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.
Tacoma has long been the butt of the joke in the Pacific Northwest. Dubbed "Tacompton", ghetto, underfunded, gritty. The past 20 years have experienced a renaissance, starting with university of Washington Tacoma branch downtown, then Dale Chihuly (From Tacoma) creating the museum of glass and glass bridge (a major Tacoma landmark) and funding glass blowing/ glass art in local schools, the city inviting Richard Florida to assess and give Tacoma ideas, then people being priced out of Seattle..There are many major projects in the works. Most of them are expensive for the area and some Tacomans have already been displaced.
My hope is that Tacoma can sustain itself and not become a bedroom community for tech workers up north. It's starting to feel this way in some neighborhoods.
Tacoma is sorta like Oakland but located like San Jose. (Bellevue is sorta like San Jose but located like Oakland.) At that distance it doesn't function like Oakland.
It's a much nicer city than it used to be. Being from Seattle I've gone down as a tourist for the day a few times. Good waterfront, a lot of great places to eat (or what looked to be, as I've only tried a few), solid museum district, phenomenal UWT campus that's mostly in old buildings, a growing residential base, a much closer view of Mt. Rainier than from Seattle (20 miles closer?). You can get an express bus to Downtown Seattle every few minutes at rush hour, or a Sounder or Amtrak train at certain times. And the pulp mills are gone, meaning decent air finally.
It needs more growth, which is happening. Keep infilling those close-in lots, which still show signs of its Great Lakes type post-industrial emptying out despite a lot of reversal in the past 20 years or so.
I'd live there if I was priced out of Seattle and had a job nearby. It's a legit idea for an affordable urban retirement in the Puget Sound area.
Tacoma is sorta like Oakland but located like San Jose. (Bellevue is sorta like San Jose but located like Oakland.) At that distance it doesn't function like Oakland.
It's a much nicer city than it used to be. Being from Seattle I've gone down as a tourist for the day a few times. Good waterfront, a lot of great places to eat (or what looked to be, as I've only tried a few), solid museum district, phenomenal UWT campus that's mostly in old buildings, a growing residential base, a much closer view of Mt. Rainier than from Seattle (20 miles closer?). You can get an express bus to Downtown Seattle every few minutes at rush hour, or a Sounder or Amtrak train at certain times. And the pulp mills are gone, meaning decent air finally.
It needs more growth, which is happening. Keep infilling those close-in lots, which still show signs of its Great Lakes type post-industrial emptying out despite a lot of reversal in the past 20 years or so.
I'd live there if I was priced out of Seattle and had a job nearby. It's a legit idea for an affordable urban retirement in the Puget Sound area.
San Jose is nothing like Bellevue. It's a world class city, IMO
Bellevue is more likely to be the second premier city of the Seattle region. Tacoma has enormous potential, but I think as far as the "#2 city" goes, Bellevue is going to be much more important for the region, especially economically. It's only a few years before Bellevue and the Bel-Red corridor are linked up to mass transit.
San Jose is nothing like Bellevue. It's a world class city, IMO
No offense but as somebody with no dog in this hunt I thought mhays25's analogy held up pretty well. If Seattle is SF, then Tacoma is about as far down the sound as San Jose is down the bay distance wise.
If Seattle is SF and (Lake Washington is the bay), then Bellevue is situated similarly to what would be Oakland.
If Seattle is SF, Bellevue and Tacoma are competing for second city status as are Oakland and San Jose. With Tacoma and Oakland being the two larger and grittier competitors.
Finally, even the high tech comparison holds up. San Jose being the largest city in Silicon Valley non withstanding the fact that a lot of the companies are located in the cities adjacent to San Jose. Bellevue is located right next door to Redmond where Microsoft.
Obviously the whole Washington model is scaled down some from the Cali model, but I thought his analysis was excellent.
No offense but as somebody with no dog in this hunt I thought mhays25's analogy held up pretty well. If Seattle is SF, then Tacoma is about as far down the sound as San Jose is down the bay distance wise.
If Seattle is SF and (Lake Washington is the bay), then Bellevue is situated similarly to what would be Oakland.
If Seattle is SF, Bellevue and Tacoma are competing for second city status as are Oakland and San Jose. With Tacoma and Oakland being the two larger and grittier competitors.
Finally, even the high tech comparison holds up. San Jose being the largest city in Silicon Valley non withstanding the fact that a lot of the companies are located in the cities adjacent to San Jose. Bellevue is located right next door to Redmond where Microsoft.
Obviously the whole Washington model is scaled down some from the Cali model, but I thought his analysis was excellent.
San Jose is larger than either Oakland or San Francisco.
San Jose is larger than either Oakland or San Francisco.
Yes I misspoke but SF is the main player in the Bay Area in terms of comparing the cities to Seattle. To be more accurate, Oakland anchors an east Bay population of 2.5 millions while San Jose anchors and area of 1.8 million.
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.