$ Questions about San Francisco (San Diego, Oakland: car rental, apartment, rental)

[crmorgan7]

Hi All,

My husband and I are currently living in South Carolina, which we hate. We are planning a move in the spring, at least that's when we are going to start applying for jobs. We've seriously been considering Tampa FL, but in the past few weeks California, or specifically SoCal, keeps creeping into our minds. In SC the cost of living is so low and obviously San Francisco and surrounding areas would be much much more. I think our biggest concern is knowing how much we would need to make to live the lifestyle we want.

So, I'm hoping you can give us an idea about how much our household income should be to be able to afford our lifestyle. We would probably rent first, we'd like something modern and stylish in a decent neighborhood with plenty of shopping and things to do, maybe around 1000 sq ft. Eventually we'd like to buy a house/condo, again something similar to what we're renting. I mean, the average cost for a house in SC is like 200,000 and that will buy you a nice house; I'm just trying to understand what is TOO low of a job offer to support our lifestyle. If we made around $160k a year for example, would that be enough to live in a nice place and still have plenty of money left over for vacationing and having fun? Also, we have no interest in kids so that's not an expense we need to consider.

I apologize if all this sounds vague lol. Thanks for any input you can give!

[gone down south]

At $160K you'll be able to afford renting a very nice apartment, eat out frequently and go on lots of vacations. We make less than that and still have a great life AND an aggressive savings plan.

OTOH, forget about buying property out here unless you're willing to make massive concessions. The entry level home price in any area that would fit your lifestyle is going to be well north of $600K (aka, small junky fixer uppper), and the average price would make your head spin.

[mayorhaggar]

You will do fine at that kind of salary with no kids and if you're renting.

Rent is the biggest single monthly expense for most people, practically everything else here is just about as expensive as anywhere else in the US, though groceries are maybe 30% or more expensive than somewhere like the South.

As far as I can tell these are pretty typical apartment rental prices in San Francisco for places that aren't in total ghettos, and this is the LOW end, add a couple hundred or more if you want a nicer place, and subtract $100-200 for places in the suburbs which are cheaper:

room in a multi-room apartment with roommates: $650-900
studios: $950-1200
1 bedroom: $1400-1600
2 bedroom: $1800-2200

[crmorgan7]

Thanks for the responses! Another question, as far as living in the city of San Francisco...how good is the public transportation? Would it be feasible to get rid of 1 or both of our 2 cars?

[mdbolden]

I just spent a week in San Francisco exploring neighborhoods and trying to determine if I could get by without a car. I used the Muni trains, buses, cable cars and street cars, and used BART to visit Oakland, to travel to the airport and for a couple of other trips. I was satisfied that I would be able to get around without a car. I don't mind walking, either, and covered a lot of territory that way, even with the hills. The one day I decided I needed a car, I rented a Zipcar (if you're unfamiliar, it's a car-sharing service that has locations nationwide), and drove to Mount Tamalpais, Muir Woods and Point Reyes. San Francisco seemed quite doable without a car. I intend on selling mine before I take the plunge and just hopping on a Virgin America flight to SFO.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by crmorgan7

Thanks for the responses! Another question, as far as living in the city of San Francisco...how good is the public transportation? Would it be feasible to get rid of 1 or both of our 2 cars?

It goes everywhere but it's not too good at it. Parking, OTOH could turn out to be a liability. I would recommend keeping at least one car.

[mayorhaggar]

I lived in SF without a car for 6 years. Having a car there is a hassle because of the constant threat of break ins and mainly because of the difficulty of finding parking, so not having a car is nice because you don't have to deal with that.

Anyway, most of SF is served by Muni. Basically the further you get from downtown the worse and more inconvenient the service is. In the Mission and the northeastern part of the city it's pretty good, but if you're out in the Outer Sunset your options are fewer and the buses run less frequently, though you can park more easily there. Basically there are a few bus lines that are always pretty frequent, like the Geary and Mission and Van Ness buses--if you live near those you can get around pretty easily. Other bus lines run less frequently plus all bus lines move really slowly down the street because of the large number of stops and the constant traffic on a lot of SF streets...so yeah riding the bus in SF is kind of a pain in the ass but at least it's there.

Muni Metro is the light rail system. If you're near the downtown stations between Van Ness and Market, or near Castro or Church stations, it's great because you have several lines running through the station so the trains are pretty frequent, also it runs underground through this part so it beats the traffic. But it can be pretty unreliable in the tunnels and gets stuck frequently. Once I got stuck on a train for 45 minutes, very unpleasant if the train is very crowded as it often is. Most of the Metro system is above ground and that is where it really sucks because like the buses it has a ton of stops and gets stuck in traffic, so it adds a lot to transit time. From the last stop by the beach to get to downtown it can take from 45 minutes to an hour depending on whether it gets stuck in the tunnel or not, which is silly considering it's only about 7 miles.

The third option is BART which only has one line through the city but the trains are very frequent and much faster and more reliable than Muni Metro, also they don't get as crowded. If you live near the 16th or 24th street stations in the Mission it only takes 10 minutes to get to downtown.

So overall the Muni/BART system covers the city pretty well but it's really not as good a system as it could be. Fortunately most parts of SF are very walkable so if you live in a good neighborhood you can walk to grocery stores and restaurants without needing public transit too much.

It might be useful to keep one car because it will really come in handy when you need to go grocery shopping, also for whenever you want to leave the city because outside of SF, public transit is not great in the Bay Area at all. Or like someone said you could do one of the short term car rental services like Zipcar so you don't have to deal with constantly battling for parking.

[04kL4nD]

160k is plenty to live off of if you're renting. If you'd like your dollars to stretch more, consider living in the East Bay. Better weather and more affordable housing. Honestly, with that income you'll live quite well.

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by crmorgan7

If we made around $160k a year for example, would that be enough to live in a nice place and still have plenty of money left over for vacationing and having fun?

You will feel terribly poor here with only $160K income in this city. But you can save some rent money by living in a tent in Golden Gate park. I recommend getting a tent heater as well . This will allow you to save ample money for an annual trip to Orlando.

[crmorgan7]

lol ok...what about Glendale? Any thoughts on that area compared to San Fran? What about San Diego, good, bad, indifferent? We really need to come visit, but right now I'm trying to get an idea if this is even doable! Thanks!