Anybody relocate from Chicago To Bay Area (San Jose, Highland: HOA fees, crime)

[usamathman]

Originally Posted by NorCalLover

Like an earlier poster in this topic, I grew up in nearby Chicago suburbs & moved to SF 5 years ago. I'm in Chicago (the city itself, not the burbs) about twice a year.

Given your career and your expectations of living here just a few years, moving to SF is realistic. You'll get experience in your field that'll make you more employable everywhere else. As others have said, try to get a slightly higher salary if you can. You can live in an efficiency unit alone at 2k a month in San Francisco itself, although you may be a little further out. Sometimes petite units like this open up in The Mission, although there's a lot of competition for them.

I like Oakland, but since you only plan to live here for a few years, would recommend trying to live in SF. After a few years, you'll most likely get tired of living like a college student on over 100k and will want to move on unless your salary takes a huge jump. Best of luck with your job search.

Thanks for the suggestions.

I actually would prefer to live in the city if at all possible. At least for a year or two before making the move to Oakland. I tend to gravitate toward a more urban dense environment. City feel is what I am most looking for right now. Don't mind living in a smaller space if I need to.

In the process of applying for gigs now.

Will let you all know how things turn out in the next couple of months.

Really appreciate everyone's advice.

[WithDisp]

Good Luck.

You can make it on your career and income. Don't worry about the naysayers saying you need 200K to live comfortably, or the crazies talking about single family homes when you haven't brought that up at all.

What you -should- consider though, is that in reality 90K in Chicago is absolutely the equivalent to 180K in the Bay Area. You will be taking a huge quality of life hit if you're the kind who spends money or values their living space above all.

Weather, however, is going to be generally much nicer in the Bay. (Oakland, far nicer than SF Proper).
Though if your search is finding a lady-pal, a change of pace may certainly give assistance to that.


If I were in your shoes, I'd stay put. I'd rather be fairly affluent in Chicago with the ability to go to SF whenever I want, than live day to day with less- or at least, consider bumping your numbers higher with work or asking for total relocation.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

I'm not. You can afford a studio on 100k.

💕💕💕💕CASTRO STUDIO💕💕💕

COMFORTABLE LARGE STUDIO/JR. 1BR WITH UPDATED KITCHEN & BATH

The people who clean your tech office live in the Bay Area too, so obviously people can afford it who make less than you. We just don't own our own homes.

SOME people...but obviously many people have no problem living with non-romantic partners.

Personally I think it would be awesome to live here for example:

Room for rent with Air Conditioning + LOW utilities in beautiful home

No one said he couldn't afford a studio. You are selectively ignoring that the conversation shifted to home ownership. And then derailing it.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by jade408

No one said he couldn't afford a studio.

You did,

Living alone doesn't only include a home. Some people don't want a shared bathroom/kitchen situation. For them an ideal lifestyle is living in a 1 bedroom apartment (or studio) alone or with a romantic partner. Not shared with non-romantic partners.

So basically you are claiming that no one can afford anything in the Bay Area, and it takes 200k to get even "a 1 bedroom apartment (or studio) alone", when in fact people who make less than you can afford their rent.

It is comical how people who make six figures are claiming poverty. And then insulting those who actually ARE making poverty salaries and yet, apparently unlike them, are able to afford their rent.

You are selectively ignoring that the conversation shifted to home ownership. And then derailing it.

lmao....oh sure jade408, everyone in the Bay Area is living in poverty if they can't afford a SFH in an excellent district. Sure.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by WithDisp

If I were in your shoes, I'd stay put. I'd rather be fairly affluent in Chicago with the ability to go to SF whenever I want, than live day to day with less- or at least, consider bumping your numbers higher with work or asking for total relocation.

130k is a lot of money anywhere in the world. It isn't "living day to day with less". Again, perspective is needed.

Yes you need to lower your housing expectations in the Bay Area. No, it doesn't follow that 130k is "struggling".

[plot]

Originally Posted by WithDisp

Good Luck.

You can make it on your career and income. Don't worry about the naysayers saying you need 200K to live comfortably, or the crazies talking about single family homes when you haven't brought that up at all.

What you -should- consider though, is that in reality 90K in Chicago is absolutely the equivalent to 180K in the Bay Area. You will be taking a huge quality of life hit if you're the kind who spends money or values their living space above all.

Weather, however, is going to be generally much nicer in the Bay. (Oakland, far nicer than SF Proper).
Though if your search is finding a lady-pal, a change of pace may certainly give assistance to that.


If I were in your shoes, I'd stay put. I'd rather be fairly affluent in Chicago with the ability to go to SF whenever I want, than live day to day with less- or at least, consider bumping your numbers higher with work or asking for total relocation.

90k in chicago = 180k in bay area? Are you like insane? 90k in chicago probably like 130k in the bay area. Also I think San Francisco is better and more desired then chicago, I am not exactly sure how you can adequately compare the two cities.

Also I am not sure what you mean by affluent in Chicago. In Bay Area affluent people live in Palo Alto, Los Altos, Hillsborough etc. The people moving in these cities are usually high ranking corporate executives, owners/founders of successful multi-million dollar business, high ranking lawyers, doctors etc. I am from Dallas and I know these people can be found in Highland Park Texas which is a really expensive city. The property tax rates in the bay area are much lower than Highland Park and it is much harder to get a loan approved in Dallas compared to California, and also the houses are more expensive to maintain (since they are bigger) .

[WithDisp]

Originally Posted by plot

90k in chicago = 180k in bay area? Are you like insane? 90k in chicago probably like 130k in the bay area. Also I think San Francisco is better and more desired then chicago, I am not exactly sure how you can adequately compare the two cities.

