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.
Which of these two upscale suburbs would you prefer to live in? Both have nice downtowns, both have great housing stock, both are fairly close to major West Coast cities. Kirkland has a waterfront, which is an advantage. But Burlingame is served by Cal-Train directly, which goes directly to San Francisco, while Kirkland will not be getting rail. Instead, it'll be getting be a freeway-based "BRT" line that doesn't go directly to Seattle.
Kirkland's population is much bigger, with a population of 90K vs 30K for Burlingame, but Burlingame and Kirkland's commercial districts are probably on par to be honest. Kirkland has annexed several highly residential areas that has bulked up its population but not really added much commerce.
Both have nice downtowns, and decent secondary centers in Broadway and Juanita Village. Kirkland may have slightly better nightlife but Burlingame is more diverse and has better ethnic restaurants.
In terms of demographics, Kirkland is more White (73% vs. 59%). Burlingame is 28% Asian and 12% Hispanic while Kirkland is 15% Asian and 8% Hispanic. The Black population is small: Kirkland is 2% and Burlingame is 1%.
I love the maritime aspect of Kirkland and its Downtown has more of a Main Street USA kind of feel, with more traditional American eateries, stores and bars. Burlingame has a stronger urban fabric and it has a decent amount of stores, restaurants and bars as well, but it doesn't quite have the shiny, inviting feel that Kirkland has. It's more established, though, and offers bit more of an international and cosmopolitan experience. They are both quite upscale, but in different ways.
Both cities have nice residential neighborhoods and both are expensive, but Burlingame - being in the Bay Area - is more expensive. Median home value in Kirkland is $1.3 Million, while in Burlingame it's $2.6 million.
However - for this poll, don't consider affordability and think about which suburb you would prefer to live in and why?
Good thread, I like this match up! Are you choosing between these cities?
Since affordability isn’t a factor, I’d go with Burlingame. I like both cities a lot, but I prefer San Francisco to Seattle, I prefer the Bay Area’s climate/weather, and slightly prefer Silicon Valley to Bellevue/etc. If affordability were a factor I’d choose the opposite. Another factor is no state income tax in WA so that makes this really really close.
Kirkland is playing catch-up on urbanity. But it's doing it at a high rate.
Downtown isn't entirely cohesive yet but has higher aspirations than Burlingame, and it's starting to achieve them. The incoming BRT stations will be surrounded by a lot of TOD -- already in evidence at Totem Lake, and coming quickly at 185th along with a big upzone of the sprawly retail in the area.
Google is a big factor, with 7 going on 9 buildings on the Downtown fringes (two campuses) and a third big assembly slated for more next to that 85th BRT station and rebuilt interchange (current Johnson car dealership site). It's also the Costco namesake of course, though they're now in nearby Issaquah.
I'm not voting, yet at least. Kirkland has a lot of great attributes but Burlingame has better transit and diversity...
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57744
When I lived in San Bruno as a kid, our Doctor was in Burlingame, and I spent time there as a young adult too. In fact, when dating my wife and I used to drive there, get Arby's and park to watch the planes taking off from the airport. I would consider that a disadvantage, jet noise, being so close to the airport. Now we live in Sammamish, not far from Kirkland, so I'm familiar with both. While Burlingame has bay waterfront, it's not as "nice" as the Lake Washington waterfront in Kirkland. For most people Burlingame has the climate advantage, but I prefer more rain, and Kirkland gets about double. The more suburban areas of Kirkland have newer, larger houses and lots, and except for summer, less traffic congestion. That will probably change with the huge expansion of Google there. Burlingame does have more/better/diverse restaurants, if that matters to you.
Both cities have nice residential neighborhoods and both are expensive, but Burlingame - being in the Bay Area - is more expensive. Median home value in Kirkland is $1.3 Million, while in Burlingame it's $2.6 million.
