People have mentioned commuting, but even that isn’t a viable option for some people anymore. I live in Antioch, which is about 30 miles from San Francisco. The prizes of the houses here are huge. Antioch is pretty much a worthless town except for its proximity to the Bay Area.
We were able to get this house for about 150,000, but it was this close to being condemned. We had to completely remodel it just so it would livable. Now we can put it on the market and easily make double that. Antioch and this area is exploding.
I split a 3 bedroom house ( a Craftsman style from the 1920’s ) with one roommate in Alameda for $1250 ( i.e. $625 each ) 
. Although to be fair it is a smallish three bedroom with only one small bathroom ( which sucks ). And it has the usual profusion of minor plumbing and electrical ( and just plain wear ) problems associated with an older home. Still it’s probably at least 40% cheaper than the going rate in Alameda these days. Sheer luck on my part to get it.
Housing is indeed insane in the Bay Area. My income is in the mid-seventies and I can’t easily afford to buy. Partly this is due to minor economic woes that seem to be largely past me ( thank the lord ), but a lot of it is the market. I could probably buy out in Oakley or somewhere else on the fringe of the Bay Area ( with some strain ), but I am reluctant to do so ( everything on the other side of the hills is too damn hot, for one thing ). And I could afford to go roommate-less, but to be as comfortable as I am now I’d have to more than double my rent. I prefer to have the extra cash for other things.
For my friends, many of whom make considerably less than I, it’s all about roommates and/or commuting two hours as others have said. Same in New York, really. My folks are in Jersey City and commute daily into Manhattan. Cheap, decent neighborhoods in both regions are becoming increasingly scarce. Used to be the Sunset and Richmond districts in SF were the decent refuge for the working class and college students, but a recent perusal of the rents there seems to indicate that that situation is fading out as well. Increasingly I’m seeing situations where people are partitioning and sharing one-bedroom apartments and studios in order to make rent and just learning to live with the discomfort of such tight quarters. I’m also of the opinion that the Bay Area is becoming rather more segregated racially ( though not yet profoundly so ) than it was 25 years ago because of all this gentrification. Although my perception on that might be skewed by a faulty memory.
Still…I’d never live anywhere else as long as I can afford it. I love the Bay Area 
.
- Tamerlane
I’ve lived most of my life in the Bay Area, including the past 20 years in San Francisco. It’s always been expensive, but the past few years have been extreme.
I get by mainly because of rent control, and live in a tough neigboorhood. Yeah, I know property owners hate it, but if it were to be eliminated I’d be in Reno. Nothing wrong with Reno, but that’s just about how far I’d have to go to get something affordable.
If a building was built before 1979 rent can only be raised to a maximum of 4% a year, depending on the rate of inflation. When a tenant moves, the owner can raise the rent to whatever he/she can get.
Buying a house in SF? Good luck. Probably why 2/3 of all residents in San Francisco are renters.
But I agree with Seth. LA might be more expensive overall. Silicon Valley too. I don’t need a car in SF. I walk to work, we have a good public transit system, and I rent a car when I want to get out of the City.
Gotta disagree a little. My neighborhood in Queens (and most of the ones near me} is not gentrifying.(We don’t even have a Starbuck’s} It’s changing - when I moved here 13 years ago, my neighbors were mainly white blue collar workers, and the people moving in are white-collar workers or small business owners and of all ethnicities- but there are still people who are far from wealthy buying houses. The neighborhoods in Queens that are gentrifying are those that are very close to Manhattan like Long Island City and Astoria,not the ones that are as close to Nassau as they are to Manhattan.
So rent control is perceived by some of y’all as a good thing. My perception has been that it has served as a disincentive to builders and landlords for some time, leading to the housing shortages in NYC and the like.
I live and work in one of the most dynamic municipalities on earth, and, I believe, the largest city in the U. S. that has both no zoning and no rent control. Houston, Texas is a changing batch of communities that have adapted as well or better to the flux of times.
