does 33% housing rule still apply

Yes. See http://furmancenter.org/research/sonychan/. In prime Manhattan neighborhoods, median "rent burden" is around 27% and rising. In NYC as a whole it's more like 31%.

There is no "normal".

There is only healthy and unhealthy.

"Healthy" is being able to pay all of your housing costs with one week's NET pay.

"Unhealthy" is being forced to use two weeks or more of net pay to pay for housing.

Good for you NYCMatt. No surprise that your definition is quite rigid. Thank God we all don't have to live with you

Yes, I can see how fiscal responsibility would be seen by most on this board as being "quite rigid".

Matt is using the 'old rule of thumb' on housing expense.
It's the rule I grew up with.
NYC does challenge that rule.

Maybe in Manhattan you might have to go 35-40%.
Now if that's a good idea or not is another question.

I believe Matt said housing costs should only account for 25% of net income. Given total tax burden in NYC, health care coverage, 401K contribution - my net is well under half my gross. I think Matt's rule is extremely rigid. Of course if you purchased many years ago, the rule would not prove as challenging. Just my opinion

"Maybe in Manhattan you might have to go 35-40%."

Or you could just wisely live within your means.

Matt, you don't live within your means. That's why you have to organize labor slowdowns to get triple penalty overtime, right?