Kirkland is huge. The parts of Kirkland that are as walkable as Burlingame, near the lakefront and downtown areas are as expensive as Burlingame with SFHs going for minimum of $2M, and that’s a very basic ranch house and nothing luxury. You really have to get into Juanita (and increasingly further north) and unincorporated parts of a Kirkland to get a SFH for $1.3M and even that is likely a shack in an unwalkable area. So those median housing numbers are entirely misleading and I think dated. There’s a lot of new development going on in Kirkland. Seattle area in general has a lot of renewal and redevelopment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock
While Burlingame has bay waterfront, it's not as "nice" as the Lake Washington waterfront in Kirkland.
Eh the Kirkland waterfront is alright. It’s very congested and hard to find parking and is mostly a grassy shore full of goose poop. I prefer Burlingame’s or Seattle proper’s shorelines. The sea is just better than a lake. It smells like ocean.
Kirkland is huge. The parts of Kirkland that are as walkable as Burlingame, near the lakefront and downtown areas are as expensive as Burlingame with SFHs going for minimum of $2M, and that’s a very basic ranch house and nothing luxury. You really have to get into Juanita (and increasingly further north) and unincorporated parts of a Kirkland to get a SFH for $1.3M and even that is likely a shack in an unwalkable area.
Even so, Burlingame is still a lot more expensive pound for pound - look at these comparable houses near their respective downtowns:
Lot size is double for that Burlingame house, you can build two of that Kirkland house for that lot. Land is what is expensive, but you are right Kirkland is not quite there yet, but the median home prices are exaggerating the difference.
On a side note, what is it like to go to school in one of those towns full of $2M-4M homes, tech wealth and Tiger parents? Not everyone is going to Stanford or MIT. The competition must be insane. In a zeitgesit where we are getting rid of the SATs and standardized testing, doesn't it become a disadvantage for selective college admissions to go to one of these schools? Yet I see wealthy first generation immigrant families keep piling in and increasing the FOMO because of the school rankings.
Kirkland is 4x larger than Burlingame in land area, and 3x as many people.
Burlingame is considered old money in the Bay Area, being right next to Hillsborough.
Maybe Redwood City would have been a better comparison?
But as the OP said, Kirkland has annexed a lot of residential land and the downtowns and commercial areas are actually fairly comparable. Redwood City is a little bit grittier and would probably be a better comparison for Lynnwood or maybe even Renton. Kirkland and Burlingame are both upscale, highly attractive suburbs with waterfronts.
But as the OP said, Kirkland has annexed a lot of residential land and the downtowns and commercial areas are actually fairly comparable. Redwood City is a little bit grittier and would probably be a better comparison for Lynnwood or maybe even Renton. Kirkland and Burlingame are both upscale, highly attractive suburbs with waterfronts.
I would assert that Kirkland is closer to Redwood City than Burlingame as far as being upscale.
Lynnwood and Renton are not really in this conversation.
Median household income (in 2020 dollars), 2016-2020:
Burlingame, CA $138,344
Redwood City, CA $123,294
Kirkland, WA $116,595
Renton, WA $79,824
Lynnwood, WA $62,926
Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2020 dollars), 2016-2020:
Burlingame, CA $78,987
Kirkland, WA $64,268
Redwood City, CA $61,909
Renton, WA $40,594
Lynwood, WA $32,354
Persons in poverty, percent:
Burlingame, CA 3.9%
Kirkland, WA 6.4%
Redwood City, CA 7.6%
Renton, WA 8.1%
Lynnwood, CA 13.9%
I mean, I get what youre trying to say, but anywhere in the 650 area code south of the airport is going to overperform in these stats, regardless as to if some areas in a town has middle class immigrant areas that some might call grittier, which I readily own is the case in RC, but that hasnt deterred the influx of monied folks. The higher elevations of Redwood City are actually super desirable as they border Woodside(i.e. billionaires+acerage).
Anyway I think you mean Kirkland is more of the upscale American ideal, which I can totally agree with.
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.
