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.
Just to finish my thought here - it is worth noting that Seattle's bus system is significantly better than Portland's and as the light rail begins to expand in the coming years it's rail system will be much better for getting around the city overall than Portland. That said - as I mentioned Portland's MAX/streetcar combo in the downtown area is convenient for relatively short distance trips and transit mobility within that immediate core area is better than Seattle's equivalent. (Although that may change once Seattle opens the Center City Connector in 2025).
Ok, so Portland has the better system in its core for now, while Seattle is a better overall system for the whole city. I'd imagine both cities are pretty bikeable, do you know if one is clearly better than the other in this regard? I'd imagine Portland at least has it being more flat to its advantage.
Ok, so Portland has the better system in its core for now, while Seattle is a better overall system for the whole city. I'd imagine both cities are pretty bikeable, do you know if one is clearly better than the other in this regard? I'd imagine Portland at least has it being more flat to its advantage.
Seattle is not that easy to bike, the hills can be pretty challenging. In places like Queen Anne and First Hill, it's challenging even for your car.
Need4Camaro I don't take offense to your warning, having lived in SF and the East Bay I'm aware living in either city will come with its challenges. I just didn't appreciate him saying you'll end up homeless if you even try. I'm not too concerned about retirement savings, my plans are much more short term.
Many of Seattle's growing homeless population are people from out of state with crackpot ideas of making money in a very expensive and well-credentialed city. Seattle has the highest percentage of college grads and grad degrees of major cities in the country. I apologize if the homeless comment was rude, but when you're talking about minimum wage jobs while living in one bedroom apartments in the central part of the city, you are not well cushioned financially from any sort of crisis or even minor unforeseen events.
Many of Seattle's growing homeless population are people from out of state with crackpot ideas of making money in a very expensive and well-credentialed city. Seattle has the highest percentage of college grads and grad degrees of major cities in the country. I apologize if the homeless comment was rude, but when you're talking about minimum wage jobs while living in one bedroom apartments in the central part of the city, you are not well cushioned financially from any sort of crisis or even minor unforeseen events.
I'll be sharing the apartment and have enough savings to comfortably live for half a year without employment if needed. Just trying to decide which of the two cities is better suited for my current needs.
Need4Camaro I don't take offense to your warning, having lived in SF and the East Bay I'm aware living in either city will come with its challenges. I just didn't appreciate him saying you'll end up homeless if you even try. I'm not too concerned about retirement savings, my plans are much more short term. The idea is to live and work full time in either city for a year or two and then finish school at PSU or UW Tacoma. There seems to be a decent amount of apartments east of downtown and i5 for under $1600 on Apartments.com
Living in Tacoma might be a good option. It has a pretty solid urban core and several neighborhoods. The cost of living is lower than Seattle (might be close to Portland) but you'd have access to Seattle which could give you more opportunity. I think it's a good place to get your foot in the door at least. I actually love Tacoma and think it offers crazy amenities for a reasonable price. There's a lot of opportunity there (for now) and is the second largest city in the Puget Sound metro.
I'm only paying $1100 for rent, in a decent and walkable neighborhood of Seattle proper. I have friends who are paying under $1000. Granted, these are all micro-studios. But it could be an option if you don't expect to be working minimum-wage for long and will be gaining skills to up your earnings.
I'm not sure why platonic adult co-habitation is so frowned upon. It's exactly how service-sector/low-wage workers manage to live and survive (and sometimes even thrive) in major cities across the world these days.
My fiance and I rent a dumpy 1-BR in Pittsburgh for $900/month. He earns ~$26,000/year. He would not be able to afford this apartment on his own. I earn $33,500/year (which I buoy up to around $47,000/year with my overtime). I would be able to just BARELY afford this apartment on my own. We co-habitate so we each pay $450/month towards rent and about $175/month each towards utilities, on average, throughout the year. It has immensely improved both of our lives.
Even if we weren't romantically-involved we'd still be living together for this reason. We're able to do things like buy name-brand Doritos or deviate from the $1 menu at McDonald's precisely because we co-habitate. Instead of one person struggling to pay $1,250/month to live in Pittsburgh on a working-class budget with student loan payments TWO people EACH pay ~$625/month for rent and utilities to make it VERY doable.
Also, why should major cities only be reserved for the elite? Perhaps if more American suburbs weren't such car-dependent scumholes our cities wouldn't be in such high demand these days? This nation will have to spend billions upon billions of dollars in the coming years to retrofit existing low-density sprawling suburban areas to make them more transit-oriented so service-sector workers can live more densely and in more affordable outlying areas and take a bus or train back into the urban core to service the elites---who don't want "the poors" living beside them.
I also don't think many of you take into account how much money a car costs per month. It can (and often is) less expensive to split an apartment in the urban core in an expensive area and live without a car than it is to split an apartment in a car-dependent suburban area of an expensive area and each need to worry about paying for, maintaining, fueling, registering, inspecting, etc. a vehicle.
For example, let's say a 1-BR apartment in Capitol Hill, Seattle, is $2,500/month. ($1,250/month per person).
Let's also say a comparable 1-BR apartment in Federal Way is $1,600/month. ($800/month per person).
Federal Way is more car-dependent than Capitol Hill. Ergo, each person will need a car. Let's assume car insurance is roughly $100/month per vehicle. That's $200/month just to insure two vehicles. We're now up to $900/month per person to live in Federal Way vs. $1,250/month per person to live in Capitol Hill. Let's also assume that you have a car payment of $250/month on each vehicle. That springs you up to $1,150/month per person and being just $100/month less expensive than a car-free Capitol Hill lifestyle at $1,250/month each (not including gasoline, maintenance, inspections, parking, etc.).
Almost certainly Portland, but I think there are less expensive cities that can offer as good or better car-free living.
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.
