April 10, 2003 - 8:27 a.m.

i just finished a mug of 'red scrumptious' tea. if you haven't tried it, imagine strawberries and cream with no caffeine. heaven.

i decided to be productive yesterday. i figured that, as long as i had the week off, i might as well do things i would be whingeing about not being able to do while working next week. first stop was the rental agency, to pick up some keys and view an apartment.

the apartment in question is only a five or ten-minute walk from our current house, but the rental agency was in the opposite direction, so it became quite a trek to get the keys, view the apartment and return the keys within an hour, and by tram.

it turns out that this apartment has the same amount of living space as our current house (possibly more), yet it's $80 less per week. when you consider that simon gave up buying coffees two days ago, you know that an extra $350 a month could bring a lot of joy to this household.

so why was the place so cheap? well, it wasn't so pretty or modern. the floors were either covered in nasty speckled linoleum "tiles" or old peacock blue-green carpet. the walls were freshly painted in a yellowy-beige, which, when combined with the floors, made quite a picture. it was not something that could be remedied by adding decorative rugs or putting pictures on the wall - one would just have to live with it.

on the random list of cons, the stove only had two burners. we cook a lot and have been known to use four burners at a time. on the pro side, the toilet had a red seat and lid and an art deco tank. it was, quite simply, the coolest toilet i had ever seen.

as i was on my way out, i noticed a sign that said "no animals on premises" and something about no nails, sticky tape or anything on the walls. because the apartment had been freshly painted, and because there was only one nail (in the kitchen - i checked), this could be important.

i decided to have a think about it and discuss it with simon later that evening. (there's also this issue of breaking our current lease, you see.)

as i was dropping off the keys, i saw an old acquaintance of simon's and mine going back at least six years. in fact, we knew her before we met each other. it turns out that she's looking for a cheaper place, too, and will probably be moving in with her boyfriend.

now i know i said that i didn't want to live with housemates, but i also specifically told simon that - in the event it should happen - i was picky about *which* housemates. simon suggested someone earlier, but i had only met her once and found her a bit annoying. i take my gut feelings very seriously.

this old friend, on the other hand, is very laid-back and is in the same position as me - trying to start a business while still making ends meet on a not-so-regular basis.

normally, i would shun the idea of someone living with us because i wouldn't want to inflict our coupledom on him/her. not that we're weird of that we fight or anything, but i imagine it would be odd for the non-couple person.

but the fact that the old friend is planning to move in with her boyf as well makes it a different situation entirely. two independent couples is much different from taking on a boarder. so we are all planning to meet up for coffee sometime soon and talk things out. keep in mind that we would be halving our rent (and then some) in this situation, not merely shaving off $80 per week. so i really think it's worth considering.

so now i have to ask the gentle readers out there - what is your take on this situation? are there some obvious disadvantages to couple + couple living that i haven't thought about and need to know? or is it that it's just unconventional, so there really isn't a precedent for this type of thing? i know of couple + couple living in london, where living space is at a premium, but i don't know if it works (like a glossy magazine is going to tell you it's horrible? i don't think so.).

it would definitely be a 6- or 12-month plan, not indefinite, so all parties involved could save money for a change.

what do you think?