5 ms·

‘Living’ at SFO cheaper than renting in the city?

• tj-teej 9y ago
  Not sure about this Modest Proposal...
• DrScump 9y ago
  But there are several communities much closer to SF than SFO that are much cheaper than either.
• mikestew 9y ago
  Seems to me it's a false equivalency seeing how one choice puts you "in the city", and the other has you living way the hell out by the airport. Next up, is "living" in the Midwest cheaper than renting in the city of San Francisco? Silly, I know, but the article itself just comes off as space-filling fluff, or at best an interesting thought experiment.
• roadrunnerbill 9y ago
  Anecdotal counter-point: my 3 friends and I split a spacious, sunny 4-bed in the mission for $6,000. So $1,500/person for a private room 15 minutes (by bicycle) from SoMa. The 'SF is so expensive that you should just live at-the-airport/in-vegas/on-the-moon and commute' argument is a bit overblown at this point.
  • wgj 9y ago
    There are many smaller hotels inside SF for $140/night or less. (That's the price the writer quotes for a nap station and shower at the airport.) But it's a false premise, and no one would do that long term. $1500/month is the going rate for a longer term room in many parts of the city, and if you look hard you can get closer to $1100 - 1200. Compared to sleeping in the airport these are good options. For $4K/month you have some very nice options in the city. I am baffled at what point the writer intended to make with the airport scenario.
• burntrelish1273 9y ago
  Seems kind of pricey. Why not just live in a vehicle of some sort?