Is 50K a year liveable in San Fran? (San Jose, San Francisco: appointed, real estate)

[rah]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

Heck, my roommate takes home about $12K a year (after taxes and child support garnishing), and she's surviving! Of course that's mostly thanks to me, since I only charge her $600/month in rent, and rarely ask for a utilities contribution... she also works at a grocery store, so she gets free food all the time. But hey, if she can make things work on that small amount, I think anyone can live here on $50K.

Yeah, it's definitely doable. People really play up the "SF is too expensive" thing, but tons of people live here on low wages. It all just depends on looking around and finding good deals pretty much...they're out there

Originally Posted by ripley44mag

Depends on what you consider livable. If you are a tough guy its pleanty, if you are a wuss you could not live here for less than 200k a year. Ripley

Haha, Yeah to a certain extent that's true. Most neighborhoods where you can live without much money tend to be on the sketchier side, so the more grit you can handle the better you'll do I guess. There are hoods that are pretty cheap, but nice and safe too though, like the sunset.

One thing for sure though, is while living in SF on $50,000 (or way less) is more than doable, if you want more bang for your buck there are lot and lots of places where you can get it...but I guess that's the price you gotta pay for living in SF.

[maaci]

Originally Posted by prairiestate

If you're looking for a true big city experience, the only city in the country where you can comfortably afford it on $50,000 a year would be Chicago.

You could live comfortably in Dallas or Atlanta on $50,000.

[Land]

I am amazed at these responses. Maybe that is because I am 28, living on $48,000/yr, and I'm doing just fine in San Francisco.

The key? Ditch the car. Commute with transit and get ZipCar or CityCarShare if you need a car from time to time. If you move to a central, middle-income neighborhood - Lower Nob Hill, Mission, Polk Street and Inner Sunset come to mind - you can get a decent studio for under $1200. And you will be close to transit. I pay $1000 for a tiny studio on Post x Jones and it's a ten minute walk to the MUNI train and BART, and two blocks from Union Square. This is not some rent-control miracle, I haven't even finished the first year's lease yet.

Cars take away from your quality of life in a dense city, they don't add to it. If you think you will end up working in Silicon Valley you should keep in mind proximity to BART (regional transit line). If you feel you must keep the car, despite the million good reasons not to, you should reconsider moving to SF. Even with a small, cheap studio in a borderline neighborhood you will struggle to pay for rent, parking, plus your normal car expenses. A parking spot can cost you from $150-$300/mo, gas in SF is among the highest in the nation, and street parking is like a repetitive, expensive nightmare from which you never wake.

One last thought - affordable neighborhoods in SF are gritty, but not dangerous. Well, the Mission might be dangerous. But the fringes of the Tenderloin (Tenderloin Heights, Tendernob, Lower Nob Hill, Little Saigon, Polk Village) are a good compromise of grittiness and cost. The Inner Sunset and Inner Richmond are remarkably safe but farther from downtown and have scarcer transit options. Parts of Haight and Hayes Valley can be affordable and close to transit. And keep in mind that apartment hunting in SF can be rough and competitive. At $50k and assuming good credit you should be a shoe-in.

In short, you can live comfortably in SF on under $50k/yr, and I am living proof.

[WheelMan09]

wow, the ways people would adjust their lifestyles just to live in San Francisco, amazing.

[prairiestate]

No kidding. You can live comfortably in San Francisco on $50,000 a year. After all, who wouldn't be comfortable in a tiny studio in a gritty neighborhood with out a car. The mortgage on my 2 bedroom, though admittedly small and older, condo in an inner suburb of Chicago is almost half the price of a tiny studio out there. Why aren't more people flocking to California? There are some attractive neighborhoods in Chicago where you can get a spacious one or even two bedroom apartment for $1000 a month.

[Joe_Ryder]

If you get by without buying a new car every year and don't need the latest/coolest/trendiest cell phone, you can do just fine. If you can't survive without all the "look at me" gadgets, $50K won't be enough.

[Joe_Ryder]

Originally Posted by prairiestate

No kidding. You can live comfortably in San Francisco on $50,000 a year. After all, who wouldn't be comfortable in a tiny studio in a gritty neighborhood with out a car. The mortgage on my 2 bedroom, though admittedly small and older, condo in an inner suburb of Chicago is almost half the price of a tiny studio out there. Why aren't more people flocking to California? There are some attractive neighborhoods in Chicago where you can get a spacious one or even two bedroom apartment for $1000 a month.

Not meaning to hijack the thread but could you please explain the disorder of many residents of Chicago that compels them to compare their nifty flyover winter wonderland to California cities? It seems like every thread in the California forum has at least one Chicago person comparing. We don't care about Chicago so why do you care so much about us?

[artemis78]

I do think it's interesting that people presume living without a car and in a gritty neighborhood must be "adjusting your lifestyle." I think this may be a "to each his own" situation. I live in a somewhat gritty neighborhood without a car, and have spent my entire adult life doing that in various cities---not because I have to, but because I like it. I hate driving, am terrible at parallel parking, and just generally don't want to have to worry about a car. I've turned down higher-paying jobs on several occasions because they required car commutes. And I like living in a neighborhood where there are art galleries tucked here and there, lots of hole-in-the-wall ethnic restaurants, diverse sets of families, etc. Don't get me wrong---I like hanging out in yuppier neighborhoods too, and wouldn't say no to a free apartment there, but I see no reason to pay a premium for it if I'm equally happy to live in my 'hood with much more space and a yard and a little grit. I eat out when I want to, buy the things I need, etc. So yes, it's definitely do-able on under $50K as long as you don't *need* to live in the poshest area and eat in the four-star restaurants daily. If you do, you need to find a better-paying job regardless of where you live, and your money will go farther if you move to a cheaper city.

[gv0928]

I'm a little disgusted that so many people are acting like living in small quarters in a city is completely beneath them.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by prairiestate

No kidding. You can live comfortably in San Francisco on $50,000 a year. After all, who wouldn't be comfortable in a tiny studio in a gritty neighborhood with out a car.

That's not the only way to do it, it's just how some people manage here. I, on the other hand, live in a beautiful 3-bedroom HOUSE with a car... I swing that by having 2 roommates to share expenses (bringing my rent to only $899/mo), and living in the "less desirable" part of town. I don't even have to pay for parking, since we have both a garage and driveway, and this neighborhood has plenty of - free - street parking too. Unfortunately I have to be dependent on a car, because of where I live & work (no access to BART or trains), and my frequent visits to family in the south bay. Anyway, this is just another example of "adjusting your lifestyle" to live in SF, but I don't think I'm sacrificing all that much.

P.S. While my neighborhood isn't the most desirable, it's actually quite nice... safe, clean, and pretty darned quiet.