Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Never thought I'd find myself considering this, yet here I am, lol. I'm on here, doing research into a possible move I'm considering, mostly for personal reasons, which would happen late this year/early next if I decided to do it. I'm a mid-20's male, and have lived my entire life in the Seattle area. For the past 9 months or so, I've been considering taking a big leap, and starting a new life elsewhere. Although I am employed full-time, and have friends/family here, there isn't anything else really holding me down here (No mortgage/single/no kids, no student debt, etc, etc), so I figure my life situation makes it possible to do this.
I suppose what it comes down to, is that as much as I do love Seattle, I've been here my entire life, and have a general sense of wanderlust of sorts, and that maybe I'm just ready for new scenery, new people, new experiences, etc, etc. I'm also what one might call an aspiring musician of sorts, in pursuit of serious/professional projects, that I've been unable to get going up here. It's my understanding that there's a hell of a lot more going on with the So Cal music scene than Seattle (I'm aware that also means a much more competitive environment as well), although that's only going off of what I've heard from others, and I really don't know much about the Bay area music scene, at least with what's going on currently.
CD has proven to be an awesome, helpful forum, so once again, I'm on here to learn what I need to know/research things before I just blindly move. My heart isn't 100% set on CA if I move, but it's now a place I'm considering, ironically, after telling myself I'd never move to CA.
Here's a general sense of what I'd like to know about all 3 of those metro areas/things I'm looking for in wherever I'd end up. For anyone curious, if I moved by the estimated time given, I would probably have about $15-16K saved up if I sold my car here and came with just my essential belongings, or $9-10K if I decided to keep my current car.
- How much does the COL vary between the 3? (I know SF proper makes Seattle look like low-income housing prices, but have been told Seattle isn't much cheaper than quite a bit of So-Cal these days). I don't need to live right in the middle of a city, but I'd definitely prefer to be close to one, hopefully in a somewhat "walk-able" neighborhood if it's a neighboring suburb (I'd still own a car, regardless).
- How is the overall economy in each 3? I've heard opinions ranging from "CA is a jobless cesspool, run!" to "There's opportunity if you're willing to pursue it". I would likely be after contact/temp gigs (mainly blue collar type stuff), due to desired schedule flexibility, vs a 9-5 type deal.
- Which area has the lowest violent crime? I've been told to avoid Oakland...
- Which area would be the best for a "foodie"/craft beer enthusiast?
- What kinds of recreational & outdoor activities are most popular in each area?
- What are people like in general in each area? (If you're going to ask, yes, the "Seattle freeze" can be very real at times, and it can get old, lol.)
- Perhaps most important to me, if anyone on here is a musician who can comment on the current state of the music scenes in each metro area, that'd be highly appreciated!
Thanks to any help anyone is willing to offer. I'd like to learn more about CA from people who live there instead of just going off of stereotypes about the area/what I've heard
One all-important question is: how do you support yourself? What skills/job experience do you have to offer? As you probably know, tech is big in the Bay Area. You need to have a way of supporting yourself while you look for music projects.
Most of my work experience is in warehousing/machine operating and semi-skilled forms of labor. Nothing fancy, I know, but I've considered finishing up a business AA I have partially completed before the move, as it may open more doors for me. On the plus side, I do at least have a solid/consistent work history. I'm aware that tech is pretty big in the bay area, much like Seattle, and that is where most of the good work opportunities will probably be in there. From what I've gathered, there's a wider variety of economic activity as a whole in So Cal, whereas the bay area is more tech-based?
Here is a pretty fair ranking of each metro area in terms of your questions, in order of best to worst.
- How much does the COL vary between the 3? (I know SF proper makes Seattle look like low-income housing prices, but have been told Seattle isn't much cheaper than quite a bit of So-Cal these days). I don't need to live right in the middle of a city, but I'd definitely prefer to be close to one, hopefully in a somewhat "walk-able" neighborhood if it's a neighboring suburb (I'd still own a car, regardless).
1) Los Angeles - biggest region with largest range of prices and probably lowest overall COL bc of the larger inventory and variety of housing. Walkable neighborhoods are going to cost you, though, as they are popular and centrally located.