My brother and sister spent their 80s in San Francisco and paid $1200 - 1700/month on one bedroom flats. Here I live in what is variously called the Museum District or the Montrose with about 150 yards between me and the Menill Collection’s absolutely wonderful Surreallist collection, and the Rothko Chapel one block away.
For my admittedly modest [~600 sq. ft.] half of an endearing duplex (often called a coach-house), I’m paying $335 a month.
I lived in the Richmond a few years ago. We had incredible luck - a 2-bedroom for $930pm. It wasn’t a shithole, either (though it wasn’t the nicest place I’ve ever lived in).
Shortly after I left, there was a mysterious fire in the building. Although our apartment wasn’t destroyed, there was enough smoke damage to force the people living there to move out. Six months later, just after the place had been repaired, they rang posing as potential new tenants and enquired about the monthly rent. It was now $1800pm.
Still wonder exactly who started that fire :rolleyes:
beatle, it’s not the lack of rent control or zoning that makes Houston cheap, its the SPACE. I had a 2000 sqft townhouse in the Kirkwood & Memorial area that I bought & sold for $65,000. When I left 5 years ago work was progressing on the new ‘super loop’ outside the tollway. Houston can grow as large as it needs pretty much any direction but south, just build a new ring road and start build houses. Citys like NY and SF and where I live now (London/Southern England) have run out of space for expansion. If I could pick up my Houston town house and drop it here, it would sell for close to $300,000. I now live about an hour outside London (by train) in a nice area and pay $1120 per month rent. And don’t get me started on the $5.00 per gallon gasoline!
From this website http://www.mazerecruiters.com/job.htm (and I am not quite sure of the methodology employed), but New York and San Francisco’s metro areas check in with a much higher cost of living than that of the L.A. metro area.
Los Angeles is such a big area that it is a lot easier to find affordable housing than in San Francisco. However, it is nearly impossible to live in the Los Angeles area without a car, although many more people take public transportation in Southern California than you would think. Since most of L.A.'s public transit users aren’t white, it sort of fades into the background.
I was born and largely raised in the SF area, and wouldn’t consider going back there without an offer of at least twice what I make here in the DC area.
People here rag about the taxes and traffic, but both are as nothing compared to out in the SF area.
For whatever reason, the patterns of settlement in CA seem to be much more spread out than here in the east or south. Having to commute 50 to 75 miles each way is not uncommon in the SF area (and probably not in LA, either). This is because of the affordable housing vs. wages issue. Having a body of water (the bay) in the middle of the SF area complicates the whole thing, as all traffic has to pass through the choke points of the bridges and around the edges of the bayshores.
One issue I haven’t heard mentioned in the context of SF is that according to the SF Chronicle (a.k.a. the Comical), there are only two legal parking spaces for every three cars registered to SF addresses.
It’s not really that nice of a place to visit, and I definitely wouldn’t want to live there!
As for NYC, rent is high, but not as outrageously high as some people like to believe everywhere. Rents outside of Manhattan can often be found for less than $1000 for a decent sized space, especially on the outskirts of Queens and Brooklyn. Additionally, many people who live in NYC don’t have cars, which is a huge money-saver.
I cannot believe what I am reading! I am starting to wonder what the hell all of you are complaining about!
I have often wondered (more generally) how people can afford to exist anywhere. After having read the above, now I see.
I am a 23-year-old-entry-level-just-graduated-from-state-university type. I live in Louisville, KY and pay $425/mo. for a one-bedroom + utilities. I live in the Highlands neighborhood which is safe, beautiful, quiet, and pretty close to downtown. I have all the modern conveniences that I can imagine needing. With the income you all are making, you could live like kings here. Seriously. I only make $23,000/yr for God’s sake!
Now, I can only assume that many of those who responded are established, experienced professionals who deserve their income, but are your wants and desires so overblown that a $100,000/yr. income can’t support it? I can’t feel sympathy, sorry.
Can I assume that young career types (like me) do not exist in cities like NYC or San Fran because of crippling rent and high prices? I understand that incomes are higher accordingly, to compensate, but the question begs to be asked: Why live in such a place where the cost of living is so high? Is it really that much better? For those like me who are just starting a career, is it even a possibility?
