the rent (not a law but it applies to a large majority of real estate ads). In reality the rents are really high.
Germany is doing something correctly when it comes to the housing market (Munich excluded).
Welp, that’s just sad
wtf Lisbon
Trying to rent in Lisbon is impossible, if you are a local. Its just stupid
Bery hard to read the size dimension tbh
Such figures should always be treated with some caution.
Take my hometown Frankfurt, for example, which is also on the map here. We are a relatively “small” city, with about 765,000 inhabitants. Our urban area is quite tiny, which is why a lot of construction is going outside our city, but 2.4 million people already live in our agglomeration.
The people who can’t afford to live in our city, or can’t afford it any more, move to the surrounding area. But then they are not included in the calculations for Frankfurt any more, and it is mainly poorer people who are so not included in the statistics.
Berlin is so cheap.
For Lisbon, you could even add another category on top of that…
For those wondering why: AirBnb rentability, Golden visas (Buy property = EU passport), Old northern europeans moving in.
The average rent for a 100 square meter house in Lisbon costs 85% if the average wage, and that includes A LOT of old contracts.
For new contracts its equal or above average wage.
If you cant buy (Good luck saving the 10%/15%), you are a slave.
Bruuhhhh why is the circle in Prague so small i fucking hate this
In Amsterdam the relation between income and rent is tightly regulated with housing permits. Most common income test is minimally 50 times the rent as income before taxes, so <25%. This relation does not really tell you which towns are expensive. Just who rents the houses.