Want to lower the rent pain? Double-up.<\/p>\n
My trusty spreadsheet used some curious rent data from LendingTree<\/a> to quantify what almost every budget-watching tenant knows: having a roommate in a two-bedroom unit is financially better than going solo in a one-bedroom rental. The stats were based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development\u2019s \u201cfair market rents<\/a>\u201d for 50 large metropolitan areas, including seven in California.<\/p>\n In the seven California metros, the median results showed that doubling up cut an individual renter\u2019s monthly costs by 38%, according to my comparison of HUD rent estimates for the year ending October 2026. Note that HUD tracks rent and utility costs for newer tenants in buildings that are 2 years or older, at the slightly below-average 40th percentile.<\/p>\n We are talking about a $784 monthly gap \u2013 the difference between California\u2019s $2,085 one-bedroom rent for a lone tenant and the $1,301 cost of a two-bedroom unit split two ways.<\/p>\n By the way, the financial benefits from doubling up are growing. Five years ago, California\u2019s savings rate equaled 36%.<\/p>\n On a national scale, thanks to California\u2019s lofty rents, the percentage savings are relatively modest, while the dollar gap seems large.<\/p>\n In the 43 metros elsewhere across the nation, doubling up saved 42%. That\u2019s the $621 gap between the median $1,478 one-bedroom rent and the $857 per-tenant rent when a two-bedroom is split. This 42% U.S. savings equals the rate of five years ago.<\/p>\n Sadly, none of the seven California markets had a doubling-up savings rate above the national norm. Ponder their results, ranked by percentage savings \u2026<\/p>\n San Jose: <\/b> 42% savings (No. 26 smallest of the 50 metros). That\u2019s from a $1,240 gap (the largest of the 50) between $2,982 for a one-bedroom and $1,742 for a two-bedroom split. Five years ago, savings ran 40%.<\/p>\n San Diego: <\/b> 39% savings (No. 8 smallest) or $958 (No. 5 largest) \u2013 $2,459 one-bedroom vs. $1,501 two-bedroom split. Five years ago? 35% savings.<\/p>\n San Francisco: <\/b> 39% savings (No. 11 smallest) or $1,175 (No. 3 largest) \u2013 $2,977 one-bedroom vs. $1,802 two-bedroom split. Five years ago? Same as the latest savings.<\/p>\n Fresno: <\/b> 39% savings (No. 8 smallest) or $523 (No. 35 largest) \u2013 $1,355 one-bedroom vs. $832 two-bedroom split. Five years ago? 37% savings.<\/p>\n Inland Empire: <\/b> 38% savings (No. 3 smallest) or $676 (No. 21 largest) \u2013 $1,777 one-bedroom vs. $1,101 two-bedroom split. Five years ago? 37% savings.<\/p>\n Sacramento: <\/b> 38% savings (No. 4 smallest) or $704 (No. 16 largest) \u2013 $1,832 one-bedroom vs. $1,128 two-bedroom split. Five years ago? 37% savings.<\/p>\n Los Angeles-Orange County: <\/b> 38% savings (No. 3 smallest) or $784 (No. 8 largest) \u2013 $2,085 one-bedroom vs. $1,301 two-bedroom split. Five years ago? 36% savings.<\/p>\n