San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, or Vancouver? (Los Angeles, San Diego: ski resorts, crime, job market)

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by happ

jzt83 is presenting a good & accurate summary regarding your questions. I don't think Seattle & Portland have had earthquakes as bad as San Francisco. Don't know about the quake history of Vancouver [btw one has to a citizen to work in Canada & citizenship may not be easy to get]. As others have pointed out that San Francisco is much further south & therefore warmer overall than the other cities except during summer. San Francisco is on the Pacific Ocean while Portland is inland & both Seattle & Vancouver are on waterways some distance from the ocean.

All 4 cities are wonderful in their own ways but considering your criteria I think San Francisco best suits your needs.

The other three cities are in a different part of the ring of fire than SF. SF has about 90% strike slip, right lateral (e.g. the plates sliding past each other) faulting, with a wee bit of minor thrust faulting. We are at the transverse boundary of the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate. It is neither a tensile or compressive plate boundary (well, ever so slightly compressive). There is only a horizontal primary motion component to quakes here. Shear protection in construction is easy to deploy and therefore seismic strengthening is straight forward.

The other three cities are on a different plate boundary than we are. They are at the boundary of the small Juan De Fuca Plate, which is a remnant of the old East Pacific Plate. That plate is being subducted (e.g. being shoved underneath) the North American Plate, via the Cascadia Trench. This is why there are volcanoes from Lassen north (e.g the Cascades). The motion is highly compressive. Remember that quake / tsunami in the Andaman Sea a few years ago? That was a megathrust quake. Such a quake creates both a very strong horizontal snap action as well as a major vertical component. It literally doubles or triples the weight of a structure instantaneously (vertical g forces). Infrequent megathrust quakes with a magnitude up to 9 on the Richter Scale are the norm, with such a set up.

Not if but when it happens it will be a tragedy of immense proportions.

[prop1dd]

portland doesnt have a "dominating" skyline because of strict urban planning and height restrictments put in place as to not block views of mt.hood.

[AllAboutEve]

Originally Posted by JProg305

If money wasn't an option, which city would suit me best.

I would chose Seattle. Very beautiful city, with everything that you described. I lived there for several months and visit about twice a year. San Francisco, is very liberal and has tons to do, but its mostly urban and all concrete.

I've only passed through Portland so I can't give any feedback on that city - although it was very pretty in passing. And I've never been to Vancouver.

[AllAboutEve]

Originally Posted by mini_cute

It seems like most of you prefer SF to all the other cities mentioned. SF is a really beautiful city, but I don't think it is more beautiful than Vancouver. Anyone else think SF is a bit dumpy/slummy looking? Also, there are tons of homeless people wandering around SF. The traffic is horrendous. And the cost of living insane. But it is the best city in the U.S. in my opinion.

One more thing, the people are more fashionable and women better looking in Vancouver. Must be the fusion of French, German, English and Chinese.

Personally, I don't think SF is a beautiful city. Too crowded, and not enough greenery for me. But it does have a lot of culture and tons to do. It might be good to live just outside it, and commute in whenever you need to.

Of course I'm biased because I love Seattle. I lived in Bellevue for several months and I loved it. The rent is nothing compared to SF. I saw an apartment by Pike's market that was only $1000, and you could see the city from the living room. It was gorgeous. Every day when I drove from Bellevue to Renton (have family there) I thanked my lucky stars to have the opportunity to live there. There was so much natural beauty. The trees, the snow topped mountains, the lake. I only regret that I was not able to live there longer.

[JayeSF]

OK because several folks have said it...I gotta chime in here. For progressive thinking, sociopolitically...SF is definitely NOT happenin' any longer. I came here in '87.....I am still here.

It's heyday was long ago. The best which can be said for SF is it's an incredibly diverse place. It is also very picturesque, and many find it to be one of the more European-esque cities in the US.

BUT, starting about the time I got here (oh, goodie !)....this place has become incredibly gentrified...not only its housing and employment markets, but its politics as well. Its incredibly expensive. It's incredibly hard to get housing, either rental or ownership. A 1 bedroom condo in a sh#tty n'hood costs half a million $. Longtime city folk of modest means have been and continue to be forced out of town in droves. Entire neighborhoods are in the crosshairs of huge developers, and the mayor's office is right behind 'em. Food is expensive, services are expensive. Anyway, not here to whine...my point being...

There was a time when the city was on the forefront of political, social and artistic life. Folks from all walks of life could make a nice living here...it's what gave the communities their strength. But no longer...the town is too precious, too much of a museum piece...a beautiful chalice which is quite empty. The 'liberal' tag is nothing but hollow bombast now. One not need dig very deep to discover this.

If you want a truly progressive city...a place where folks are calmer, less partisan, a place which puts progressive theory into practice...whether it be environment, urban planning, city infrastructure, services, etc....Portland is where you wanna be. It has definitely supplanted SF in livability, as well as in taking and proudly wearing the mantle of a truly progressive municipality.

If you don't mind a little rain......

[scottinpdx]

I say that you described Portland pretty well, it would fit your criteria. Portland has great Public transportation. Seattle, not so much. I can't comment for San Francisco since I have not lived there (..yet) or spent a lot of time there.

