IS the cost of living really that extreme?!?! (San Jose, San Francisco: rent, condos)

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by economix-nole

Maybe there are some studios that I don't know about but I don't see how $40k can live comfortably in SF.
$40k is about $2,500 take home per month. Let's say that someone did find a studio for $996 a month, that'd be 39% of income. How again is this comfortably living?

Here's 193 of them between 450 and 760:

SF bay area rooms & shares classifieds - craigslist

(technically not studios, but they are rooms for rent, you live in there just like you would live in a studio apartment.)

[neutrino78x]

It's a good thing when housing is more expensive where you live, as long as you can afford to live there yourself. It means the area is desirable, and the economy is good.

I don't think anyone would argue that Manhattan or London or Paris are undesirable places to live. No one can afford a single family home at a six figure salary in those places, either.

In The Great Cities of the World, the majority own a small piece of a large building, and do not own the land under the building.

If owning a whole building, and the land underneath, is important to you, then you need to move outside of The Great Cities to a less desirable area. Then you will have your own building and own the land underneath, however, other aspects of your life will be nowhere near as good as they are in The Great Cities, unless you're a very rich person.

Oh sure, you could get your own house for $500 a month in a small town 800 miles from anywhere in Kansas, but would you really want to live there?

[felinius]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

And if it were, you'd still have to find that $996 studio. Good luck.

It is quite possible to find a room share in the area for that price range, but for private space, you'll need about 20% more than that at a minimum. Think 50%-100% more for most desirable neighborhoods.

OP could look at Berkeley ... $700/month gets you a fantastic tent in a Berkeley backyard.

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

It's a good thing when housing is more expensive where you live, as long as you can afford to live there yourself. It means the area is desirable, and the economy is good.

I don't think anyone would argue that Manhattan or London or Paris are undesirable places to live. No one can afford a single family home at a six figure salary in those places, either.

In The Great Cities of the World, the majority own a small piece of a large building, and do not own the land under the building.

If owning a whole building, and the land underneath, is important to you, then you need to move outside of The Great Cities to a less desirable area. Then you will have your own building and own the land underneath, however, other aspects of your life will be nowhere near as good as they are in The Great Cities, unless you're a very rich person.

Oh sure, you could get your own house for $500 a month in a small town 800 miles from anywhere in Kansas, but would you really want to live there?

Actually, many people would NEVER want to live in these areas. Paris and London are not my idea of a good quality of life and NYC would be a stretch too. Just because a place is super crowded and expensive, doesn't mean it's a great place to live.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Actually, many people would NEVER want to live in these areas. Paris and London are not my idea of a good quality of life and NYC would be a stretch too.

Really?? Why not? Everything is within walking distance, or if it is farther, you can get to it via public transit. London, Paris, and New York are Great Centers of Modern Civilization, and they have everything one would need for daily life as well as means to enrich your mind and soul. They have museums, libraries, restaurants, movie theaters, nightlife, beautiful women...what more could a man want?

Just because a place is super crowded and expensive, doesn't mean it's a great place to live.

It means that a lot of people desire to live there and consider it a great place to live.

[neutrino78x]

btw why don't people know how to quote on this web site? It is just like HTML except you use square brackets (to the right of the P key on a standard US 104 key layout) instead of angle brackets. You use "quote" in square brackets without the quote marks to start the quoted block, and "/quote" in square brackets without the quote marks to end it. That way you don't have to waste bandwidth quoting the whole message and bolding the part to which you are replying, and instead quote only the part to which you are replying.

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Really?? Why not? Everything is within walking distance, or if it is farther, you can get to it via public transit. London, Paris, and New York are Great Centers of Modern Civilization, and they have everything one would need for daily life as well as means to enrich your mind and soul. They have museums, libraries, restaurants, movie theaters, nightlife, beautiful women...what more could a man want?



It means that a lot of people desire to live there and consider it a great place to live.

First of all, the weather alone in all three cities is pure crap. Second of all, the cities are so large and spread it out, it can be a real chore to get OUT of the urbanized area and find access to nature. I will give you that NYC, Paris, and London are all great cities to VISIT, but I have absolutely ZERO desire to actually move to any of them. I applied to a doctoral program in NYC and was thisclose to attending, but I eventually decided that it would be too intense for comfort, and I chose to stay put in the Bay Area. Personally, I like living in Oakland and being a 15 min BART ride away from all the chaos I want, pretty much whenever I want it. Surely, I'm not alone...

[jade408]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Really?? Why not? Everything is within walking distance, or if it is farther, you can get to it via public transit.

Density isn't the only path to walkability. It only takes good zoning, good planning, and infrastructure.

Those places are too big for me. But I do enjoy having good stuff in walking distance, and other things within in a short distance.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

First of all, the weather alone in all three cities is pure crap. Second of all, the cities are so large and spread it out, it can be a real chore to get OUT of the urbanized area and find access to nature. I will give you that NYC, Paris, and London are all great cities to VISIT, but I have absolutely ZERO desire to actually move to any of them. I applied to a doctoral program in NYC and was thisclose to attending, but I eventually decided that it would be too intense for comfort, and I chose to stay put in the Bay Area. Personally, I like living in Oakland and being a 15 min BART ride away from all the chaos I want, pretty much whenever I want it. Surely, I'm not alone...

Ditto (except the graduate program )
You are not alone.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

First of all, the weather alone in all three cities is pure crap.

Yeah we have good weather in the Bay Area, but that's beside the point.

Second of all, the cities are so large and spread it out,

Spread out? The cities I listed are dense. Maybe you're counting the surrounding suburbs as being part of the actual city.

it can be a real chore to get OUT of the urbanized area and find access to nature.

Nah, that's what your car is for, for when you want to get out of the cities. Or you can take the bus.

New York City actually has a National Park inside of it.

But an example of a National Park outside of NYC would be Fort Stanwix. To get there, according to Google Maps, you would take the "Maple Leaf" Amtrak train from New York Penn Station to Toronto Union Station. So, see, it is easy.

Personally, I like living in Oakland and being a 15 min BART ride away from all the chaos I want, pretty much whenever I want it. Surely, I'm not alone...

Well, both SF and Oakland are large cities. So that tells me that you do in fact enjoy being in a dense urban area.