2) San Diego - was hit hard by the real estate bubble but has come back quickly and is getting really expensive again. But you can still get affordable housing if you're willing to go to the far inland areas, far north SD county (like Oceanside), or far south bay (Chula Vista). Not a lot of walkable downtowns that are cheap though...
3) Bay Area - was also hit hard by the real estate bubble (except SF proper) and has almost surpassed its pre-bubble prices already, due to a huge surge in tech jobs. However, outlying areas are still cheap. But you'll be stuck in the middle of nowhere in a tract home, an hour from SF.
- How is the overall economy in each 3? I've heard opinions ranging from "CA is a jobless cesspool, run!" to "There's opportunity if you're willing to pursue it". I would likely be after contact/temp gigs (mainly blue collar type stuff), due to desired schedule flexibility, vs a 9-5 type deal.
1) Bay Area - tech jobs are booming right now, so therefore, support industries are too. If you could get into construction as opposed to warehousing/machine operating, then you'd have plenty of work. There are dozens of major construction projects going on in SF alone, and many more projects (commercial and residential) are on the drawing board around the Bay Area. For machine operating types of jobs, certain technology businesses should also be expanding (not all "tech" jobs are just internet companies).
2) Los Angeles - varied and diverse economy
3) San Diego - tight job market, small population base compared to other two areas
- Which area has the lowest violent crime? I've been told to avoid Oakland...
I can't believe Oakland's reputation has already preceded itself all the way to Seattle! Yes, Oakland has bad AREAS, but it also has areas with multimillion dollar homes, golf courses, and fancy restaurants. The crime-ridden areas obviously make the news, but lately I've been hearing even more news of violent crime in SF, specifially the Mission District and Castro, plus other neighborhoods that are the usual culprits. Things come in waves, and it certainly doesn't stop the Mission District from being unaffordable hipsterville. With that in mind:
1) San Diego - overall seems the safest, with the fewest bad neighborhoods, and the most suburbs. But as anywhere, there are bad areas too, you'll just have to check out specific data to the areas you're considering.
2) LA / Bay Area (tie) - both regions are large and have some of the wealthiest and some of the poorest neighborhoods, with gang violence in the poorest ones. There is just too much diversity overall among these regions to compare their entire areas. Both regions have neighborhoods that have practically no violent crime, while others are terrible. Ever hear of the Rodney King riots in LA in the early 1990s?
- Which area would be the best for a "foodie"/craft beer enthusiast?
Food:
1) Bay Area - hands-down. Although LA also has culinary talent, and gave birth to the food truck craze that's now fizzling a bit, the Bay Area is home to the most creative chefs and food variety, plus it's uniquely geographically blessed to be surrounded by farmers and ranchers all around its rural perimeter, taking advantage of an unmatched variety of microclimates and soils that grow everything from artichokes to apples to avocados to wild mushrooms to figs to citrus, and that allows artisans to make unique cheeses, breads, honey, and other products. Also, the Bay Area has a gazillion Michelin stars among its restaurants, certainly the most per-capita in the country.
2) LA - by sheer size of the region, there are amazing culinary options available, with world-famous chefs and restaurants, but there is less per-capita than in the Bay Area. And the dominant topics of conversation in LA are entertainment and fashion, while in the Bay Area, it's food and tech.
3) SD - up-and-coming, with a huge improvement over years past, but much of it doing only an average job of emulating the other two cities. Nothing cutting edge, but definitely trying to keep up. And lots and lots of options these days.
Beer:
1) SD - one of America's best beer cities. A ridiculous amount of local craft breweries and brewpubs.
2) SF - starting to catch up to SD but still focused on a few major, core breweries and still more of a wine town due to Napa and Sonoma
3) LA
- What kinds of recreational & outdoor activities are most popular in each area?
LA - Hiking, cycling, running, watersports at the beach, skiing and snowboarding in the winter. Suburban areas surely have tennis, swimming, and golf. LA has some great hiking areas with varied topography, and local ski resorts like Big Bear are closer than they are to either the Bay Area or SD.
