[johnyui]

Surely a one bedroom place is the least efficient way to live? Also, bear in mind most people live in couples, so if there's two of you, a combined income of $100,000 is very reasonable, and you should be able to live anywhere here.

[potatolicious]

Ah, if only SF housing was so simple.

> "$100,000 is very reasonable, and you should be able to live anywhere here."

$100K is really not total-freedom money in a city like SF. Take the FiDi and Mission Bay for example - $3200/month for a 1BR means $38,400 in rent every year.

That's spending $39% of your pre-tax income on rent, a deeply inadvisable amount, if any sane landlord would even allow it. Even if we drop the rent to $2500 to open up options in the Haight, Castro, and Mission, we're still talking about $30K in pure rent.

Nowadays I'm in NYC, where no sane landlord will let you break the 40X Rule, where your monthly rent multiplied by 40 may not exceed your pre-tax annual income. On $100K that's $2500 a month - and that's an absolute upper bound rent. $2500 is totally feasible in SF, but you definitely won't have your pick of apartments. A income of $100K would be well-advised to stay under $2500, where pickings are increasingly slim.

> "Also, bear in mind most people live in couples"

Citation needed. I know a lot of people who have roommates in SF, but SF is a notoriously single city. I'd be extremely surprised if >50% of SF's population is living with a spouse or partner.

Some quick Google-fu:

In fact, it looks like as of the 2000 census[1] that 38% of the city lived alone, and 56% of households do not have a spouse or partner living there. I wouldn't call that "most people".

[1] http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm

Side note: it's crazy that you can rent places in good parts of Manhattan for cheaper than parts of SF these days.

[bretthoerner]

> I'd be extremely surprised if >50% of SF's population is living with a spouse or partner.

I think when the grandparent said "living in couples" they mean "in pairs" not "romantically engaged." Most well-to-do SFers I know live with 1+ roommate. That's all they're saying. A 2(+) BR apartment cuts costs per person because you share the "core" (kitchen, bathroom, living room).

[smsm42]

"Couple" used to mean romantically engaged. When I lived with a roommate, if somebody asked "are you guys a couple?" it'd certainly suggest something we were not :)

[Retric]

I fail the 40x rule yet I have a lot of disposable income. IMO, the only rule is what you have left over after rent vs. expenses.

By high I mean I often have close to a 1000$ left over at the end of the mont which has been going to savings.

[rayiner]

> I fail the 40x rule yet I have a lot of disposable income. IMO, the only rule is what you have left over after rent vs. expenses.

In New York, the rules are whatever the landlords want them to be. Renters have zero bargaining power with vacancies as low as they are in the city.

[zobzu]

I'm not sure what you mean by "efficient".

personally I live in a one bedroom, and there's one of me, and the heat map for my area looks perfectly accurate. I'm also happy not to be forced to live with someone and still work any where I like. Freedom 'n all.

[jennyjenjen]

So wait, couples are 'forced' to live together? You would think a couple would like each other to some extent, and in a lot of cases enough to gladly live together.

[brigade]

Not everyone is in a relationship. The forcing is due to money - if you're poor enough, then you simply can't afford even a studio and are forced into having roommates to split the cost of rent.

[zobzu]

I meant roomates but to be honest, it could be the same for couples. If couples don't wanna live together, why not? Because its not the accepted social behavior? Meh. It's up to the couple, nobody else.

[notJim]

I believe your parent meant having roommates, but even still I think people move in together much earlier in the relationship in expensive cities than they would otherwise.

[ojbyrne]

Reasonably sure he meant roommates.

[jennyjenjen]

I see that now; bad choice of words.

[auctiontheory]

If almost 45% of San Franciscans are single, plus a chunk of polyamorous, co-opers, and goodness knows who else, it may not be true that "most people live in couples." http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/solocities.aspx

Also, I know it's often done, but a one-bedroom is rather cozy for two people for the long term.

[smsm42]

When people live in couples, there's a distinct possibility of being three of you instead of two of you, and then maybe more :) And then combined income of 100K is really not a lot of money.

[notJim]

Least efficient, but also most desirable for many (single) people.