San Francisco trumps NYC in pet-friendliness

By BrickUnderground | May 7, 2015 - 12:59PM

Any self-respecting New Yorker would quickly disabuse the notion that the city's inhospitable to our furry friends. (Have you been to the Upper West Side?) But just how pet-friendly are we? Not as much as San Francisco, or six other cities (including Seattle, Denver, Chicago and Portland) for that matter, according to real estate database Trulia (via CNNMoney).

The firm's research shows our real estate market to be woefully lagging in pet-friendly homes, at least compared to peers due west. Not to fuel the East Coast vs. West Coast rivalry any further, but the Bay Area has us beat (Oakland ranked highly, too) with more rental apartments welcoming furry besties while still charging relatively low pet deposits and fees. NYC ranks 8th on the list, besting Boston, Dallas and Los Angeles. (Take that, creatives decamping for Silver Lake!)

Landlords are more willing to embrace cats, it seems, than dogs, although Trulia economist Ralph McLaughlin told CNNMoney that "just because a landlord explicitly says he or she will allow a pet, doesn't mean that they will choose a tenant that has a pet. When all else is equal, a landlord will probably choose someone without a pet just because it minimizes the risk of damage."

If you're in the market for a pet-friendly place, we have some advice:

• How to find a pet-friendly building

• How to get a landlord to like your dog

• How to get your dog past a co-op board

How to spy on your dog-walker

The pet-friendly premium: Is it pricier to buy in a building that allows animals?

Brick Underground articles occasionally include the expertise of, or information about, advertising partners when relevant to the story. We will never promote an advertiser's product without making the relationship clear to our readers.