Also I am not sure what you mean by affluent in Chicago. In Bay Area affluent people live in Palo Alto, Los Altos, Hillsborough etc. The people moving in these cities are usually high ranking corporate executives, owners/founders of successful multi-million dollar business, high ranking lawyers, doctors etc. I am from Dallas and I know these people can be found in Highland Park Texas which is a really expensive city. The property tax rates in the bay area are much lower than Highland Park and it is much harder to get a loan approved in Dallas compared to California, and also the houses are more expensive to maintain (since they are bigger) .

I can't compare SF to Chicago- they are both vastly different places.
You may, think, San Francisco is better- and weatherwise it certainly is. Chicago is a far larger city with an abundance of amenities SF is lacking. Still, it's the OPs decision where he wants to live.

That said, since I'm being called "Insane":

Comparing two decent areas of both cities-
We have Lakeview, Chicago and Noe Valley, SF.

Decent walking neighborhoods with access to transit, moderate schools, nice housing stock.


https://www.coldwellbankerhomes.com/.../pid_12484149/

Given a 4% loan, with no down payment.

$1,840 Mortgage (x12) 6.2K in taxes.


151 Ames Street, San Francisco, CA For Sale | Trulia.com

$10,496 Mortgage (x12) + 15K in property taxes.

Same terms.

... so, the cost of OWNERSHIP is roughly 8K more a month in SF for a comparably sized condo.
That's 96K a year.

Now granted, in 30 years- the OP will have something worth quite a bit more.
Still, cost of housing is so incredibly high in SF that I will stand by my statement.

He's not interested in the affluent suburbs of the Bay. He's interested in dense downtown housing.
Housing in Chicago is a BARGAIN.

[TR95]

Originally Posted by WithDisp

I can't compare SF to Chicago- they are both vastly different places.
You may, think, San Francisco is better- and weatherwise it certainly is. Chicago is a far larger city with an abundance of amenities SF is lacking. Still, it's the OPs decision where he wants to live.

That said, since I'm being called "Insane":

Comparing two decent areas of both cities-
We have Lakeview, Chicago and Noe Valley, SF.

Decent walking neighborhoods with access to transit, moderate schools, nice housing stock.


https://www.coldwellbankerhomes.com/.../pid_12438637/

Given a 4% loan, with no down payment.

$1,040 Mortgage (x12) 2.2K in taxes.


151 Ames Street, San Francisco, CA For Sale | Trulia.com

$10,496 Mortgage (x12) + 15K in property taxes.

Same terms.

... so, the cost of OWNERSHIP is roughly 10K more a month in SF for a comparably sized condo.
That's 120K a year.

Now granted, in 30 years- the OP will have something worth quite a bit more.
Still, cost of housing is so incredibly high in SF that I will stand by my statement.

He's not interested in the affluent suburbs of the Bay. He's interested in dense downtown housing.
Housing in Chicago is a BARGAIN.

I'm not going to claim to know Chicago, but that listing for your Lakeview condo doesn't look to be anywhere near Lakeview. Plus, it is almost 500 sf smaller. To get a condo similar to that Noe Valley condo it would be over $500k, just my guess. If I'm wrong, I apologize. Personal preference as to whether SF is better.

[WithDisp]

Originally Posted by TR95

I'm not going to claim to know Chicago, but that listing for your Lakeview condo doesn't look to be anywhere near Lakeview. Plus, it is almost 500 sf smaller. To get a condo similar to that Noe Valley condo it would be over $500k, just my guess. If I'm wrong, I apologize. Personal preference as to whether SF is better.

Updated post with a place closer. My bad. Yes it would be the $350K range. $500K would be an amazing unit. I'm sure something similar can be found in lesser shape in Noe Valley for 1.5 mil as well, but the cost comparison still stands that SF housing is 4-5X in cost of Chicago. That's in a NICE area.

[plot]

Originally Posted by WithDisp

Updated post with a place closer. My bad. Yes it would be the $350K range. $500K would be an amazing unit. I'm sure something similar can be found in lesser shape in Noe Valley for 1.5 mil as well, but the cost comparison still stands that SF housing is 4-5X in cost of Chicago. That's in a NICE area.

The one you picked in chicago:
- Built in 2006
- Condo
- Were the heck do I park my car, on the street? They might have a shared garage with other people in the condo but they say nothing on the listing and you have to pay for the parking spot.
- Sharing side walls, ceiling, and floor.

The one you picked for SF:
- built in 2010
- townhouse
- You have your own garage
- Only sharing side walls.
- SF listing sounds a lot more fancy but I cant see the interior


The one you picked in SF sounds a lot more fancy and looks nice outside, the chicago looks kind of average from the outside. I do not think this is a fair comparison especially since you are comparing a townhouse with a private attached garage do a condo were it shares all 4 walls and possibly shared parking that you have to pay.

But according to your math if I pick a condo in trump tower it should cost 4x as much in san francisco. So I will pick this studio from the trump tower costing $469,900 (401 North Wabash Avenue 37F CHICAGO, IL 60611).
469,900*4 = 1,876,000. Well in my search most studios are under 600k and some 1 bed rooms around 700k - 1 million under 750 sqft. I find a lot of 2 bed 2 bath condos from 1.5 million - 2 million that are 1200- 1450 sqft.

When I compared Chicago lincoln park to SF outer sunset and richmond area there price per sqft was not 4x more and in some areas they shared the same price per sqft. SF is more expensive overall but 4 - 5 times eh I do not think so. Also in nice neighborhoods in Chicago like lincoln park and Sheffield have lot of big properties which makes it hard buy into that neighborhood and Chicago salaries are less then SF salaries which only makes it harder.