[EclecticBohemian]

I have lived in both San Francisco and Seattle and I have have visited both Portland and Vancouver more than a few times. I would answer your query this way:

Overall: 1. San Francisco 2. Vancouver, 3. Seattle, 4. Portland

Reason: San Francisco has the most of everything that you are looking for.

Natural Beauty: 1. Seattle, 2. Vancouver 3. San Francisco, 4. Portland

Reason: Seattle has the most green, Mountains galore, Mt. Ranier and all the water.

City life: 1. San Francisco, 2. Vancouver, 3. Seattle, 4. Portland
Reason: San Francisco can only be described in that area as a little New York. (Museums, Theatre, Cultural Events, Music, etc.)

Transportation: 1. San Francisco, 2. Portland, 3. Vancouver, 4. Seattle
Reason: You really don't need a car in San Francisco with Muni Trains, CalTrain, BART, MUNI buses and trollies.

Je ne sais quoi: 1. San Francisco, 2. Vancouver, 3. Portland, 4. Seattle
Reason: I have walked a variety of neighborhoods in all four cities and I tell you that you get a feel from walking around San Francisco that you just do not get from the other cities. I REALLY like Vancouver but when I walk around the city I don't get a warm, cozy, welcoming feel with all of the Glass and Steel. Something about the Victorian and Edwardian mixed with the modern just invites you to sit and hang out. San Francisco does not pretend to be a traditional American city. It was built more on the European city model so there are not a lot of yards but it DOES have a lot of parks and green places. You can go in the neighborhoods and many places have little gardens and wooded area (ie Marcondray Lane, Priest St.).

The flood of tourist that are constantly visiting the city also give it a very international feel. I love hearing all the languages. I love watching the faces of the tourist light up as they snap pictures of the beautiful views. It helps you to fall in love with San Francisco all over again.

Diversity: 1. San Francisco, 2. Seattle, 3. Vancouver, 4. Portland
Reason: Having a lot of two or three different groups of people to me is not true diversity. Seattle has some diversity but the groups don't mix that much. Vancouver has a lot of two or three different groups but get outside of that and you won't see a lot of other people. Portland...well let's just say that Portland has a ways to go in this area. San Francisco on the other hand has a wide variety of people from all over the world and they actually mingle.

Weather: 1. San Francisco, 2. Seattle, 3. Vancouver, 4. Portland
Reason: Weather is one of those things that are truly subjective but if you want less extreme then San Francisco is your choice.

Temperament: 1. San Francisco, 2. Vancouver, 3. Portland 4. Seattle
Reason: If you want to live in an urban environment then you need to embrace all that comes with it.

One final thought: I love social people. I don't have to hang out with you every day but I would like to feel some sort of connection with the people that I live around. I have to admit that I DID NOT at all feel that in Seattle. This article can sum it up better than I ever could. The Seattle Times: Pacific Northwest Magazine : Our Social Disease

Hope this helps!

[travelnursey]

Originally Posted by JProg305

Hi all, I am seriously considering relocating to one of the three aforementioned cities. I am currently doing dissertation research and am waiting until I get my Ph.D. to move. I am very liberal/progressive. I am interested in transitioning to a car free or much less car dependent lifestyle. I am also interested in martial arts (especially nei jia, or internal martial arts. like tai chi, ba gua, hsing-i, etc. I like to garden, cook, hike, ride bikes, etc. I am studying sustainable development initiatives, transit oriented development, multi modal transportation networks, etc. I would prefer to live in an area that is urban, dense, walkable/bikeable, and vibrant with good parks, pubs, restaurants (especially vegetarian), bookstores, etc. I know that San Francisco, Vancouver, and to a lesser extent Seattle are expensive. If money wasn't an option, which city would suit me best.

I lived in Portland for nine years, Seattle for 3 months, visited BC for a weekend, and now currently live in the Bay area. I'd pick San Fran. The diversity is exceptional here (relatively speaking, especially compared to Portland- which is pretty white overall), and it feels much more like a real city than Portland ever did. Portland was a bit too granola for me, too, and the entertainment options are more limited. I think San Francisco offers something for all kinds of lifestyles, except maybe for ultraconservatives. Seattle has too much of a cold "sterile" feel to it, and it did feel a bit generic to me. Not the friendliest or liveliest group of people either, IMHO. I thought BC was gorgeous but, having only visited for a very short time, I can't really give much information on it.

[travelnursey]

Originally Posted by JayeSF

If you don't mind a little rain......

Try 9 months of mind-numbing greyness and gloom. Most of the people I know from up there were/are on antidepressants. I was SO over it by the time I finally left.

[ryanst530]

Vancouver or San Francisco would have my vote. Vancouver is beautiful. However winter weather is damp, cloudy and cold. San Francisco is probably the best for well-roundedness though. Good geographical location, decent weather, great atmosphere, architecture etc.

Portland is bleh and Seattle is broken! Don't move to seattle... trust me... i lived up there for a year and it was the worst time in my entire life. Totally depressing situation... I started to think the city was some kind of nasty social experiment conducted by the government or something! (obviously its not but just pointing out a fact...) It was horrible.