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.
Need to move, and I have decided to relocate to Pacific Northwest. But not sure where. Several (mostly personal) reasons Seattle is out of the question. Portland and SF are next on the list of possibles.
I am over 60, divorced male and and very limited financial resources. I hope to supplement with part-time work but let's face it, PT work is low pay and physically dominated by young healthy workers.
To be honest, Portland's climate, city size, community neighborhoods, and reported 'granola' lifestyle sounds like it would be a very good fit for me. However, I keep getting the feeling that so much of the low cost housing is populated by college students and urban-young 20 somethings. One web site kept on about the average age being low in some of the neighborhoods. My sedate (sedimentary?) lifestyle may not mix with under 30 year olds.
- SF rental units appear higher priced compared to Portland.
- SF seems at the moment to have the edge for volume of posting for general part-time work.
- Portland appears to have the edge for living without an auto while living on limited financial resources. I understand it is possible to live auto-free in parts of SF, but at a much higher cost for rent, or hills.
And, SF has the edge with more sunshine during winter.
So, what about older person re-locating: SF or Portland?
Or any other cities I should look into in the PNW area?
SF is much better than Portland for public transportation, though Portland isn't bad. You can get anywhere in SF on the bus or train, and very late into the night...24 hours for some lines. SF is also smaller in geographic size than Portland, and is denser. SF is the winner of you want to live car free.
Also, San Francisco is not in the Pacific Northwest. It has a much different climate...i'd say the Pacific Northwest starts in far northern California, closer to the Oregon border.
SF is much better than Portland for public transportation, though Portland isn't bad. You can get anywhere in SF on the bus or train, and very late into the night...24 hours for some lines. SF is also smaller in geographic size than Portland, and is denser. SF is the winner of you want to live car free.
Also, San Francisco is not in the Pacific Northwest. It has a much different climate...i'd say the Pacific Northwest starts in far northern California, closer to the Oregon border.
Something tells me an over-60 singe won't really need to get home at 2:00 am. Besides, Portland's and SF's public transportation systems are both so good that one being better than the other doesn't really matter. It's like saying "San Diego is sunnier than Los Angeles so move there!"
To the OP: Will you be wanting to live in the urban core of the city or the suburbs?
Something tells me an over-60 singe won't really need to get home at 2:00 am. Besides, Portland's and SF's public transportation systems are both so good that one being better than the other doesn't really matter. It's like saying "San Diego is sunnier than Los Angeles so move there!"
To the OP: Will you be wanting to live in the urban core of the city or the suburbs?
Maybe...and what if a 60 year-old DOES have to go out at 2:00 am? In SF at least you have the option to take public transportation at any hour. Plus, SF's public transportation is better than Portland's regardless of what the operating hours are. I'm not knocking Portland, but SF really is one of the best in the Nation for public transportation (Portland's daily ridership is less than half of SF's...and SF's system covers a much smaller area too, with nearly the same number of bus/train lines, which equals significantly better coverage).
.... To the OP: Will you be wanting to live in the urban core of the city or the suburbs?
Very emphatic urban core of city. But I would want an urban core with easy access to supermarket grocery stores. Don't want to shop all the time at a bodegas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
...{snip} Plus, SF's public transportation is better than Portland's regardless of what the operating hours are. I'm not knocking Portland, but SF really is one of the best in the Nation for public transportation ....
Thanks, I did not know that.
I was under the impression that SF P.T. system was noted mostly for suburban to downtown and/or across the Bay transportation. Short hops of under 2 miles not so much. I thank-you for correction.
Extensive public transportation is more important if you want to live in the suburbs, but if you want to live very near if not in downtown anyways then both systems will be perfectly adequate. Downtown Portland is so compact and walkable, you really might only need to use transportation to get to the airport, which the light-rail has a direct route to from downtown. So many condos are going up all over that any amenities you would ever need are within walking distance.
Very emphatic urban core of city. But I would want an urban core with easy access to supermarket grocery stores. Don't want to shop all the time at a bodegas.
SF has tons of "bodegas," but we call them "corner stores" or "liquor stores" here. SF's core has plenty of supermarkets too...there are several safeways, a costco, and some more upscale options as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by philwithbeard
Thanks, I did not know that.
I was under the impression that SF P.T. system was noted mostly for suburban to downtown and/or across the Bay transportation. Short hops of under 2 miles not so much. I thank-you for correction.
That's pretty much what BART is like. BART operates more as a commuter rail system than a normal heavy rail subway system. San Francisco and Oakland have the most stops within their city limits, Berkeley has a couple, and other wise it's just one stop per city. San Francisco has Muni however (short for Municipal Railway), and they run buses, trains (light rail that runs as a combination of surface and subway) and of course the famous cable cars, within SF city limits.
I think SF will end up costing you much more and you'll get less for your money. I think Portland's laid back, slower-paced lifestyle will appeal to you. There are lots of granola-type young folks there, but there are a good number of retirees in the Portland area, also. I think Portland is best for you.
"limited financial means" and "urban core" don't really go too well with each other, especially in SF OR Portland.
Oh, and I have been so finding that out....
You called that correctly ( I was wondering if anyone would ever comment on that line.)
Phil
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.
