SF's number isn't $1,099 — it's about $1,150 a square foot, and it's up double digits
A number was making the rounds — "$1,099 a square foot, and no year-over-year comparison exists." Both halves are off. Here's the real picture.
Someone was passing around a figure: "SF is at $1,099 a square foot, and there's no year-over-year comparison to be had." As of April 2026, neither part holds up.
The actual numbers
Redfin puts the city of San Francisco at roughly $1,150 a square foot, up about 13% year-over-year as of April 2026, with a median sale price around $1.6M (up ~15%). C.A.R.'s May 2026 report (released June 17) puts San Francisco County's median home price at approximately $2.2 million — up 22.2% year-over-year, among the largest county gains in the state that month.
And that 22.2% figure is the tell: you can't report a year-over-year change without last year's number. The May 2025 data isn't "missing" — it's the baseline these comparisons are built on.
The increase in the median price was driven in large part by the composition of sales, with a greater share of activity occurring in higher-priced segments of the market.
Jordan Levine, Chief Economist, California Association of Realtors
Why one number lies
Here's the real lesson buried in that bad stat: a single price-per-square-foot, stripped of geography and time, tells you almost nothing. "San Francisco" is at least three different numbers right now — SF County median (approximately $2.2M as of May 2026), SF city median (~$1.6M), and the broader Bay Area region ($1.45M, a new record as of May 2026). Same name, three answers.
One number, no context, is a guess dressed up as data.
My read for clients: when someone quotes you "the SF number," ask three questions — which San Francisco, which month, and compared to when. If they can't answer all three, they're not telling you about the market. They're telling you a number. I'll always give you the context.