Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The $42k/year figure for "Needs" they quoted for San Francisco is $3,500/month. That barely pays the rent on an apartment in a location where you won't be harassed by homeless druggies. And....food isn't a need? Utilities? Clothing?
Yes, really.
The article very clearly states "metro areas" in its title. Turns out there's more to the SF metro area than the Tenderloin and its surrounding neighborhoods.
Coming in under budget, we can start with this HOUSE, check out those upgrades!
Not even close. The notion that you can live comfortably on a 5 figure income in NYC or SF is patently ridiculous. Perhaps the writer has a very low bar for what constitutes "comfortable".
Losfrisco beat me to it, but the article ranked the 25 largest metropolitan areas. That poster showed you that housing gets cheaper once you leave the core city, and I believe the same applies for New York City once you leave the core city itself. Especially if you're willing to live in New Jersey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atadytic19
Is the cost of living for Philly that low?
If it is then it is certainly the best bang for your buck.
That survey confirms what many of us in this area have long known: This is the most affordable of the country's biggest metros (it's certainly the most affordable of the top 10).
You can find decent housing in the core city for a song if you're willing to live outside Center City. I just featured this unit in an artists' co-op in the Northwest Philadelphia neighborhood I call home for a "Living in Germantown" guide that will run in the front of the book in the May issue.
You must make your living in the visual, literary or performing arts to buy a share in the co-op that allows you to occupy this unit, but: Read that sale price and weep, superstar city-dwellers.
Or if you would rather have a freestanding house, there's this larger one that's in good shape and located just a few blocks from where I live. (The listing agent says it's close to a very popular craft brewery in the neighborhood, and yes, you could walk to it from here in about 20 minutes. But it's closer to Germantown's central commercial district.)
And this is just one neighborhood. Compare the square footage of these places to the pricier ones down the Peninsula from San Francisco in Losfrico's post.
And I'm not talking suburbs here. (Though most of the Northwest Philadelphia neighborhoods have a suburban air about them.)
I live in NYC and when I hear people say they need 350K a year to live here it just lets me know they are bad with money. I look at rent prices for decent sized apartments all the time throughout the 5 boroughs, have a 15$ a month gym pass, and my car is fully paid of. a 150K salary serves me just fine. then again as a real new yorker my life isnt exclusively based in Manhattan
The article very clearly states "metro areas" in its title. Turns out there's more to the SF metro area than the Tenderloin and its surrounding neighborhoods.
Coming in under budget, we can start with this HOUSE, check out those upgrades!
Re: SF, I have to concur with annie, if you don't have roommates you need to make well into the 6 figures to live here. There are basically 0 apartments in SF proper under $2000/mo. Might be some in the bad parts of Oakland. Even way out in Antioch/Pittsburgh (like 40 minutes from the city without traffic), you're probably gonna be paying at least $1500 for a place in an out-of-the-way subdivision. I think a lot of these lists assume you don't have a car, but you'll basically need one if you live anywhere outside of SF proper. And it feels like you can't drive 10 miles on the highways here without hitting a toll.
I was making over $120k here before I got laid off, and I still have roommates.
I think the key here is that these numbers are for the entire metro, not just the central city of that metro. Also key here is that this is after tax income.
I also wonder if this is based on a single person living alone in a small apartment. Miami's number seems low primarily because housing costs here have skyrocketed. Less than 3 grand a month is going to be difficult for needs if that is supposed to cover housing costs, utilities, food and transportation. Maybe with a roommate it works?
Re: SF, I have to concur with annie, if you don't have roommates you need to make well into the 6 figures to live here. There are basically 0 apartments in SF proper under $2000/mo. Might be some in the bad parts of Oakland. Even way out in Antioch/Pittsburgh (like 40 minutes from the city without traffic), you're probably gonna be paying at least $1500 for a place in an out-of-the-way subdivision. I think a lot of these lists assume you don't have a car, but you'll basically need one if you live anywhere outside of SF proper. And it feels like you can't drive 10 miles on the highways here without hitting a toll.
I was making over $120k here before I got laid off, and I still have roommates.
I hope that the writers for San Francisco, the Chronicle and the Examiner and the reporters for KQED or KRON are paid much, much better than they pay at Philadelphia, the Inquirer and WHYY or WPVI-TV, else they will have to probably go in on apartments with five roommates or drive to work from Sacramento.
I'll just point out that on my salary at Philadelphia, I can afford to live by myself in a two-room studio apartment in Germantown. And my rent accounts for about one-third of my net monthly pay.
After some personal experience living in two areas I think there are things that aren’t as taken into affordability as they should. For example while Austin is expensive vs. Houston. If you want to live within 5 miles of Downtown and pay less than $1000 in rent while there are probably more Areas in Houston vs. Austin. When you factor in Safety, access to amenities etcetera almost every neighborhood in Austin is moving away from being food desert and even the cheapest areas seem to have more accessible Amenities and a higher amount of safety and if your young, people in your age range than the equivalent in Houston.
I really think median rent just doesn’t tell the story. For example Harlem seems to be one of if not the most resource rich lower income/lower middle class communities in the country. Once you factor stuff like that I can see how traditionally expensive cities can move up and down the list.
Riverside which has crime but is also extremely affordable and safer than the equivalent Houston neighborhoods with good proximity to Houston’s center has $700 dolllar a month rent and it’s a function of the East side of Austin still being significantly cheaper than the West side.
Also the historical disinvestment of the East Side of Austin is less and less relevant as upper middle class residents have moved in or government have built amenities out there while rent for whatever reason hasn’t skyrocketed in certain parts of it yet
In that way I feel Austin is more affordable than a lot of Texas cities which at their core is the extremely rich next to the extremely poor.
Not even close. The notion that you can live comfortably on a 5 figure income in NYC or SF is patently ridiculous. Perhaps the writer has a very low bar for what constitutes "comfortable".
you can live around NYC in an apartment for 1500-2000 a month. thats doable.
Now, if you want to act like a gentrifier and eat in the West Village every night.. well, then you are in a different bucket. Most New Yorkers live off of and do fine within the 75k-99k range. Especially POC.
you can live around NYC in an apartment for 1500-2000 a month. thats doable.
Now, if you want to act like a gentrifier and eat in the West Village every night.. well, then you are in a different bucket. Most New Yorkers live off of and do fine within the 75k-99k range. Especially POC.
COL exaggerators generally fall into two camps:
Haters from afar going off of assumptions and popular stereotypes
People who reside there and want to make where they live seem more exclusive/unattainable than it actually is, i.e. "2000 gets you a broom closet around here, etc."
Is it just me, or do people almost always START with the most exclusive parts of these huge metro areas for their examples of "everything" being too expensive?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
