Affordable to live in the city on 50k a year? (San Francisco: apartments, rental) - San Francisco - Oakland - California (CA) - City-Data Forum

halcyon85 · 02-19-2013, 04:51 PM

I recently accepted a position in Menlo Park and will be moving at the end of August from Boston. I'm single and in my late 20s and would really prefer to live in the city and, if possible, take the train to Menlo Park. The position pays approximately $50,000 per year. Is this doable? If so, are there any areas you would recommend I focus my search on that are not outrageously experience (less than $2,000 per month, preferably for a 1 bedroom but a studio is doable), reasonably safe, and at least somewhat convenient to get to the Caltrain station? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

04kL4nD · 02-19-2013, 04:55 PM

I wouldn't live in the city on that salary, but that's just me.

It's certainly possible with roommates, but you won't be able to go out and enjoy SF very much

mayorhaggar · 02-19-2013, 04:58 PM

If you live with roommates. Getting to Caltrain is a pain in the butt from the fun parts of SF, there are a few condo areas near the 22nd Street and 4th & King stations but they're really expensive.

wf7575 · 02-19-2013, 06:15 PM

50k in SF means you are living with a lot of roommates in a part of town that isn't probably what you are picturing when you think of San Francisco and don't go out much. In your planning, remember to take into account that California taxes are higher, transportation is more expensive, and everything is generally more expensive. You may be able to find a studio in SF for 2,000 a month (not in a nice part of town near Caltrain), but you won't have much left over. I would suggest trying to find a place in the east bay near a BART station that can connect you to Caltrain if you are looking for a more of a young urban bay area experience. You should be able to afford a studio in some of the nicer parts of Oakland and by public transit it is oddly faster to get to both Caltrain and the nightlife areas of SF from some of the east bay than from the outlying parts of SF. Parts of the east bay you may want to focus on are Temescal in Oakland, the Berkeley flats, and the Lake Merritt area. Otherwise...some of the suburbs are relatively inexpensive.

silverkris · 02-19-2013, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wf7575

I would suggest trying to find a place in the east bay near a BART station that can connect you to Caltrain if you are looking for a more of a young urban bay area experience. You should be able to afford a studio in some of the nicer parts of Oakland and by public transit it is oddly faster to get to both Caltrain and the nightlife areas of SF from some of the east bay than from the outlying parts of SF. Parts of the east bay you may want to focus on are Temescal in Oakland, the Berkeley flats, and the Lake Merritt area. Otherwise...some of the suburbs are relatively inexpensive.

That could be a really lengthy commute. From BART MacArthur Station in Oakland to Millbrae is 50 minutes (which is a BART/CalTrain connection point). From there CalTrain to Menlo Park is another 23-25 minutes, not counting connecting times at Millbrae. That's about 75 minutes not counting wait times. Not to mention the expenses. IMO it wouldn't be worth it in terms of both time and expense of BART and CalTrain every day.

Probably a better alternative is to live somewhere on the Peninsula with a shared rental situation, say, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo. You have a decent commute to work and can get to the city (SF) via CalTrain for recreation or leisure. RC would be the least costly (though not cheap) rental and it's also very close to Menlo Park (just the next town over if you don't count tony Atherton).

wf7575 · 02-19-2013, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverkris

That could be a really lengthy commute. From BART MacArthur Station in Oakland to Millbrae is 50 minutes (which is a BART/CalTrain connection point). From there CalTrain to Menlo Park is another 23-25 minutes, not counting connecting times at Millbrae. That's about 75 minutes not counting wait times. Not to mention the expenses. IMO it wouldn't be worth it in terms of both time and expense of BART and CalTrain every day.

Probably a better alternative is to live somewhere on the Peninsula with a shared rental situation, say, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo. You have a decent commute to work and can get to the city (SF) via CalTrain for recreation or leisure. RC would be the least costly (though not cheap) rental and it's also very close to Menlo Park (just the next town over if you don't count tony Atherton).

Certainly agree with the much faster commute time. And the towns of the Penninsula do have a lot to offer (good restaurants, parks, etc). I think a lot may depend on one's desired lifestyle. The penninsula has a lot of families and young Silicon Valley tech workers (which it sounds as though the poster may be among). The east bay is more diverse culturally and economically, younger, and has better weather.

