Can a family live comfortably on 90K a year? (Los Angeles: coupons, rental)

[genjy]

No area near Downtown LA has good schools.

The closest area with good schools is Glendale, which you can absolutely afford to live in if you rent.

Mortgaging a house in Glendale could be stretching the $90k per year budget a bit.

I would suggest Glendale--safe, good schools, family-oriented, convenient, and affordable enough.

Originally Posted by JohnG72

Covina

Covina is a great place to live. Affordable houses, good schools (Charter Oak USD), centrally located (from multiple counties), and very clean and safe.

The commute to Downtown LA is hellish, though.

Fortunately, Covina has a Metrolink station--it only takes like 35 minutes to get to Union Station.

In a few years, when the Gold Line Foothill Extension is finished, Covina residents can also take advantage of the Citrus College Station--which is just a couple miles north of Covina. It's going to be a bit slower than Metrolink, but much cheaper and more frequent.

[JohnG72]

Originally Posted by calipoppy

I would recommend the Pasadena area (Pasadena, South Pasadena, etc)for your family.

1) The commute would not be far for the hubby
2) Great friendly neighborhoods
3) Great access to other areas when you are ready to go out
4) Some very good schools in the area (but you would have to research which ones specifically)
5) Relatively affordable rent
6) Lots of things to do in the Pasadena area

I'd think that South Pasadena would be cost prohibitive for what OP wants(3bd, 2ba), even as a rental. In fact, a search of craigslist with the parameters $2,000 max rent, 3 bedroom, South Pasadena, produces only one property...a badly outdated 3 bd/1ba for $1500/mo...that doesn't even match op's parameters.

In looking at the school performance map for Pasadena, theres a handful of schools that rate 6-8, and nothing else. So there aren't "very good schools" in Pasadena outside of one or two elementary schools.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[ragnarkar]

I think you might want to look at Rosemead or Alhambra.. they're reasonably close to downtown.. I hear Alhambra has slightly better schools and is closer but is also a little more expensive.

90K is definitely doable in both cities if you are not wasteful (seek the Frugal Living forum for a tip or two); this still leaves you with plenty of money to enjoy the excellent food in the area.

[drshang]

I think Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena/Alhambra are all pretty reasonable options. I think South Pasadena is priced a little outside of the listed budget. Since you are renting, I think it's OK to choose Pasadena if the elementary school is good, just be aware that the middle/high school level won't be good.

A 3br/1.5bath is going to be a stretch in all of those areas at 2000 a month though, although you didn't specify your exact budget. You will likely have to downsize your expectations (if you can find that at 2000 it will likely be outdated), or move farther out to areas closer to ~1hr from DTLA for commuting.

[urbanr0cker]

I'm often amazed at the salaries people claim are needed to support oneself or a family in Los Angeles. $90k is still a very decent income to live on. It seems however that the new "living wage" in LA is > $150k, which is ridiculous. Some people act as if your standard of living would have to be greatly lowered to live on less than $100k in this town. I, however, know people that are doing it and thriving.

Anyway, finding safe, suitable housing even in Los Angeles proper is still doable. Naturally you would do well to look into communities like Glendale, Burbank and Covina to one side, but also Westchester, Culver City and the del Rey's to the west. They each have some nice areas with good schools and the commute wouldn't be so bad, or at least, not any worse than if you were coming from Pasadena.

[yoyoma02]

Rent in Culver City or Glendale (I'd rather live on the Westside of downtown). They are both fairly close to downtown, affordable, and safe. You could easily get a 3 bed/2 ba for $2200, in a solid school district.

As far as pay goes, I wouldn't know what to do if I made $90k. I only make $40k and feel as if I live pretty comfortably. However, I don't have 3 kids to support either...

[bhcompy]

Originally Posted by urbanr0cker

I'm often amazed at the salaries people claim are needed to support oneself or a family in Los Angeles. $90k is still a very decent income to live on. It seems however that the new "living wage" in LA is > $150k, which is ridiculous. Some people act as if your standard of living would have to be greatly lowered to live on less than $100k in this town. I, however, know people that are doing it and thriving.