Bay Area - Hiking, cycling, running, kayaking, freshwater boating (lots of reservoirs, as well as the Sacramento River Delta), fishing, some watersports (but beach activity more or less confined to Santa Cruz due to it being the only warm coastal microclimate with a real California beach vibe; however, there is some paddleboarding along the gentle marin bayshores). Where I grew up in the suburbs, tennis, swimming, and golf were also very big. Overall, the Bay Area has the most protected open space per capita in the country. The amount of nature trails of all types of topography are staggering. Skiing and snowboarding are in the Sierras, are very popular, and are about 3.5 hours away.
SD - Running, watersports are much more emphasized, as are beach activities, while cycling and hiking are more deemphasized, boating, ocean fishing, and the usual tennis, swimming, and golf. Skiing and snowboarding are up in Big Bear, near LA, about 2 to 3 hours away.
Overall, I'd say all three areas have much of the same mix of outdoor activities depending on the exact parts of town. But also, SD is the most watersport oriented, and the Bay Area the least.
- What are people like in general in each area? (If you're going to ask, yes, the "Seattle freeze" can be very real at times, and it can get old, lol.)
I can't rank the cities here, because different people seem to have different experiences. The people I've met in LA have all been friendly but a little put-on and very quirky, certainly not too down-to-Earth, and that's been multiple experiences, but then we know a great couple that moved there and loves it. I've also heard some people say they've had an easier time meeting cool people in LA than in the Bay Area. However, I've also known plenty of people say the opposite, and for us, it seems much easier meeting people in the Bay Area. SD seems the hardest, because it's a smaller region and people sort of keep to themselves unless you make more of the effort yourself. You just have to keep talking to people and seeing what sticks. It can be hard to break into an established group of friends in SD because people are less transient than in the other regions, which keeps their groups tighter and less open to new people. But overall, there are friendly people in all of them (and unfriendly ones)
- Perhaps most important to me, if anyone on here is a musician who can comment on the current state of the music scenes in each metro area, that'd be highly appreciated!
I'm assuming you're into more of a rock music scene (not classical, let's say), and for that, it's clearly:
1) LA
2) Bay Area (distant second)
3) SD (distant third)
Much talent (or lack thereof too) originates in LA, so there is much to discover there. The Bay Area has its local bands, but not as many. Major acts do always go to the Bay Area though. SD sometimes gets passed over even by major acts, and people have to drive two hours to LA to see them.
Tst, I really like your summary though I think you're short changing San Diego on outdoor activities. About half the county is off limits to development with most of that being national forest or state park (there is also a lot of military land but the general public can't legally use that). This means there is a ton of hiking, camping, biking, and equestrian places here with a wide variety of climates and destinations all with in a short drive. Also fishing in San Diego is repeatedly called the best in the nation for both fresh and salt water. There are a ton of reservoirs around here as well as a number of rivers/creeks at different elevations providing everything from cold water down to near tropical warm water sport fishing and then there is the giant salt water opportunities.
tstieber, that was an incredibly helpful post, thanks a ton!
Based on the summary you've posted, it sounds like LA might be the best option of the 3 for me if I end up in CA, although I certainly wouldn't rule the other two out either. Culturally/economically, it sounds like the bay area has a lot more in common w/Seattle than LA, but I'm not too sure how much I'd like the idea of living over an hour away from where all the city action is going on. Where are the bad parts of Oakland? And how are other nearby areas like Berkeley and Richmond?
- How much does the COL vary between the 3? (I know SF proper makes Seattle look like low-income housing prices, but have been told Seattle isn't much cheaper than quite a bit of So-Cal these days). I don't need to live right in the middle of a city, but I'd definitely prefer to be close to one, hopefully in a somewhat "walk-able" neighborhood if it's a neighboring suburb (I'd still own a car, regardless).
- How is the overall economy in each 3? I've heard opinions ranging from "CA is a jobless cesspool, run!" to "There's opportunity if you're willing to pursue it". I would likely be after contact/temp gigs (mainly blue collar type stuff), due to desired schedule flexibility, vs a 9-5 type deal.
