No, this really is not always the case when controlling for location. (That is, if you're comparing apartments in the middle of the city to houses in the outskirts, you're obviously comparing apples and oranges.)

▲

cramsession a day ago | parent [-]

If you compare equally sized places, rent is pretty much always higher. At least it has been in every city/town I’ve ever lived in. Renting is not cheap, you’re paying a premium to the landlord.

▲

phil21 a day ago | parent [-]

Not all landlords min/max for peak financial outcome.

My landlord for 15 years raised rent exactly once when property taxes had a large jump one year, and was already under market when I started the first lease.

His mortgage was long paid off and he optimized for least hassle vs max money. Worked out for both of us - I called him maybe once a year at most, and he had a decent passive income stream reliably come in without worrying about 2am phone calls because a $50 thermostat broke. He had a nicely appreciated property to sell in his eventual retirement.

It was a 3BR place with a yard larger than I own now. Granted fit and finish is nowhere comparable, but I pay about 4x in mortgage and taxes than what I was paying him for about 1.5x the space.

Such arrangements are increasingly more rare as everything becomes a finance game, but they can still be sought out and developed.

	▲	bluefirebrand a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Not all landlords min/max for peak financial outcome An enormous number if rentals are owned by private equity not by individuals, so rental markets are pretty dominated by landlords min/maxing for peak financial outcome