difference between Washington and Oregon? (organic, taxes, living in)
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.
I think that these two western states are perhaps more alike than any other two combination of western states, IMO.
Although I'm basing this largely on speculation from information I've gathered, I think I can make a bit of a generalization of the difference between the two states. Let me know if you agree or think I'm way off.
They have obvious common geography:
In a north south trending way, going from west to east you have:
Coast -->coast ranges covered in temperate rainforest vegetation -->valleys where the urban areas and agriculture is found -->mighty vocanic, snow covered Cascade mountains -->a vast arid, rainshadow "outback" both states having some mountains in the NE corner of respective outbacks.
Here I think is where the differences are:
Seattle is the larger city, more urban amenities across the board, more well known industries/companies that bring in a larger variety of lifestyles, as opposed to Portlands primarily attracting those who want to be around other people who promote and practice a green lifestyle.
Oregon is: 62% urban, 18.6% small cities, 19% rural, 37.5% rural and small city combined
Washington is: 75% urban, 9.1% small cities, 16% rural, 25% rural and small city combined
Wilderness areas:
according to this site, Washington has larger and more roadless areas than Oregon in Olympic NP, and in their portion of Cascades. Olympic being the 5th largest in the country, and three Cascade wilderness areas well above Oregon makes a showing:
Although I don't have a website, a simple search on google maps would show that the Willamette Valley seems obviously a much larger area of agriculture and accompaying small towns than are in the much narrower and more populated Seattle-Tacoma corridor.
Both states have the arid, rainshadow outback, but Washingtons has a small city (Spokane) and is known for having a lot more agriculture (apples, wheat) conversely Oregons part is some of the most desolate, wide open tracts of land anywhere in the lower 48.
Conclusion??
Washington is probably better for those who prefer living in a bigger city with more amenities and lifestyles, but loves experiencing and backpacking in some of the most pristine, roadless areas with the most unique natural qualities.
Oregon is probably better for those who prefers small towns, and actually living in or near the woods or on on or near an organic farm, and less of a backcountry adventurer or a city person.
Largely accurate, although there are definitely some differences in geography. Your east to west description accurately reflects Oregon but Washington's terrain is more varied. The Willamette Valley is very wide and allows for more agriculture and greater population dispersal than the Puget Sound area does, so while both areas are populated they are quite different in character. As noted in your population statistics, Oregon has a higher percentage of rural and small city dwellers than Washington. The Olympics are unlike any other mountains or ecosystem in the US. The Cascades are much more rugged and far wider in Washington than in Oregon. Those factors, plus the Puget Sound, really separate Oregon and Washington, geographically speaking. Oregon has nothing like the Olympics, the Sound, or the North Cascades. Conversely, there isn't anything like the Willamette Valley or the long unbroken coast/coastal range in Washington. Oregon also has some pretty cool rivers cutting through the forests in the southern end of the state that aren't really replicated in Washington.
Additionally, eastern Washington and eastern Oregon share little in common (geographically) other than low rainfall. Oregon's eastern part is rightly referred to as an 'outback'. It's a high desert, full of smaller mountain ranges, river canyons, etc. with almost no agricultural output and extremely low population density. Eastern Washington on the other hand is much less rugged and due to irrigation from the Columbia river, is an agricultural powerhouse. Washington produces more apples, cherries, grapes, pears, or hops (beer!) than any other state. (source) Far eastern Washington also has an extremely productive region, the Palouse. IMO, a lot of eastern Washington has more in common with Northern Idaho than it does with Eastern Oregon.
That said, I'd agree that as far as states go, Washington and Oregon are pretty similar. Despite a few geographical differences, their climates are very similar as are their shared history and culture. Crossing the state line is hardly noticeable other than the Oregon guy pumping your gas for you...
Quote:
I think that these two western states are perhaps more alike than any other two combination of western states, IMO.
I think Wyoming and Montana might be more similar than OR/WA but it'd be a close toss up. OR/WA are definitely more different from the rest of the US compared to WY/MT, but WY/MT feel like the same state to me and don't have the same east/west divide that OR/WA have.
Largely accurate, although there are definitely some differences in geography. Your east to west description accurately reflects Oregon but Washington's terrain is more varied. The Willamette Valley is very wide and allows for more agriculture and greater population dispersal than the Puget Sound area does, so while both areas are populated they are quite different in character. As noted in your population statistics, Oregon has a higher percentage of rural and small city dwellers than Washington. The Olympics are unlike any other mountains or ecosystem in the US. The Cascades are much more rugged and far wider in Washington than in Oregon. Those factors, plus the Puget Sound, really separate Oregon and Washington, geographically speaking. Oregon has nothing like the Olympics, the Sound, or the North Cascades. Conversely, there isn't anything like the Willamette Valley or the long unbroken coast/coastal range in Washington. Oregon also has some pretty cool rivers cutting through the forests in the southern end of the state that aren't really replicated in Washington.
Additionally, eastern Washington and eastern Oregon share little in common (geographically) other than low rainfall. Oregon's eastern part is rightly referred to as an 'outback'. It's a high desert, full of smaller mountain ranges, river canyons, etc. with almost no agricultural output and extremely low population density. Eastern Washington on the other hand is much less rugged and due to irrigation from the Columbia river, is an agricultural powerhouse. Washington produces more apples, cherries, grapes, pears, or hops (beer!) than any other state. (source) Far eastern Washington also has an extremely productive region, the Palouse. IMO, a lot of eastern Washington has more in common with Northern Idaho than it does with Eastern Oregon.
That said, I'd agree that as far as states go, Washington and Oregon are pretty similar. Despite a few geographical differences, their climates are very similar as are their shared history and culture. Crossing the state line is hardly noticeable other than the Oregon guy pumping your gas for you...
I think Wyoming and Montana might be more similar than OR/WA but it'd be a close toss up. OR/WA are definitely more different from the rest of the US compared to WY/MT, but WY/MT feel like the same state to me and don't have the same east/west divide that OR/WA have.
After quite a few visits, I concur that the commonalities outweigh the differences, although there certainly are some substantial ones (e.g. taxes). And of course, there are dramatic differences within each state.
In light of all that, when I get relocated, I plan to give my address as:
123 Main Street
Corvallis
Benton County
Willamette Valley
Oregon
Pacific Northwest
Just adding a bit to what ShadoAngel said. Yes OR and WA are very similar in culture and in ecology but there are some differences. The biggest difference is that WA is a lot more rugged and Eastern WA is at a much lower elevation than Eastern OR and because of that Eastern WA is more mild in the winter and the nights are not so cold.
Also WA is more climaticly diverse than OR (following maps are a bit inaccurate since the cut off point between continental and temperate is 26.6F rather than 32F)
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.
dormant thread worth reviving
