>>882232 living very cheaply around $700-1000 max with utilities and wifi. don't mind roommates (as long as not ghetto methheads) but require at least a private room. somewhere that is slower paced (i.e. not rat race) but still innovative and employing
>>882236 Ok well to live at that price anywhere within the picture you are going to need to live with a roommate or two. A shitty place in SF is minimum 2k a month. It's possible to live in a rougher city but also live in an ok spot if that makes sence. My friend lives in one of the blackest, most dangerous cities (Concord) and his place is not so bad. I feel totally comfortable walking around his apartment complex at night. Are you willing to commute to work a little? like 30 min?
>>882568 >Not anywhere near as bad as the media portrays tbh.
Except it is just as bad, except in the Oakland Hills area. The entirety of downtown is a dump, and anywhere in Oakland with a >10% black population is nasty during the day and dangerous at night. Oakland blacks are pretty much useless; you can't even get good BBQ there.
If you're willing to commute (BART) Fremont and Union City are relatively affordable. If you want more of a city atmosphere, try San Jose -- it's close enough to SV to get a real job, whereas something like Walnut Creek (mentioned upthread) is expensive, has few employment opportunities and really is an inconveniently located suburb.
The Peninsula is 100% suburban, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Plus it's really expensive (some places more expensive than SF). Anyway, if you want urban you're pretty much limited to a plain shithole (Oakland), an expensive hippie shithole (Berkeley), a small apartment with 2 or 4 roommates (SF), or San Jose (maybe you can get by with just 1 roommate).
Urban+inexpensive+employment+culture does not exist in the Bay Area. I don't really think it does anywhere, TBH.
The East Bay isn't really suburbia unless you go really east (i.e. Walnut Creek) or south of the San Mateo Bridge (Union City, etc.). The Peninsula in contrast is full suburbia, either for SF or (increasingly, these days) SV.
>anything from Daly City to Millbrae
LOL, this is quite narrow. Basically all you have is Daly City, SSF, San Bruno, and Millbrae (there's the beach towns to the west, but as nice as these are you really need a car). The local take on Millbrae is that it's full of Chinese immigrants; if you don't mind this it's an OK place to live but by no means cheap. San Bruno can be pricey in the "suburbs" area up in the hills, but maybe not too bad if you live close to the 101 or the airport, i.e. down on the "flats." But it isn't very nice. SSF is a good choice maybe as it's probably the cheapest of the group -- there's nothing to distinguish it, though, and if you do go there try to live close to the CALTRANS or BART stations -- otherwise it's really inconvenient (which is why it's relatively inexpensive). Daly City is the same as Millbrae, except with Filipinos and worse weather. Try looking for a place near the Colma BART station -- lots of cemeteries around there, which tend to depress rental prices. The area between the 280 and the Daly City BART is also good to look in, especially around ECR. For all of these places, you'll probably end up -- if you do get a job -- working in the city. Honestly, in that case it's better to bite the bullet and just live there as commuting sucks.
Alameda -- at least the parts I've seen -- is exceptionally unpleasant nowadays. Maybe 50 years ago it was nice when the US Navy base there was still open, but not anymore. The base has been closed/taken over for low-cost housing and the rest of it seems to be budget McMansions crammed way, way too close together.
If you're willing to be a little creative, take a look at living on Treasure Island. It's a dump, true, but it looks like it may be on the cusp of redevelopment/gentrification. It's quite cheap right now but probably won't stay that way much longer.
>>882595 >Ghetto shitholes. >San Leandro >Ghetto shithole Confirmed for never actually taking the time to visit the town.
I went to school in Oakland, I'd think I'd know more about the town that you, from your attitude. If you really think it's as bad as the TV shows it to be you either haven't watched the shows or haven't been in the town for any specific time longer than a day.
>>882595 I have no idea what you're talking about for Oakland. Crime rates are way to fuck down from even a decade ago and a decade ago it wasn't so bad. The bulk of crime is concentrated in the deep west and deep east. Oakland downtown and around the lake is fucking hipsterville. You can have a picnic out in the park at 2am and feel perfectly safe.
The only thing dangerous about downtown is the amount of homeless people that hang out down there. Same problem that most of the bay area has though because the area and weather are so accommodating.
>>882632 >The only thing dangerous about downtown is the amount of homeless people that hang out down there. Same problem that most of the bay area has though because the area and weather are so accommodating. On top of that, it's well-known that (at least in comparison to other homeless communities), the homeless in the Bay Area are actually friendlier than in most urban area of the country.
>>882630 >Confirmed for never actually taking the time to visit the town.
Visit San Leandro? Why bother? I live across the Bay and go there on business. Maybe it's not a ghetto shithole, but it's an ugly dump nonetheless.
>haven't been in the town for any specific time longer than a day.
And why would I want to stay in San Leandro for any longer than a few hours?
>>882632 >Crime rates are way to fuck down from even a decade ago
LOL, what are you smoking? Most violent crimes in Oakland are way the fuck up compared to a decade ago -- murders by more than 50%, robberies have more than doubled, etc. Compared to the US average in Oakland you're 6X to 7X times more likely to be murdered, 3X more likely to be raped, 10X more likely to be robbed, 4X more likely to be assaulted, etc. In terms of total violent crime, it's the third most dangerous city in the US.
>>882633 >the homeless in the Bay Area are actually friendlier than in most urban area of the country.