- Which area has the lowest violent crime? I've been told to avoid Oakland...
- Which area would be the best for a "foodie"/craft beer enthusiast?
- What kinds of recreational & outdoor activities are most popular in each area?
- What are people like in general in each area? (If you're going to ask, yes, the "Seattle freeze" can be very real at times, and it can get old, lol.)
- Perhaps most important to me, if anyone on here is a musician who can comment on the current state of the music scenes in each metro area, that'd be highly appreciated!
Thanks to any help anyone is willing to offer. I'd like to learn more about CA from people who live there instead of just going off of stereotypes about the area/what I've heard
I've lived in all 3 metros, but a lot of these answers are opinions:
(1) COL: Overall high as you mentioned, but tons of variance within each area. If you try to compare apples to apples as much as possible (say 2 br apt with similar amenities, safe area, good school district), I'd say San Diego, LA, Bay Area in ascending order of COL.
(2) Economy: Here in the Bay Area, experienced/skilled tech workers have almost their own economy and seem to do very well. I think this applies to the other 2 areas as well. The economy overall seems good, and if you are skilled and have experience, finding a job shouldn't be too tough. I'd say it would be toughest in San Diego because it is a smaller market and networking/nepotism seems to go a little further there based on personal experience.
(3) Tons of variance. In the Bay Area, just compare East Palo Alto to Palo Alto, separated by a mere freeway. Overall I think San Diego is the best in terms of if an area is deemed safe, it's probably safe. In LA you have to do a lot of homework, as in some areas street by street can be different in terms of "feel" and crime.
(4) Not a foodie, so no idea. But all 3 areas seem solid in that regard.
(5) Not an outdoor type person. But I can say San Diego seemed amazing for those that were active in outdoor sports/ recreation. Bay Area seems solid as well. LA seemed to lag a bit in this regard.
(6) Personal experience, in order of friendly to least friendly: Bay Area -> San Diego -----------> LA. I'm mostly judging this on if I am out in public and make eye contact with a stranger, how many are inclined to say hi. I get the most His in the Bay Area, followed closely by San Diego. Nobody says hi in LA.
EDIT: Just reading through your post and getting an overall feel for your questions, I think San Diego would be your best bet. But I'm biased, I think San Diego overall is flat out the best city in the country.
tstieber, that was an incredibly helpful post, thanks a ton!
Based on the summary you've posted, it sounds like LA might be the best option of the 3 for me if I end up in CA, although I certainly wouldn't rule the other two out either. Culturally/economically, it sounds like the bay area has a lot more in common w/Seattle than LA, but I'm not too sure how much I'd like the idea of living over an hour away from where all the city action is going on. Where are the bad parts of Oakland? And how are other nearby areas like Berkeley and Richmond?
This is a pretty old thread now, but if you're still curious about the East Bay, here's the rundown:
-The good parts of Oakland are Rockridge, Elmwood, Montclair, Claremont Hills, and the area around Park Blvd. near Montclair and the hills.
-Moderately good parts of Oakland that are beautiful but have some urban property crime and some muggings are Lake Merrit and Jack London Square.
-Moderately bad areas are downtown, Uptown, and Temescal. They are all very trendy to go out to eat and stuff, but still a bit sketchy.
-Really Bad parts of Oakland are East Oakland and West Oakland, and East Oakland is a vast swath south and east of the downtown area. Murders daily.
Older parts of Richmond are possibly the worst areas of all, but the area around Hilltop Drive is its own little microcosm of Las Vegas-style tract housing and apartment complexes, movie theaters, and chain restaurants. Point Richmond (its own town) has a really nice area along the bay, with newer homes, apartments, and walking paths along the harbor. However, you have to drive through some pretty gritty industrial areas to get there.
Berkeley is generally pretty nice, but funky. Cool older homes and building for the most part, relatively little crime for an urban area, lots of cultural stuff going on, good restaurants, but the city infrastructure isn't as well maintained as some cities, with cracked sidewalks, weeds in the road medians, etc. Nice enough overall, but also very expensive due to student housing demand and rent control.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