I can’t be the only one reading this forum who is shocked. I knew the cost of living in places on the east and west coast is high; I just didn’t know the divide was sooooo wide…or is there significant exaggeration going on?
In east and west coast cities do you have to pay $1000/mo to escape the ghetto? If so, you are missing GREAT opportunities in the Midwest for a low-cost life. I’ve lived in northern Ohio, western Pennsylvania, and now Kentucky, and (as far as I’ve seen) rents that high are reserved for the rich.
I’m sorry if I rant and rave…I get carried away. The way that people were writing so matter-of-factly about exorbinant rents and incomes was a little overwhelming to me…I need to lie down…
I’m a young writer (27). I moved to NYC five years ago. I don’t make a lot of money.
I write for a 1.6 million circ. national magazine. Those are hard to find outside of NYC (not impossible–Country Home magazine is based in Iowa, I believe). So I live here.
My wife is a costume designer. Outside of NYC and LA, it’s hard to find enough steady work to make that career happen. (I know folks in Texas who work in the film industry…but they have HUGE dry spells and are always scraping for work.)
So that’s why I live here. If I could live in the mountains of Pennsylvania, I would. I suppose I may move out there someday and commute 2 hours each way, but I’m not ready to do that yet. Nor am I ready to find another line of work (or work for some small, regional publication).
I live in Astoria (Queens). I currently pay $865 for a sunny and sizeable one-bedroom, and count myself exceedingly lucky. Going price for that nowadays (except that there are very few open apts. in the neighborhood) would probably be about $1500 per month. I only have such a deal because I moved from a studio in the same building and the landlord didn’t jack the rent way up (I moved in two days, saving him from having the apt. vacant for another month). Almost half my take-home pay goes to rent. It sucks. But that’s the price of this career.
I might add that I’m making a lot more and living in better, cheaper conditions than many of my young friends. Lots of them put virtually ALL of their money into rent–and they live with up to three roommates, too.
There is OPERA here.
I’m another one in Alameda. I got lucky and moved just before the rents went insane. I live in a 2 bed 1 bath apartment close to the beach for just under $1200 a month.
The prices are starting to come down now. About 6 months ago they rented the apartment below mine (same size/floorplan) for 1650, but now the same apartments are going for about $1400. I have a friend who is moving into the area and we’ve been looking for studios in my neighborhood. There are nice ones going for $900, that used to go for $1300.
I also subscribe to a site that is supposed to email me home listings for under $325,000 in my neighborhood. I thought they had dropped me because I hadn’t heard from them in months, but last week I got one with 24 listings. I hope to buy here within the next 3 years. At this point I’m praying for a nice big recession and watching as people in the .com jobs are packing up to move back in with mom.
As far as living like a king on my income elsewhere - well of course I could - but there aren’t nearly as many tech writing jobs where you live as there are here. And the ones that are there don’t pay anywhere near what I can make here. If I stay I have my pick of jobs. I don’t want to move somewhere that only has 2 or 3 openings for people in my field and pray that I like my job. Here, if my current thing doesn’t work out, there are lots of places to go.
There are other cost of living considerations here as well. My monthly gasoline budget is $250, and I’m probably going to have to bump that up to $300 plus when the gas prices climb again this month. My job is 45 miles away and there is no place cheaper to live between here and there.
Because my commute is so huge my car insurance is higher. If there was reasonable public transit between here and Mountain View I would use it. It is possible, but would take over 2 hours each way because I would have to take a couple of busses, BART amd light rail. I think the total bill per day would be about $20 as well.
Another thing is restaurant food. I don’t eat out very often, but I just got back from a business trip to Boulder. Every day I was able to find lunch (healthy, in a real restaurant) for under $7.00 including tip. The same type of lunch in a similar kind of place here will run me at least $15. Like I said, I don’t do it often, but it adds up quickly.
I live in Seattle, another city gaining notoriety for inflated real estate values, terrible commuting, etc. Not as bad as San Francisco, New York, etc., but getting up there.