HockeyMac18 · 02-19-2013, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wf7575

Certainly agree with the much faster commute time. And the towns of the Penninsula do have a lot to offer (good restaurants, parks, etc). I think a lot may depend on one's desired lifestyle. The penninsula has a lot of families and young Silicon Valley tech workers (which it sounds as though the poster may be among). The east bay is more diverse culturally and economically, younger, and has better weather.

I would agree that the East Bay may fit the OP better in most ways (although I personally feel the peninsula has better weather), but the commute would just straight up blow. I did the East Bay to Palo Alto commute for a while, and there was just no great way to get there in an ammount of time that was reasonable. It wore me down really fast.

The key for the OP is whether it's possible to live in an area of SF that would allow him/her a reasonable commute to Menlo Park (reasonable to me is under an hour) on 50k...and there really isn't an area like this. The only locations in SF where you could realistically get by on 50K are a bit of a pain to get to the Caltrain stations at 22nd or 4th and King. Even if you try the BART to Caltrain option, I can't think of any good neighborhoods that'd fit that budget and allow for a reasonable commute...

So, really, you're left with the peninsula, the South Bay, and the lower East Bay (Fremont/Union City). Fremont and Union City would be the cheapest, but there'd be no good public transit option, and really would not be what the OP wants...The south bay, while also a cheper alternative to SF will probably be too far for the OP, so that's probably out too...

Really, the best suggestion I can offer is to live in a cheap living situation on the peninsula: roommates, in-law, studio, below-market-rate apt (each town has their own web site explaining it, such as this one: San Mateo, CA - Official Website - Below Market Rental Program). I'm in my late 20's and live in downtown San Mateo, and I can attest to it being a good option for someone who's that age but also enjoys city life. It's cheaper than the city (although still expensive), is close to work and the city (I'm able to be in SF 2-5 times a week), and it has plenty to offer in terms of a walkable downtown/restaurants/bars/shopping within 3 blocks of my apt.

The biggest concern to me for the OP is that the Bay Area is very expensive, and it's become even more ludicruously expensive in the last few years with the latest rental price explosion (example: apartments that were going for $1500 a month in 2010 are now going for over $3000-4000 a month in some places (e.g. SOMA/South Beach in SF))...

And as someone who makes only a bit more than what the OP is being offered, it will be VERY tight. Keep rent as low as possible...you'll have to do the roommate/in-law/studio type thing. It is most likely not ideal, but you'll have to make some sacrafices to live in the area. But, if you can keep the rent below something like $1000-1200, it is doable to live in a decent area close to work and be able to get to fun (in the city, usually) pretty easily.

Also, it never hurts to try to negotiate higher pay.

staceylynn1 · 02-19-2013, 09:10 PM

I'm making it work on 54K. If you live pretty frugally it can be possible. I really hate long commutes though, so if I were in your shoes, I would look closer to work to avoid having to get up ridiculously early every morning just to get to the office on time. That's just a personal preference though. Someone who knows the area better than me may want to chime in, but maybe you can look into South San Francisco?

sonarrat · 02-19-2013, 10:03 PM

Last time I was looking in Menlo Park, there were some '50s era apartments that weren't too pricey on Coleman Ave. in Menlo Park itself, and a few on Waverley as well. Drive by and look for signs, they don't really go after the Craigslist crowd there. They'll be in original condition, noisy and out of date, but also safe and convenient for you.

Azmordean · 02-20-2013, 12:32 AM

50K? I hate to be the first to say it, but forget the city. And 2K a month on rent? I don't think you can afford that on 50K. I make almost 3x that and my rent is $2500 and that's almost half my take home after taxes, 401K, and all that good stuff. I think making 50K you'll be lucky to clear 30ish net, so obviously spending 24 of that on rent is not doable.

I'd look in Menlo close to work for a place with roommates. Barring that I think Redwood City, San Bruno, South SF, Pacifica, etc all have some cheaper housing option. Another option might be Fremont - I think Menlo isn't a bad trip just across the Dumbarton Bridge.