Anyway, finding safe, suitable housing even in Los Angeles proper is still doable. Naturally you would do well to look into communities like Glendale, Burbank and Covina to one side, but also Westchester, Culver City and the del Rey's to the west. They each have some nice areas with good schools and the commute wouldn't be so bad, or at least, not any worse than if you were coming from Pasadena.

People are capable, yes, but when you start talking about children and school it is a completely different story. The fact of the matter is that housing prices still far outpace affordability metrics, so anyone looking for a home in a nice area with nice schools will have a tough time on a lower budget. My family manages on a similar salary by living in a crappy 40+y/o 2bd apt in a good area. We can afford a house... in Temecula

[genjy]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

People are capable, yes, but when you start talking about children and school it is a completely different story. The fact of the matter is that housing prices still far outpace affordability metrics, so anyone looking for a home in a nice area with nice schools will have a tough time on a lower budget. My family manages on a similar salary by living in a crappy 40+y/o 2bd apt in a good area. We can afford a house... in Temecula

You don't really have to banish your family to Temecula.

There are places in the LA County there are quite affordable, safe, and with decent schools--Not really within the City of LA, but within adjacent and surrounding cities for sure.

[drshang]

Originally Posted by urbanr0cker

I'm often amazed at the salaries people claim are needed to support oneself or a family in Los Angeles. $90k is still a very decent income to live on. It seems however that the new "living wage" in LA is > $150k, which is ridiculous. Some people act as if your standard of living would have to be greatly lowered to live on less than $100k in this town. I, however, know people that are doing it and thriving.

Anyway, finding safe, suitable housing even in Los Angeles proper is still doable. Naturally you would do well to look into communities like Glendale, Burbank and Covina to one side, but also Westchester, Culver City and the del Rey's to the west. They each have some nice areas with good schools and the commute wouldn't be so bad, or at least, not any worse than if you were coming from Pasadena.

I think it depends on what your savings expectations are. Our point for meeting savings targets of 20% of pre-tax income is pretty much 150-160k, and we are a debtless DINK who doesn't go crazy with spending. If we downsized our rental cost by 30%, reduced savings to 5% of pre-tax income like most people, canceled out a few crossover business expenses (probably save 3-4k a year), and started cutting out other unnecessary expenses (figure another 5-6k a year), we could live on 85-90k just fine.

To cut out further, at least to me, it's no longer worth it to live in LA. I am not interested in living like a college student just to live in LA. There are plenty of other metros where one can live on 90k/family of 4 and have a much greater standard of living. Personally, unless one has significant career growth with that salary or has some field which is very tied to this city, I don't really see the point of bothering trying to raise a family here. There are tons of places in the US with an overall better living environment for 80-90k families with college degrees/graduate degrees, IMO.

You can raise a family here on very little, sure, plenty of people do it. But why? Assuming you have a career which is portable to other cities (I realize many are in the entertainment industry which really isn't), most people with kids have a much higher standard of living. Without children, the prices in LA aren't so high because good school districts in LA are much more expensive relative to other cities, and a highish income isn't as necessary. In most cities, it is not necessary to live 60-90 minutes from job centers just to afford basic accommodations in a good school district on an 80-90k salary and still be able to save money.

[calipoppy]

Originally Posted by JohnG72

I'd think that South Pasadena would be cost prohibitive for what OP wants(3bd, 2ba), even as a rental. In fact, a search of craigslist with the parameters $2,000 max rent, 3 bedroom, South Pasadena, produces only one property...a badly outdated 3 bd/1ba for $1500/mo...that doesn't even match op's parameters.

In looking at the school performance map for Pasadena, theres a handful of schools that rate 6-8, and nothing else. So there aren't "very good schools" in Pasadena outside of one or two elementary schools.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I recommended both Pasadena AND So Pas.

And I would not use Craiglist as the primary source of searching for a rental in areas such as So Pas or Pasadena.

Try one of the well-known prop management companies who manage for many of the smaller 2-4 units; a rental service like Westside Rentals (also handle small property owners; or the local paper The Pasadena Star News.

Beven and Brock Property Management Company

Pasadena Houses and Rentals, Pasadena Houses For Rent

Home - Pasadena Star-News

and if looking for larger apartment complexs I would use apartmentguide.com or apartmentratings.com