The homeless around Market St. are a pretty typical mix of piss-drenched loons and bag people. Are they especially friendly? Or are you referring to the bums/runaways/panhandlers around the Haight? Even the SF hippie has-beens can't stand those pricks.
>>882595 There's a pretty tasty BBQ place on San Pablo and University that I'm sure is run by Oakland blacks. You can always move to Temescal and West Oakland with all the other liberal idiot Berkeley grads.
>>882620 Alameda just seems like a creepy ghost town.
Do you really want to live in the bay area OP? I was there for 4 years in Berkeley so I got to enjoy pretty much what you want. It's pretty shit. The people are rude and annoying if you don't fake a carbon copy identity of [thug/asian or indian student/hipster/liberalSJW/"local native"], self-important, quick to get offended, remarkably oblivious as to the world outside of the internet/bay area bubble. The rent is getting higher, there are more ignorant berkeley programmers wearing north face buying $12 burritos every day, more and more tumblrinas walking around, the dating scene is awful if you're not a professional or "alt".
>>882659 >And why would I want to stay in San Leandro for any longer than a few hours? Why comment on the quality of the town if you've never been there long enough to make a proper judgement? I'll admit I don't visit the North Bay compared to the East Bay that much but I won't go shit talking any of the towns over there because of some stereotypes I allowed to reside in my mind. That's idiotic.
>The homeless around Market St. are a pretty typical mix of piss-drenched loons and bag people. Are they especially friendly? Or are you referring to the bums/runaways/panhandlers around the Haight? Even the SF hippie has-beens can't stand those pricks. I'm referring to the Easy Bay homeless community, actually.
>>882956 yes for all it's faults it ticks the right checkboxes (good for young people, not redneck, modern without being an urban wastleland) unlike Chicago or NYC.
from what I'm reading Daly City, Colma and SSF seems to be the most tolerable choices? Oakland might have "improved" but you still have to be constantly on your toes that you don't waltz into a death alley. too much of a deal breaker for me.
This X 1 million. It's amazing how thin-skinned people are. You can't say anything negative to them without them totally losing their shit. I've never seen anything like it, anywhere else in the US or anywhere else in the world.
>>882973 >you've never been there long enough to make a proper judgement
I've been in/through San Leandro a few dozen times. That's quite enough to form an accurate impression. It's not a very nice place.
>>882999 >Daly City, Colma and SSF seems to be the most tolerable choices?
For less expensive rent, yes. But you'll have to commute (which isn't all that cheap to do), there's little to no nightlife, and you'll still probably end up with a roommate or two. Given all of that, you're better off just living in the city (or some other urban youth enclave like >>883016 suggested). The Bay Area is an enormously expensive place to live; if you're not involved in high-tech and are just looking for a job/new life, you really should consider other places as well.
>>883036 >black population/crime >noculture because everyone is just temporarily there >everyone is Frank Underwood wannabes >people a bit too obsessed with power/position considering the city >jobs are a bit gray like if you were working with the DMV
it only looks good on paper. the only people who seem to have a good time there are those old money frats and societies.
>>883040 >black population/crime Stick to Capitol Hill and NW and it's not a problem. >noculture because everyone is just temporarily there Nightlife is pretty good, lots of restaurants, bars, and clubs. Live music scene is good for a smaller city. Lots of excellent museums. What other "culture" do you need? >people a bit too obsessed with power/position considering the city People are like this everywhere. They're just more upfront about in in DC. >>jobs are a bit gray like if you were working with the DMV That's DC local government you're thinking about. If you can get into the federal government, jobs and benefits are good and there's plenty of opportunity to move up/move around.
DC isn't too expensive, it's easy to get around, and it's well located -- easy travel throughout the NE up to Boston and the SE down to Georgia and thereabouts. Sure, there are better places, but for an East Coast city that isn't NYC it's not too bad.
>>882203 >Basically places that are accessible and enjoyable for young people looking for employment.
Okay, unless you have a job, you're going to need a trust fund or patient parents willing to bankroll an expensive lifestyle.
SF will be WAY too expensive for you. Oakland is a big city, with some scary parts and some very nice parts and lots of places in between. There's actually a lot of culture there and a lot of young people priced out of SF are running to Oakland so there will be people to visit.
You're not going to want to live in Fremont/Peninsula/Milpitas unless you have a family.
>>883036 >>883040 >>883044 (former) DCfag here. It wasn't bad, but I wanted to live near my job in Ballston, so I paid $700 to live in a closet. I had lived farther out, but the rent didn't get much cheaper and commuting costs.
Compared to SF and NYC, $700 for a private room isn't too bad. But, yeah, DC has gotten a lot more expensive since I lived there. Are there any better options in the NE corridor? Are decent jobs easier to get/cost of living much cheaper in Philadelphia or Boston?
Are you always this retarded or did you not take your down syndrome meds this evening, or are you just this stupid irregardless of the meds? Jesus fuck the quality of this board is falling fast when half the posters can barely read propery
>>883443 >Compared to SF and NYC, $700 for a private room isn't too bad. But, yeah, DC has gotten a lot more expensive since I lived there. The price wasn't terrible, the size was. When I lived in Fairfax, the price/cost ratio wasn't bad at all.
>Are there any better options in the NE corridor? I liked DC because family was 2 hours away, but I also had no choice beyond liking it since I needed to be there for work.
>Are decent jobs easier to get/cost of living much cheaper in Philadelphia or Boston? Because of veteran status, I had an easy time getting federal work in/near DC. Cost of living is higher near Boston. I don't know what Philadelphia costs.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.