I can’t imagine living in Louisville or a city like it. Seattle has a dozen major venues for live theatre, plus a hundred other theatrical companies ranging from medium to tiny, and that doesn’t count the ballet, modern dance, and other performing troupes. As a city, we have a major obsession with cinema; our Seattle International Film Festival is the largest (most movies) and best-attended festival in the U.S. (Toronto’s festival is bigger), and we’re fourth in the U.S. for annual movie attendance per capita. My wife’s an epidemiologist, a career that requires a major university or population center. We have more restaurants per capita than anyplace on the West Coast other than San Francisco. (L.A. has more restaurants total, but we’ve got an eighth of the people.) We have a very diverse population and a thriving International District.
Basically, for arts and culture, Seattle’s about the smallest city I’m willing to live in. Yeah, it’s more expensive than if we lived in Missoula, but I’d go absolutely insane if I were cut off like that. We’re currently considering upgrading, maybe to Boston.
Now, I’m not suggesting that you’re culturally deprived because you live in Louisville. You may be perfectly happy, and that’s just fine. However, deprived is exactly how I would feel if I were there. Different preferences for different people, don’tcha know. How 'bout you put away the judgementalism and consider that your views don’t apply to everybody?
[taking deep breaths, relaxing]
People complain about the high cost of living in San Diego and how people cannot afford a house. When I lived in Albuquerque people complained about how they could not afford a house even though they cost half to a third as much as San Diego. Housing seems to me to always cost what people are able to pay.
I suspect there’s an immutable principal lurking in that thought. My earlier comment regarding rent control just reflects my opinion that the long term effects of such result in less available rental housing because it discourages the proprietors from entering or staying in a rent controlled market.
And I’ll confess that I know my rent runs toward the low side in my market.
This whole thread reminds me of the protagonist in Tom Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities, a Manhattan stock broker who at one point muses that the lifestyle that costs him a million dollars a year in Manhattan could probably be duplicated in (I don’t really remember, but I think it was) Lexington, Kentucky for about $100K. I think that might be an exaggeration.
Perhaps another take on the question at hand might be to consider what percentage of one’s income housing consumes in a particular area.
I quote beatle quoting me:
Housing seems to me to always cost what people are able to pay.
gazpacho expands upon this immutable principle by saying:
When we were buying our current house in San Diego there was a lot of conventional wisdom about buying as much house as you could afford because housing prices are going up so you will be better off getting the most house cheaper now. I think that this really means that the house prices are driven to the absolute maximum because every body is spending as much as they possible can.
And you’ve got green chili wontons at the Bristol, too. Look at it this way - if you were living in LA, you’d make closer to 35~40k a year, you’d live in the Palms, Venice, or Hollywood (right near Beechwood Canyon), and you’d say roughly the same thing as you say about Louisville (although I think the highlands are nicer than any of the places I mentioned). Its been a while since I looked for an apartment; I’m guessing about $900/mo, depending on the neighborhood.
I think there is some truth to that - which is generally silly from an investment standpoint, given that in any neighborhood the smallest houses appreciate the most over time.
The prices are going back down (slightly) in my neighborhood because the people who had the incomes to support those prices aren’t here anymore.
Another random thought in response to the question about people in lower income jobs surviving in cities like this - those low wage jobs tend to pay more here too. I know that a couple of years ago the McDonald’s in Cupertino was paying $11/hr to start. I’m sure that McD’s didn’t want to do that, but nobody would apply for the job at a lower rate.
I am well aware that this is not the case everywhere, but simple comparisons for services bear this out in general. I pay a housecleaner $40 to come to my apartment and clean my kitchen, 1 bathroom and vacuum the living room once a week, which takes about an hour. I have a roommate and we decided long ago that $40 bucks a week was worth never having to fight about who’s turn it is to scrub the toilet or why the dishes in the sink are growing things. I comparison shopped for a month for the cleaner and couldn’t find anyone cheaper. For the same price my sister in Pensacola can have her 4 bed 3 bath house cleaned weekly.
I’m not bitching here - the prices will continue to stay at rates which the market will bear. As long as I’m earning an inflated income to match, I’m willing to pay.